PDA

View Full Version : Why the Tories will not win a General Election for at least 50 years!


OneWorld22
9th May 2004, 15:17
Good god,

Is this their attempt at trying to connect with young people?!


Embarassing.... (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3696303.stm)

This is why that party will need decades to clear the cobwebs, get rid of the dead wood they now have and start again.

Labour can just do what they like and have no worries about what happens at the polls....

Not healthy.

El Grifo
9th May 2004, 15:23
The fact that they are again associating themselves with the much despised, discredited and disposed of, Margaret Thatcher, is also a sign that they cannot be taking their election hopes seriously.

They could not distance themselves far enough from her for years, even to the extent of forbidding her to show up at party conferences.

For the Conservatives to be seen to be bringing her back into the fold at this time is a serious error of judgment.

Pilgrim101
9th May 2004, 15:49
Things would be much worse if Blair and New labour ever get into power and implement their manifesto.............:}

They're too busy f:mad: g everything up and everybody off !

El Grifo
9th May 2004, 16:00
Yeah Pilgrim, and my dad's bigger than your dad - - - ad infinitum.

But what do think is actually driving the Conservatives to such a drastic course of action ?

Caslance
9th May 2004, 16:00
Things would be much worse if Blair and New labour ever get into powerErrrr.........I'm not quite sure how to break this to you, Pilgrim101, but............. ;)

IB4138
9th May 2004, 16:11
As your from the wrong bank of the Irwell, Caselance, I will explain what Pilgrim 101 is saying.

Blair and his Richard Craniums have not managed to implement their last manefesto as they are always making a ba!!s of everything and p'ing people orf! God help you IF they HAD got their act together!

By the way your pprune personal title is not in Salford City green, but in the SHMD shade!:8

Caslance
9th May 2004, 16:17
Salford City green, but in the SHMD shade! Better that than Metrolink grey..........:E

chiglet
9th May 2004, 16:25
And I always thought that the Joint Board green was a bit darker.
watp,iktch

Pilgrim101
9th May 2004, 16:51
Grifo,

I bet my Mum is bigger than your dad :p

What's drastic about it then ? - New Labour has indeed shown us the turd way. They are wetting their knickers about Michael Howard and the next election, and THAT alone shows how pi$$ poor the Government is performing in every area.

Cas,

:D:D

IB4138
9th May 2004, 18:10
Interesting comment Caslance about Metrolink Grey....

not a colour favoured by a certain Mr Ferguson in recent years....

seems it's not very visible! So why paint trams in it!

Could be the reason no political party uses grey. Although could it be said the Tory's were going that way with John Major?:rolleyes:

As, I believe there is no GREY party,should ppruners start one and put up candidates against the majors (no pun intended)? Could be fun and we may surprise everyone and gain power!
Just think of the possible candidates available!!!!!!

There's got to be something better than what's on offer.:ugh:

chiglet
It was only that last batch of short Fleetlines that had puke green applied to them! They actually looked better in Selnec colours.:eek:

Mr Chips
9th May 2004, 18:34
Is this their attempt at trying to connect with young people?!

Errrmmm. Perhaps I read the wrong article. This was a conference for MPs, and someone dressed up as Ali G for a laugh as part of the proceedings. Where is the problem with that? It was nothing to do with connecting with young people....

Labour can just do what they like and have no worries about what happens at the polls....

Do you REALLY believe that? The "young people" are the ones being hit by the tuition fee scandal. Scandal because it goes against the last Labour manifesto.

The latest YouGov poll suggests that Blair is a vote loser for Labour.

Do you think that the General Election could be fought on issues?

The Filth
9th May 2004, 18:45
Mr Chips
The "young people" are the ones being hit by the tuition fee scandal. Scandal because it goes against the last Labour manifesto.

Youngsters aren't fools. My 19 year old, my 18 year old and even my 13 year old, consider Blair a ****. Their parents are divorced. I'm not there to influence them. Though proud as hell.
:ok:

El Grifo
9th May 2004, 18:45
Pilgrim, If your Mum is any bigger than a cremation urn full of ashes then you are probably right. Quite what that has to do with the price of cheese, I truly do not know !!!

My question related to the cosying up to Thatcher, by the Tories and whether it might be a bad idea.

No mention was ever made of Blair or the Labour Party.

Mr Chips
9th May 2004, 18:52
Youngsters aren't fools. My 19 year old, my 18 year old and even my 13 year old, consider Blair a ****.
Ok. i was more questioning the apparent assertion that the Tories even need to try to appeal to the young. Blair seems to be doing a great job of that already!

El Grifo

My question related to the cosying up to Thatcher, by the Tories and whether it might be a bad idea.

I'm not sure evryone would agree with your take on the Thatcher years, so that may be why the Tories are heading towards some of her policies...

Still, I reckon Blair will lose the election, rather than the Tories need to win it!

The Filth
9th May 2004, 18:53
OneWorld22
Labour can just do what they like and have no worries about what happens at the polls....

Born, New York City. Location, Dublin, Ireland: The ramblings of what we call a Plastic Paddy I suspect.

El Grifo
9th May 2004, 19:03
Chips, correct me if I am wrong, but they did DUMP the inglorious Thatcher did they not.

My daughter sent me the original newspaper with the shot of the teary faced lady leaving Downing Street in her "Final Taxi"

Why would they want to resurrect their darkest moments?

Mr Chips
9th May 2004, 19:08
Yes Grifo, they did "dump" Thatcher. Does that mean that she never did anything right? I think not. They can still adopt some policies/ways of thinking....

Unwell_Raptor
9th May 2004, 19:19
Even though I am a Labour supporter, I can see that the original post was unfair. It was a bit of fun at a private get-together. I remember doing Balloon Debates at university, and part of the idea is that you become a particular character.

I'm still not going to vote for Howard though.

El Grifo
9th May 2004, 19:21
Then with tongue planted firmly in cheek, I suggest they privatise the railways and re- introduce the poll tax (possibly in England firstly this time)

That should get them off to a good start.

:8 :cool: :8

OneWorld22
9th May 2004, 19:29
"Filth," its a free country and I can ramble all I want on whatever issue I so choose!

And get your facts right, I have no Irish ancestery at all, I just live here so how can that make me a "plastic paddy"

So only British people are allowed comment on British politics? Seems to be an awful lot of British people mouthing off about the US here....One rule for you...

Jeez, they let any old "filth" into PPRuNe nowadays...

ssultana
9th May 2004, 20:27
I just don't know who to vote for these days. I would like a liberal center based party who were really forward thinking.

I think that everyone should be given an equal start in life and encouraged to fulfil their potential.

Gov't should provide, a good strong military, 999, schools, BASIC free healthcare for all, benefits for those who are temporarily unemployed, old or disabled.

The economy should be totally free and shaped by the forces of supply and demand. Competition is good. gov't shouldn't even go near business.

Cut the red tape from healthcare and business and pull out from common fisheries and agricultural policy.

Get rid of stupid courses at uni so that there is enough money to fund real ones, and encourage other young people to take apprenticeships.

Bring back corporal (not capital) punishment for crimes deserving of it - including theft. Ohh, and make prison inmates work outside beautifying our country (they get to be outside, we get clean streets and nicely trimmed hedges)

Better enviromental policy and research into clean energy production.

24 hour drinking laws - i don't think gov't should dictate how i live my life)

bring imigrants over on temporary work permits - that would really boost the economy (as it did with CA).

Decentralise gov't.

Most decisions should be made by the individual.

PM has less power.

Any votes for me?

The Filth
9th May 2004, 21:23
OneWorld22
"Filth," its a free country and I can ramble all I want on whatever issue I so choose!

You can whinge, rant and ramble until your hearts content. As you state, it's a free country.

So only British people are allowed comment on British politics? Seems to be an awful lot of British people mouthing off about the US here....One rule for you...

Not at all. I'm sure you're as free to slag off British politicians/political parties, as much I am to suggest Bush & Co. resemble a corrupt possy of thick twats. After all, we both live in democracies. Having said that, I understand some Yank kid was recently imprisoned for suggesting Bush was a thick ****. Perhaps the term 'freedom' is not applicable in all of the western world.

Jeez, they let any old "filth" into PPRuNe nowadays...

Nowadays? Like you, been a member one way or other since '99, possibly '98 (I need to check). In fact, this name has been registered twice. Wonder whether if anyone else can claim to have had the same user name registered on more than one occasion.

Curious, did the term 'Plastic Paddy' upset you so? Gosh, didn't hit a nerve did I? :ok:

If so, happy to discuss NORAID if you wish and the USA's lack of contributions since 9/11. Just let me know...

OneWorld22
9th May 2004, 21:29
Hahaha Filth!!

Keep trying with the fishing! :ok:

Your attempts so far are very poor indeed! :}

The Filth
9th May 2004, 21:34
OneWorld22
Keep trying with the fishing!

Fishing? An ignorant loud mouthed Yank, is an ignorant loud mouthed Yank. No fishing involved. Mere fact.

OneWorld22
9th May 2004, 21:49
Haha!!!

As I said Filth, keep trying, that last effort was worse than your first!!

Keep this up all you want and I'll keep effortlessly hitting them back to you, but I doubt Danny and co will appreciate you taking up valuable bandwith with pathetic attempts at provocation, not to mention your descent into personal insults.

Are you not a bit long in the tooth to be a Troll?

The Filth
9th May 2004, 21:59
OneWorld22
but I doubt Danny and co will appreciate you taking up valuable

Hey! This is between us. Don't look for outers or others to bail you out.

Provocation? Insults? Christ, if that's what an American deems a grilling over, it's no wonder you've never won a war when fought abroad alone. I'm merely playing with you. You're a puppy dog on its back having its belly rubbed. Want to speak about Irish politics though - and I should warn you, I am both a UK and Irish passport holder - I'll eat you alive and spit out the bones for your countryman to beat their captives with, rather than use US issue batons.

Wholigan
9th May 2004, 22:07
Rule 3 ---- or else!!

The Filth
9th May 2004, 22:17
Wholigan
Rule 3 ---- or else!!

(Sheepishly) - B****r, okay. Being a mere ex-cop, I've always put professional pilots in that same league as lawyers, accountants, doctors, etc., and was really looking to 'play' with this so-called ex-747 captain. Maybe another time...

(I'd still eat him alive in a serious debate and use the out-put for fertilizer.)

OneWorld22
9th May 2004, 22:23
I told you Filth, you descend to that level and the mods here will be all over you like a rash.

I've had my knuckles wrapped a lot of times here just when the arguments began to get interesting.......Its a pity th mods are so tough around here as on the old Question Time forum we had some superb debates. One of the best ones was on Irish history...

I'd love to have a debate on Irish Politics, but the thread would be shut pretty quickly I suspect.

surely not
9th May 2004, 22:28
Anyone would think that there was only the Tories and the Labourists to choose from.

Fortunately there is a credible alternative to both these inept excuses for political parties. A party with an honest agenda, that accepts that improvements in the NHS, Education, etc can not be achieved solely by cutting jobs in the infrastructure. So it proposes to have a transparent additional tax to raise the extra money. This should please those on here who complain about stealth taxes.

They also have a sensible policy towards drugs. There must be many pruners who dabble or have dabbled with drugs and the additional revenue generated would help fund the recovery for those who cannot handle drugs. This is no different from raising taxes from alcohol and cigarettes which is part used to pay for the health service.

Don't waste your vote on the 2 dominant ignoramusses, Tories and Labour, vote for the Liberal Democrats and make a difference.

The Filth
9th May 2004, 22:35
OneWorld22
...you descend to that level...

Level? Challenging a Yank? That's a shame. I so adore listening to a Yanks interpretation of Irish history. I love even more why they support "The Cause" - but the reasons why they can't physically contribute. Normally being a combination of bicycle clips, runny brown stuff, stains, 's**t they shoot back' - when confronted with an 18 year old Brit with a rifle.

OneWorld22
9th May 2004, 22:35
surely not,

I've always wondered how a genuinely centerist party like the Lib Dems cannot pull in more voters. The UK is dominated by a very fair minded and decent middle class, I would have thought the Lib Dems would suit them down to the ground.

Is it a leadership issue?

Out of respect to the mods wishes here in PPRuNeland, I won't sink to levels occupied by a certain poster at this time.

ssultana
9th May 2004, 22:35
Irish politcs? Nearly as boring as British politics, ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear God, *eyes roll skyward* I must stress, this was a JOKE (maybe not a funny one). Seems that tears are being shed in relation to this comment by several people. Political structure and debate are obviously important to the running of society, and yes i do fully consider the platform of each party before i vote in general elections - Last time i voted Lib Dem.

:-) SMILE! you don't live in Angola or anywhere else wartorn and poverty stricken (well if you do then i'm sorry, hope my donations to charity are reaching you!)

Regards, Paul

------------------------------------------------------------------------------which is nearly as boring as a WI meeting, but then a WI meeting is more productive than parlimentary debate. Patchwork quilts, or Toni & George?

Politicians (with exceptions like Lord Ashdown) are spineless shells of real men & women.

The Filth
9th May 2004, 22:42
ssultana
Politicians (with exceptions like Lord Ashdown) are spineless shells of real...

When he was a member of the SBS in the Far East he was despised as an ignorant, stuffy, useless b*****d. In fact, my brother an I bought a two man canoe of the s**t.

I wonder who supplied the make over.

Irish politcs? Nearly as boring

When you\'re out of nappies and discovered history, you\'ll think differently.

ssultana
9th May 2004, 22:47
I voted for the Lib Dems last time, but some of their recent policies annoy me. Now, as a student i don't earn anywhere near £100 000 and unless i become Marshal of the Royal Air Force i doubt i will in the RAF. But if after leaving i start a business and work REALLY hard, harder than other people around me, why should a tax of 50% be levied at me?

What would be the incentive for me to work hard? I don't think i'd bother, and since NObody works to pay their taxes (people work for beer, to take their wife and kids on holiday to travel and enjoy themselves). Business would stagnate, and with it our economy.

The NHS doesn't need anymore money, it just needs to be spent wisely, not on paper shuffling and compensation.

It doesn't seem very liberal for the gov't to take my money away and spend it for me. That seems authoritarian.

The libdems have gone too far left. Shame.

Filth, Chill man. I\'m not having a dig at you so don\'t start making personal attacks on me.

I'm well educated, but that doesn't mean i find politics interesting. That's why i'm studying Biochemistry Bsc instead.

Bletchley
9th May 2004, 22:58
I think the title should be that Labour won't be back in for 50 years.

The people thought it was time for a change.


Well folks you got that big time didn't you?...Surprising how few people out there now claim to have voted Labour.

After in excess of 60 odd Stealth Taxes, public services at an all time low, Parliament emasculated, NHS waiting lists lengthening, railways knackered, etc, etc, who on earth in their right mind would want this lot back again?

Remember the 'Victory' song "Things Can Only Get Better"...How very true ...they will shortly when the Conservatives gain power again.

Now retiring to the Bunker !

The Filth
9th May 2004, 23:05
ssultana
Filth, Chill man. I\'m not having a dig at you so don\'t start making personal attacks on me.

Personal attack? You made a comment and got a reply.

Let's hope you toughen up before you get in the RAF. It may not be written words firing back at you one day...

I\'m well educated...

Basic grammar no longer being part of the curriculum I note.

As you now know "The Filth", I have given you a free 2 day holiday/sabbatical as a cooling off period. See you in a couple of days!

ssultana
9th May 2004, 23:11
Yes, you did give me a reply but there is no need to speak like that.

Just calm down. Like you say, they're only words, so why the aggresive tone? Anyway i'm going to drop this now beacuse it's not what the forum is here for.

Bletchley
9th May 2004, 23:18
Makes one wonder what was the point of all these people getting the Vote.

Therin speaks an Undergraduate

Either we educate them in Politics or we make the Vote subject to owning property or similar.

Thinking about education though, and thinking about some of the Teachers about these days...UMmmmmmmmmmmmm

Back to the bunker....

OneWorld22
9th May 2004, 23:20
Well done ssultana, you seem to have a mature head on your young shoulders.

surely not
9th May 2004, 23:35
I'm sorry that you feel that being a apart of a community is not for you Ssultana. The 50% tax level doesn't cut in until you have earned £100,000 and only affects earnings in excess of £100,000.

I cannot believe that people will not want to work hard because of this. Personal pride in performance is a big driver to most people. If you don't have that then you are missing out on a great deal.

I think that most people who earn in the top tax brackets rarely pay the full amount of tax as they employ clever accountants to ensure that they don't have to. Strangley this is seen as being smart whereas a lower income person is viewed as a tax avoiding low life.

I would like to see a Political party that dealt with the massive corporate tax evasion that goes on.

ssultana
9th May 2004, 23:48
I agree with taxation, and that it should be proportional to your income. I also feel however that hard work should have obvious benefits. Suddenly increasing tax on income above £100,000 doesn't seem to be fair.

Now, i'm well aware that not everyone want's a lot of money, and i don't think it's good for people to worship it either, but I don't consider £100,000+ to be an excessive salary. It could mean that you can retire early (without having to qualify for loads of benefits). If i wish to be able to put my children through university, retire early (maybe at 50) and enjoy my life before i die, without using illegal means to obtain that income... well that should be my right.

I know that rights and freedoms often interfere with one another, but that will always be the case.

GrantT
10th May 2004, 00:14
Bletchly wrote:

NHS waiting lists lengthening

NHS Improving (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3011727.stm)

Those guys don't seem to think so. :rolleyes:

ssultana
10th May 2004, 00:21
Does anyone else think it would be a good idea if 5% of our income was used to help people who are really poor. If everyone had 5% of their income taken to improve sanitation, medicine and water quality in the developing world?

Surely this would be a better way to spend our money, and it would give greater benefits.. or is this a bad idea of mine?

Smeagol
10th May 2004, 06:59
ssultana

_________________________________________________

Does anyone else think it would be a good idea if 5% of our income was used to help people who are really poor.
...............or is this a bad idea of mine?

_________________________________________________


Afraid it is a bad idea!

It would just fill the bank accounts of the dictators and their cronies.

Idealism is wonderful but the real world is much less pleasant.

Pilgrim101
10th May 2004, 08:30
OW

I confess, I enjoy the way you toss a hand grenade casually into the forum every so often, then walk away with your shoulders shaking with mirth no doubt ? :}

The question you pose is of course wishful thinking is it not ?

I just love New Labour and their casual dismissive attitude to the British Public and their assumption that we will put up with them for too much longer. Anyone has to admit that the longest honeymoon for any "new" Government with the media is now at an acrimonious end and that any Tory Minister/MP who had shown such disdain and contempt for the Country would have been quite rightly turfed out in a nanoseconds... Recent past and present List begins...

Blair (Arrogance personified)
Brown (Pensions Robber and stealthy tax and spend pickpocket)
John Prescott (Village Idiot who punches way below even his weight I gather)
Jack Straw (Hehehehehehehehehh !)
Mowlam (Total incompetent with the attention span of a gnat)
Cook (Intellectual - ie couldn't wire a three pin plug !-, disloyal dwarf)
Mandelson (Hmmm, where do I start ?)
Byers (Bad news day Stephen ?)
Hoon (I've got a bad back - Sandhurst story available on application)
Beverley Hughes (Crisis, what crisis ?)
Blunket (Phew, I hope that was my Labrador ? Oh no, it's the Asylum crisis !)
Nick Brown (Naff MAFF Mad Cow debacle - See Mowlam above !)
Clare Short (Disloyalty and Ego personified)
Lord Irvine ?????
Ron Davies (Politics ? It's a walk in the park !)
Estelle Morris (Education, Edukation, Educashun !)

lesser persons.... Dianne Abbott schooling her kid privately whilst castigating her constituents for same etc etc etc

Let's form a hypocrisy study group !!!.......

Hinduja
Ecclestone
Lakshmi Mittal
The "Dome"
Scottish Parliament nepotism
Dr Kelly

Sadly, they do make the Tories under Michael Howard a depressingly real option !!

drone drone drone zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

:hmm:

Miserlou
10th May 2004, 10:15
Crucial difference in styles between the Iron Lady and the Lionel governments.

Mags was a strong leader and you knew the score. Popularity was not the decisive factor in her descision making (nobody acuse her of being popular).

However, now we have to bend over to the Bush government and Blair tries to get on with everyone (and fails) which is not the way to produce results (which fail) especially when tough changes have to be made (but don't).

I know which style I'd prefer but I'm not going to tell you yet.

OneWorld22
10th May 2004, 10:31
Pilgrim, I do confess sometimes I love shaking the PPRuNe tree every now and then!

But this time my topic was just meant to be a joke, it wasn't meant to start a serious political debate! It was just poking fun at this guy dressing up as Ali G. If it had been a Labour guy doing it I would have posted the same thing, its just making fun at politicians when they try and be "hip" it just doesn't work...I mean remember the Labour guys dancing to "Things will only get better??!!"

I don't know who I'd vote for in the UK, I don't think it'd be Labour, my economic views would be definitely right of centre. But I'd find it hard voting for the tories, I mean there's just somnething about them thats really off putting......

Pilgrim101
10th May 2004, 10:55
OW

Just shows the parlous state of British politics when a humorous aside form an ex serving Brit (??) who has had the good sense to go live on a beautiful Island with wonderful folk (I love Kinsale myself !) causes such a debate :}

I personally remember John Knott trying to increase his street cred with the boys by trying to load up an 81mm Mortar with the HE round sharp end down :8

I wouldn't drink with Charles Kennedy, let alone vote for him. New Labour are a spent sham and the Tories under Howard are admittedly the best of a bad lot. I do think that cynicism over politics has escalated exponentially in the last seven years though so thanks Tony for finally pi$$ing off even the most fervent Brits at the polls.

surely not
10th May 2004, 11:55
Wow, such a considered and intelligent critique from Pilgim 101:rolleyes:

Miserlou, if my memory serves me correctly the trend for sucking up to, and obeying the will of the USA started with Maggies star struck toadying to Ronnie Reagan, so Blair can't even claim to have invented advanced sycophancy.

Pilgrim 101, rather than dismissing Cook as disloyal, I admired his stand against something which he considered wrong at the time, and which has subsequently been proven to be wrong. I had never had a good word to say about him until he showed a loyalty to the electorate over a loyalty to Tony Blair and Bush.

Nick Brown didn't cause the Mad cow epidemic, a useless and disreputable farmer did.

I still hold true to the good peformance of the Lib Dems in Local Govt and believe that they are at last a credible alternative to the other two.

Pilgrim101
10th May 2004, 12:13
surely not

You had me going there until your last sentence, you tease you ;) Best joke on the forum so far !

Cook is and remains a venal little scottish [email protected] who ditched his wife in an airport lounge - read her book about his naked ambition and personality flaws.

OneWorld22
10th May 2004, 12:15
Pilgrim, believe it or not, I'm a yank!

Married an Irish girl and the rest is history!

surely not
10th May 2004, 12:20
Pilgrim 101, I didn't mention what I thought of his (Cooks) treatment of his wife so why did that figure in your response??

Nothing in your response changes my mind at all.

ssultana
10th May 2004, 12:23
surely not, the Lib Dems are by far the best local gov't, I will probably still vote for them in Truro (which has long been a Lib Dem stronghold).

Mr Kennedy, however does not seem to show any leadership qualities, and often has reactionary views. I think he has managed to woo young voters into supporting the Lib Dems, which may confer longterm benefits. As for the near future, a new leader (Matthew taylor has a youthful image, but also much experience, since he took over the constituency at an early age) should be found, and some policies need to be changed. If i was alone in thinking this they would already be in power/direct opposition.

CarltonBrowne the FO
10th May 2004, 12:32
Three changes made by the New Labour government have made a difference to life in this country: the Scottish Parliament, removing the Chancellor of the Exchequer's power to change interest rates (probably the biggest single factor in smoothing out the booms and busts of the economy) and the reintroduction of the minimum wage (which turns out NOT to have been doom for employers).
Of these, the second two (and the most beneficial for 85% of the UK population) have been directly attributable to Gordon Brown. Not bad for a pension robber ...and tax and spend pickpocket.

Pilgrim101
10th May 2004, 12:42
Ah surely not,

I see, Cook is an "honourable" politician except in his personal affairs and who is about as welcome in his home Country as a fart in a space suit ! His crocodile tears for the Iraqis are about as sincere as his lacklustre past as a failed Minister and a pi$$ poor MP.

He is given to fits of ego, pique and tantrums and not fit to hold office in my opinion, and that's all it is - I don't expect to change yours on anything. (I'll tell you how I know later ;) )

Carlton Brown

FO :} His Tax and stealth robbery of every household in the UK will be his undoing - Wait and see how many people will look at the eroded bottom line on their salary statements before voting next time. Public waste has been acknowledged at the highest levels ever so nice try.

surely not
10th May 2004, 12:52
Pilgrim 101, I haven't said that Cook is an Honourable anything!

You originally called him disloyal, and I stated that I felt his actions over WMD and Iraq were loyal to the General Public who were being lied to by Blair et al and that I admired his stand on this issue.

So it is difficult to see how I have sudenly become a craven one eyed Cook supporter. Apart from this one action I have always found he irritated the life out of me.

Credit where due is my motto, even my worst enemy is capable of a good act or thought, and it would be a failure on my part not to acknowledge it.

Do I know you that you will be able to tell me later??

Pilgrim101
10th May 2004, 12:54
The Scottish what ?? Heheheheheheheheheheheheheh

600 Million Quids worth of ego - so far - and a laughing stock in Scotland.

Donald Dewar " father of the Nation" ? Only when he passed away - dour old pillock !

Amateur night at the local Council Dance more like - Are you Scottish Carlton Browne, or is this yet another English joke on the Scots for all our cross border sheep stealing !???

Surely not

Sorry, I just read my post and I\'m in danger of sounding antagonistic towards you when in fact it is wee Cock Robin I am denigrating. Sincere apologies.

He is a wee opportunist, having recognised that he had been rumbled as a crap politician and taking the usual failed politician route of declaring himself the nation\'s conscience to keep a semblance of the trappings of his previous "power" (I don\'t know you but I know him !).

I grant you his stance on Iraq has been consistent since, but self serving in my opinion ! Like Short and several others who were just as complicit when it suited their ambition.

Whirlygig
10th May 2004, 13:33
I don't consider £100,000+ to be an excessive salary

£100,000 is quite a handsome salary given that the national average is about £20k. Therefore, 50% tax band on the salary over and above 100k is not unreasonable; it is only on the margin i.e. between the current 40% band and a new 50% band, the tax payable would be 10% on any income over 100k.

So for somebody earning 110k per annum, they would pay an extra £1,000 tax which is less than 1% of their overall salary. This is certainly a lot less than 5% of all earnings to aid third world poverty.

Cheers

Whirlygig

PS - edit - this is assuming that the other bands stay at the same level.

ssultana
10th May 2004, 14:43
The gov't don't seem able to spend the money i give them now wisely, so why should i give them more. More money isn't the answer, wise spending is.

If people were taught about personal finance in school rather than R.E we wouldn't have as much debt - A big cause of long term financial struggle.

The poorest people will always spend money on fags, alcohol and lottery tickets that they can't afford.

Smoking is very common in low income families, and if they smoke 20 fags a day, at £5 a pack that's 1825 pounds! That could feed a child for a year. Throw in £2 a week on the lottery and a grand on alcohol.... per parent.

I know smoking and drinking are heavily taxed, but that all goes again on treating cancers and heart disease, liver problems not to mention diabetes and a whole host of other weight related diseases.

The gov't doesn't teach us about money beacuse they want us to be a little in debt. They don't teach kids about compound interest, rip off scam's, dodgy dealers and how the odds of gambling mean that it's a tax on stupidity.

I have a friend who i worked with, he does just enough work to support his lifestyle. The problem comes when he has a kid which he will struggle to pay for - he then takes benefits.

He's not paying into a pension - so the state will support him.

He's 24 and he works 3days a week, 'enuf to pay for his caravan rent and beer' as he says. Well, although he's my mate, that is what i call a selfish attitude, beacuse he 'expects' to be bailed out.

He should start working more, and paying into a pension and saving/investing just £5 a week, in an isa, then start moving into bonds and shares. Maybe property once he can afford to.

I'm only 21 but i assess my finance regularly so that i don't get caught out, o.k it might seem a bit over the top, but i think preparedness and an entreprenarial attitude is a virtue not selfcentered.

I'm fine with paying tax, except when it get's spent on things that don't benefit us. Hence why i would personally prefer to have my money spent on those who are REALLY poor. Life isn't easy, and sometimes it can be a struggle to feed and clothe people, in this country.. but consider the people who starve to death beacuse they have cholera. People in this country need to recognise true poverty.

I mean, it doesn't really matter if they do increase tax, beacuse i hope that i will earn far in excess of £100,000 by being smart with my investments. I don't resent people who earn that much, i admire their shrewd business attitude.

I don't want to accumulate vast amounts wealth, i just want to retire early and to be able to travel using what i have earned. Oh, i'd also like to put my kids through uni, etc

I'd love to believe that the gov't have the common good in their hearts, but power corrupts, and they want to stay in power beacuse they want more money, more power and fame.

I'm not going to convince anyone though, which is always the way in politics. So that's my last post on politics in pprune.

Smeagol
10th May 2004, 15:32
ssultana

I hate to generalise but .........................I will!

Once again, you seem to be showing your 'idealist' colours. It must be a trait of Lib Dem voters. (Or potential voters...were you actually old enough to vote in the last Paliamentary election?)

Whilst you are as entitled to have opinions as the next person, I do think that your experience of life ( and paying taxes) is a little thin at present.

You say, "I'm fine with paying tax....." and make yet another idealistic statement. Please come back in 20 or so years and see if you still hold the same views.

"... i just want to retire early and to be able to travel using what i have earned. "

Yes, so did I. But did not make the target set 20 years ago and looks like I will have to continue for a few years yet.

Hope you do achieve your ambitions, but please excuse me for being a wee bit cynical.........especially if you end up with a Lib Dem government. If that happened I think I would NEVER return to the UK. Trust it does not happen in my lifetime. (And I do plan to be around for a while yet!)

Whirlygig
10th May 2004, 16:22
So that's my last post on politics in pprune.

ssultana - now that would be a shame if it's just because you feel a few folks are having a pop at you. I'm sure you're big enough and ugly enough to cut the mustard here! If it makes you feel better; I am of a similar political persuasion so you're not alone.

All that I (and others) were trying to point out is that your views are a tad idealistic and contradictory to whit:-

know smoking and drinking are heavily taxed, but that all goes again on treating cancers and heart disease, liver problems not to mention diabetes and a whole host of other weight related diseases.

Taxes and duties paid on these items far exceeds that spent on the above diseases. We do not have a system whereby there are "pots" of taxes that are specifically used for particular types of expenditure. In a similar vein, the Road Fund Licence has nothing to do with the amount of money spent on roads.

Cheers

Whirlygig

surely not
10th May 2004, 17:42
Smeagol you display the traits of the pompous, set in their ways, disdainful Tories, but that doesn't worry you!

Nothing wrong with having Ideals. Without them we wouldn't progress but stagnate with life continuing on as always. People will always have differing ideals, and no one party has all the rights on all the best ideals.

If the Lib Dems do get elected I'm sure the country will manage (even if you don't come back) just fine. Fresh ideas are needed as the Tories and Labour seem more intent on dissing each other than moving the country forward.

tony draper
10th May 2004, 17:58
The duty raised on tobacco and cigaretts is phenominal I think about one twentieth of it is spent on smoking related diseases, so overall the Government and the health service make a vast profit out of smokers.
That would be all we need, the luvvies controlling the media and socialy engineering the opinions of the slack jawed is bad enough, but luvvies controlling the country? ,it don't bare thinking about.
:rolleyes:

ssultana
10th May 2004, 18:08
Smeagol, i'll come back in 20 years and maybe i will have lost my ambition/ idealism. Maybe i won't be happy to pay taxes. Maybe i will have failed at my goals and quite possible i will resent those who are youthful.... Maybe not, who knows?

Those who don't have goals, or don't try to attain them are not lesser people, just different to me.

Our views change throughout our life, due to; age, experience, environment & financial situation. Those who resist change will suffer, like the species that cannot adapt fast enough to their constantly changing environment.

Someone who does not change their view is either stubborn, stupid or does not learn.

I hope that with age i grow as wise as the rest of you, beacuse the one thing i do know is, that i still know very little about death, taxes and women. I am learning. If i thought i knew better than anyone else i would be arrogant.

Whirly. The reason i am not going to post my political views are that, we cannot change someones midset/view. We can only change our own. Talking about politics & religion (and no.. sex is a good topic, thats ok) causes bad feeling between people. I feel it is probably better not to discuss them anymore.

Peace, Paul

surely not
10th May 2004, 18:10
well the non-luvvies have made a right mess of the place so perhaps a change would be good Drapes.

I have a theory that you are one big softy really Drapes and you try to cover the fact by playing the 'hard man'

tony draper
10th May 2004, 18:14
What mess I see no mess, I do see our armed forces fighting our media as well as our enemies, and contrary to what they like to tell you, we do have enemies.
100% facist now mate 21 carrat.

surely not
10th May 2004, 18:23
Drapes,
You are proud to be a fascist?? How disturbing.

I'm sure that you have bemoaned the state of the police, the health service, the armed forces, immigration etc in your posts, which rather contradicts you saying 'what mess, I see no mess'.

Ssultana, check your PM's

tony draper
10th May 2004, 18:30
I started life prolly a lot further to the left than you Surely, my heart bled with the best of em,but after wandering the world for a bit and watching a once decent country drag itself lower than a snakes belly in forty years by all the touchy feely polices,and anything goes liberalism and I include the tory party in that, we don't have anywhere else to go mate, perhaps not a full fledged facist but about as far to the right as its poss to go, yes siree.

Smeagol
10th May 2004, 18:31
surely not

____________________________________________________

Smeagol you display the traits of the pompous, set in their ways, disdainful Tories, but that doesn't worry you!
____________________________________________________

Oh, S**t! I've been rumbled!

surely not
10th May 2004, 18:42
but you're not beyond hope Smeags 'cos you are able to poke fun at yourself as well as others :D

OneWorld22
10th May 2004, 18:43
Drapes, I get the uneasy feeling you are leering towards the BNP, is this accurate?

I hope its not.....

Age shouldn't be an excuse for intolerance, too many grumpy old men akin to Alf Garnet are excused their behaviour in my book due to the excuse that "they're just a bit eccentric" or "ah sure he's old now, set in his ways......"

Smeagol
10th May 2004, 18:52
OW22

___________________________________________________

Drapes, I get the uneasy feeling you are leering towards the BNP
____________________________________________________

I sincerely hope not!

'Leering' at some of those lads could prove injurious to ones health!

(Sorry! Couldn't resist that)

tony draper
10th May 2004, 19:36
And if I did?, I thought you people were heavily into the
"I disagree with what you say but would defend with my life your right to say it" but not where the BNP is concerened?,
I do not subscribe to that nonesence incidently, nor to I subscribe to the BNP nonsence either, they carry to much racist baggage, and not all of us on the right are racist,I never have cared a toss what colour anybodies skin is and never will,
I tell you something though, a hell of a lot of ordinary decent people are going to be voting BNP, not because they follow the BNP philosophy either, because they don't but because they are fed up to the back teeth of the choice betwixt three complete tossers belonging to parties devoid of any idea on how to solve the problems of this country.
And boy are the staus quo worried, to date I have had no electionering flyers from the BNP through my letter box, but I have had three flyers begging us not to vote BNP, perhaps its just what our unseparatable political philosophical establishments needs in this country, a serious feckin fright, something to show them they do not have a divine right to rule.

Miserlou
10th May 2004, 21:23
You took the words right out of my mouth there. Mr Draper.

Bring back Maggie and Norman, I say, or at least give us someone with as much balls!

surely not
10th May 2004, 22:10
Oh good plan Miserlou, lets go back to the rose coloured time of life when only the good times can be remembered.

Never mind that the country became more divided under Maggie; never mind the fact that bust to boom to bust was considered acceptable and my mortgage cost so much; never mind that 3 million were unemployed; and oh how we laughed as the mistress of comedy draped her pathetic tissue over the tail of the BA aircraft; never mind that the manufacturing industry all but disappeared; never mind that the North/South divide grew to disproportionate size.

The propensity for Tories to stay rooted in some mythical past is another reason why they should remain out of power.

Miserlou
10th May 2004, 22:49
Slightly missed the point.
The BNP is increasingly becoming a realistic consideration for moderate people. That that extreme is becoming more acceptable means that the wets at the other end are getting wetter and the population want some action.

It's not about how wonderful it was back then. I'm not going to get into the specifics you mention as there are many other influences, technological, historical f.ex. The point is the quality of the leaders. The only thing Blair has dne right is to leave alone the economic policy which the previous government left him.

tony draper
10th May 2004, 23:01
I do not see the BNP as a serious threat to the status quo, they will be usefull short term only only, as a club to beat our existing political parties with, as I said earlier, they carry to much baggage from the past.
What you have to remember is the present BNP is the creation the Labour Party and the Conservative parties themselves,and they have no one to blame for the rise of this party but themselves.
Governments do not listen to the vast majority of ordinary people,and for decades they got away with that, a great deal of inertia exists within those people, but they have been pushed to far now I think.

OneWorld22
10th May 2004, 23:21
Governments do not listen to the vast majority of ordinary people,and for decades they got away with that

So you agree Drapes that the UK government should immediately bring its troops home since thats what the majority of people want?

And I don''t believe for a second Miserlou that the BNP is becoming a choice for "moderate" people!

And could people actually tell me what the BNP offers people who are a bit cheesed off with the current 3 parties?
Because unless you really want to start re-patriating all non Anglo-Saxon peoples and want to ban immigration entirely, I don't see what the BNP could possibly offer ordinary, decent British people.

tony draper
10th May 2004, 23:34
That would never happen, the BNP have no chance of real power as I said they are usefull only as a boot to kick the present parties up the arse,make them do something for a change instead of just producing figures and flim flam.
And yes I would like to see immigration and asylum seeking really controlled, its a huge farce at the moment, they are just taking the piss,anybody with a ounce of sense would, and yes it will be ordinary decent people voting BNP because they have nowhere else to go.
I will not vote, I have not voted in the last three elections and will not to vote in the next one,the only vote I will give will be on the EU Constitution because we might actually get a chance to change something for once,I won't bother telling you how I will vote in that.

Miserlou
10th May 2004, 23:46
As Mr Draper points out, he's had leaflets "begging us not to vote for the BNP".
But they do offer a choice. If one empties one's mind of their past and reputation they can even sound reasonable.
Their real value, however. is as a wake up call to the mainstream parties to toughen up.

I don't believe the majority have much time for the political correctness which pervades the country. Given the choice of having their Britishness repressed for the sake of the minorities is certainly unacceptable to most people, often the minorities aswell.

Whirlygig
10th May 2004, 23:58
we cannot change someones midset/view.

ssultana,

ah ha, I'm glad to see you're back! Yes, you can change someone's views. Slowly, with reasoned argument, it can be done. Many years ago, I was of a very different political persuasion but, by listening to different discussions and opening my mind, I was prepared to see different arguments and, as I got older, appreciate different experiences; subsequently I have changed my stance.

It is only by this sort of political argument that you will learn about politcal argument; go for it; I think you have the makin's of a good debater....

.... which brings me rather nicely onto the original subject which was a Tory Party balloon debate. And that is all it was.

Cheers

Whirlygig
PS....and don't call me me Whirly.... Gig and Bird get confused !!

Smeagol
11th May 2004, 06:33
Mr Draper

I do believe we must be related! Intellectually at least.

Your last few posts have expressed exactly my own views on the current political situation in the UK.

Agree about BNP, they pick up 'protest' votes from voters disenchanted with the mainstream. Would probably vote for a candidate of theirs (if available) to register my own protest. The only other way is to spoil ones ballot paper which achieves nothing.

And before I, also, get hounded as a racist (are you waiting in the wings surely not & OW22?) like the indefatigable Mr D, I can assure you that I am not. I don't think I would have survived 30 years working as an expat if I was.

Pilgrim101
11th May 2004, 08:11
We (and Dupont) have the technology

Let's produce politicians with, say, the inate decency of a John Major, the integrity and sincerity of Michael Foot, the strength of character and courage of Maggie Thatcher, the practical, blunt down to earthness (?) of Roy Mason, the timely leadership qualities of Winston Churchill, the wisdom of ..... f:mad: k, can't think of any more but you get my drift ;)

Sailing skills of Ted Heath ?

Choice of Red Wine by Roy Hattersley ?

After Dinner to pre Breakfast speeches by Neil Kinnock

Cigars by Bill Clinton........

Vortex what...ouch!
11th May 2004, 08:47
I dispair of what my beloved country has become. The high taxes, the luvvie press full of self loathing for our nation, the violence, the drunken disorder in almost every pub, lamentable public services.

The one organisation I KNOW to uphold integrity and honour, the military, is now the target of shite like the mirror.

I have already voted, I don’t live in the UK anymore. And to be honest I cannot see a time when I am likely to want to return.

I am proud to be an Englishman but I have no pride in what England has become.

tony draper
11th May 2004, 09:14
Agree 100% Mr V,99% of our news media should be standing against a wall wearing a blindfold and suckin on their last woobine, **** em all.

:*

BillHicksRules
11th May 2004, 10:13
TD et al,

It always makes me laugh when people refer to the ruination of the UK being down to the liberal luvvies. If my memory serves me correctly the Liberals have not been in government since the Great War. Post WW2 they have struggled to have more than 50 MPs, they have if they are lucky about 20% of councils. Furthermore, there is no such thing as the liberal press. Without fail the mainstream media are all aligned to either the Tories or Labour.

So the question stands how do we Liberals have such an influence on UK politics and society?

This country has been taken to where it is now by successive Socialist and Capitalist governments. Labour created the Nanny State in 1948 and the Tories have been doing there best to make sure it does not work since the same time.

Cheers

BHR

Wee Weasley Welshman
11th May 2004, 10:15
I found this bit of research quite suprising some time ago. Produced under the auspices of the Joesph Rowntree Foundation I believe it to be quite accurate. If so the BNP do look set to become a growing not shrinking force in politics. Albeit from a tiny base.

<snip>


Who is voting for the BNP and what is motivating them? Till now, answering these questions has been largely guesswork. But a new study, commissioned by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust, and conducted by the Searchlight Educational Trust and Vision 21, sheds new light on the matter. The research, which was based on exit polls of 539 voters and focus groups, was carried out during local government elections in autumn 2003 in Burnley, Oldham and Calderdale - three areas where the BNP had potential or actual electoral success. The three wards studied were Mixenden in Calderdale, Lanehead in Burnley and Failsworth East in Oldham. All are around 95 per cent White areas. A BNP councillor was elected in Mixenden in January 2003 and another in Lanehead in May 2003.


The study indicates that BNP voters are not, as often supposed, disgruntled, elderly people who are uncertain about a changing world. And, the rise of the BNP cannot be attributed to traditional Labour supporters, having grown frustrated with the current direction of their party. The evidence also suggests that those who vote for the BNP are not just being tactical but really do support the party's views. And the theory of BNP success resting on low turnouts does not hold water.


The most startling revelation of the report, entitled 539 voters' views: a voting behaviour study in three northern towns, is that, in the areas studied, the younger one is the more likely one is to vote BNP. Around one in three of 18-25 year-olds said that they voted for the BNP. 46 per cent said they had voted for the BNP on a previous occasion. While the Labour Party had strong support among older age groups, hardly anyone in the 18-25 category voted Labour. In this age group, large numbers of young men have been attracted to the BNP's message - making it the only party whose support is predominantly male.

The report suggests that other parties are failing to engage with this group of young men. In local elections, the research indicates that the main concerns of most voters, irrespective of geographical area or political allegiance, are local 'quality of life' issues: tackling anti-social behaviour, creating a cleaner environment, addressing low-level crime and providing more facilities for young people. Only three per cent of all voters thought that addressing asylum and immigration should be a councillor's first priority.

But focus groups also suggested that many voters are ill-informed about immigration and asylum matters. An opportunity exists for other political parties to explain more clearly to residents that resources are being allocated on the basis of economic need rather than ethnicity and to counter the notion that asylum seekers are receiving an 'unfair advantage'.


Only about ten per cent of BNP voters said their vote was tactical. These people wanted to protest against the Labour government or the local council. But roughly half of all BNP voters said that the party represented their views closely, a higher proportion than for any other party.

More than a third of BNP voters might consider voting Conservative if that party had a stronger presence in the town and a quarter of BNP voters are ex-Labour voters. The study, though, offers no information about the class background of today's BNP supporters.


But, at least in the wards studied, the real basis for the BNP's support was in a section of younger people who do not normally vote. The effect of the BNP standing in a local election was to bring out these people to support the BNP. (And another section of young people came out to vote, tactically, against the BNP.)

The bad news for those opposed to the BNP is that support for the party is not based on apathy and general disgruntlement but positive endorsement for their policies among a core of young men. The good news is that hardly anyone thinks asylum and immigration are key issues in local government elections.

<snip>

http://www.irr.org.uk/2004/april/ak000015.html

Cheers

WWW

Vortex what...ouch!
11th May 2004, 10:34
I never mentioned the liberals Bill, luvvies are a breed apart and not necessarily liberals...

Indeed should they decide to elect a more charismatic leader (the liberals that is) and re-examine a few of their more outrageous policies they might even begin to attract my vote. :ok:

surely not
11th May 2004, 10:50
Smeagol, I have never hounded anyone for being a racist so your comment is not appreciated.

Plainly I do not agree with racism, but I have never accused anyone in here of racism that I can remember.

My opinion of the BNP is that they are run by intellectual narrow minded Bigots, supported by neanderthal thug enforcers who believe violence is the only way to solve things plus a bit of a laugh.

I could never vote for a party like that no matter how disenchanted with the others I was.

Wee Weasley Welshman
11th May 2004, 11:20
First and foremost let me make it very clear that I detest the BNP and have met Nick Griffin and can confirm that he really struck me as a very creepy man. I've witnessed a BNP rally and was not impressed.

But.

One can't help notice todays The Times:

<snip>

THE British National Party’s first Jewish candidate, whose forebears emigrated from Transylvania in the 1890s, began her campaign for next month’s district council elections on an anti-immigration platform yesterday.

Patricia Richardson seemed undaunted from leafletting Epping Forest by incredulity that she could stand for a party accused of anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial, and by outrage from the Jewish community.

“I distinguish between my Jewishness, which is a religion, and my support for the BNP, which is purely political,” she said.

“The BNP is designed to express a pride in British culture and nationhood and is deliberately misunderstood by the media, which is predominantly left-wing. Ordinary voters never ask me if I am Jewish or not.”

<snip>

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1105908,00.html


Maybe they will succeed in diminishing the image held by the likes of surely not if they can recruit such members.

Politics may be starting to get interesting once more. Since 1994 its all been rather dull.

Cheers

WWW

tony draper
11th May 2004, 11:29
They have been trying to change their image for the last decade or so but I doubt they will succeed,how about a brand new right wing party?, would the media permit it?,they are the ones run the country now so I doubt it.

surely not
11th May 2004, 11:30
Hmmmm I have an idea why this is not really so surprising, but I am pretty certain that I would be censored and clobbered by the mods if I write it so I shall remain silent.

Wee Weasley Welshman
11th May 2004, 12:11
Hey - as long as what you write is reasoned argument or factual truth nobody censors anything. The standard of debate can be very high here - and very low. There is nothing in British politics which is off limits - as far as I am aware.

Although this is turning into epic thread wander.

Cheers

WWW

lasernigel
11th May 2004, 12:51
There's always another choice.I have no connections to them but could a new party be the way forward?
http://www.peoples-alliance.org/

OneWorld22
11th May 2004, 14:37
Yeah, I'm sure the "good old days" we're akin to Utopia gents...:hmm:

Working class people herded into ghettos with no hope of escape, no chance of them going to University or reaching out beyond their class.....

Doors always unlocked?? Yeah right.......a rose tinted myth...

Respect for elders? Another myth, look at the 50's and 60's not too much respect there as the generation gap was ruthlessly exposed.

And of course the real "culprits" in all this? Why the media of course!!

There's an easy solution gents, rather then pathetically whinging on an internet chat forum doing your best impressions of Victor Meldrew or Alf Garnet, why not get involved in politics?

You live in a democracy, theres nothing to stop you getting involved, if you think you can do better, balancing all the differing opinions and viewpoints in a large country like the UK then show us!!

surely not
11th May 2004, 15:25
Well said OW22.

Standing for election as a councillor, possibly to learn the ropes before aiming higher, is a very interesting experience. Canvassing is also an eye opener as to how closed a lot of peoples minds are re the parties available. When questionaed about policies they can rarely name many that are actually endorsed by the parties, and naturally only remember the bad policies from the parties they don't vote for, and the good ones from the party they do vote for.

Comments I have had thrown at me include:

'My family have always voted for party x and shall continue to do so'.

'My husband always tells me how to vote'

'Your from party x? Well you're all w*nkers'. When challenged as to which policies this person didn't like he replied 'I don't know, but they're all cr*p'

Then at County Council level the meetings are all held during the day Monday to Friday thereby making it very difficult for anyone with a 9-5 Mon-Fri job to attend regularly So you tend to end up with a majority of retired people whose experience is based on their own life style, and can be rose tinted to the past; plus a lot of teachers because they have more time off with the holidays.
A smattering of self employed, who in my experience were as interested in ensuring their businesses benefitted from decisions taken as much as any wish to serve the community, are also able to find the time.

This left a very small number of shift workers who had to swop shifts in order to attend. All this hassle and a small attendance fee in remuneration.

We seem to make it difficult to start a career in politics, perhaps as a way of ensuring that it remains the preserve of the few rather than a truly democratic system of government.

tony draper
11th May 2004, 15:58
Bollix and double bollix One world, I spent my childhood in the fifties and my youth in the sixties, compared to now, this country was a civilised place,and we had a lot more personel freedom,no granny state restricting what law abiding decent citizens can do and at the same time handing out what amounts to letters of mark to the young filth that infect our streets,handing out by inaction permission for them to do what they wilt without let or hinderance, admitedly the rot started to set in in the late sixties early seventies, we are now well into our second generation of sub human scum
As for university places, they were handed out in a realisic manner then, to people who would benifit from them and as with futher education, not as a ploy to keep unemployment figures down, and kids off the job market for a few more years, whats your degree going worth when every silly buggah has one?they may as well hand em out like school leaving certificates,and save taxpayers money.

OneWorld22
11th May 2004, 16:51
My arse Tony.....

This is the same bulls**t argument that has taken place since the dawn of time, I'm sure Adam sat around shaking his head and muttering about the lack of respect Cain and Abel had and how things were different in his day.

The grass was always greener in the "good old days" the sun always shone in the summer, there was always white christmasses and there was no crime.

Whether you like it or not, your generation has passed and have been losing contol steadily over the past decade or two as the younger generation takes over. They've a different philosophy on life and different beliefs. Deal with it, there's nothing you can do about it and you'll just waste the rest of your life away boring everyone about how there used to be Blacksmiths on your road....and how everyone in your street knew each others name.....

tony draper
11th May 2004, 17:05
Yeh and thats the same cry from a generation that has achieved sweet **** all but decline, as a excuse for them not being worth pissing on 'it was just the same then" Bollix!!
In the time I am talking of a murder, any murder was headline news, nation wide, we have had three murders and a drive by shootin within ten miles of where I am sitting right now in the last three bloody weeks, a murder hardly makes page three of the local rag now it is so common place, never mind nation wide. And Mate the front door where left open, but in one of those strange quirks those weird little rules we had to follow and we kids were not allowed to use the front door, the front door was for adults, we had to us the back door, and on such small things on such small rules we learned disipline, and how to behave.
There are no rules now, no come back no price to pay,and thats why we are now into our second generation of sub human scum.
PS If you told little Johnny he had to use the back door now you would have three feckin social workers chewing on your, arse and be done for child abuse by the feckwit legal system.

Aaron G. Stryngge
11th May 2004, 17:34
Actually, Tony, murder rates have been dropping. Check out the stats.

The reason you hear more about them is that the news media get news round far faster than they did in your younger days.

You're a victim of your own perception. Sorry, but 1W22 is right and you are wrong.

tony draper
11th May 2004, 17:40
Yeh sure they have, and I'm Marie of Rumania.
Dropped from the week before last to this week mebee, thats generaly how Government statistics work.

OneWorld22
11th May 2004, 17:52
Bah Humbug....

Bring back the workhouses I say, nothing wrong with thrashing kids to within an inch of their lives.....

Might scar them for life, but they won't step out of line!

Keep the masses huddled in their streets discouraged to leave, (except when they're forced to go to war of course and wars should be encouraged once every 20 years to keep them on their toes and keep unemployment down) keep 'em ignorant and keep 'em frightened of authority and don't let them get too educated, might give them silly notions about becoming full and active members of society!

Mr Chips
11th May 2004, 17:58
Actually, Tony, murder rates have been dropping. Check out the stats.

You ARE kidding? Please supply these stats to prove your point. I live in a borough of West London which has an incredibly huigh murder rate, and NO, we did not have such a murder rate when I was growing up. Before I start getting accused of living in the past, I am only 35, I grew up in the 70s and 80s...

Its funny how a thread with a poor attempt at Tory bashing has developed.. intersting that the BNP have got such a mention too! In this area, we have BNP candidates who can poll up to 500 votes. Thats called democracy. One BNP fella was giving out newspapers in a high street, so the "Anti Nazi league" jumped him in a an lley way and gave hima kicking, 7 onto 1 as I recall.

Being beaten up for your political views..... there is a word for that... starts with an "F" as I recall....

Someone said earlier that BNP success should be a wake up call. I couldn't agree more, if you abhor their policies so much, you really should look into why they are gaining popularity. Also, if you look deeper than the headline poliocies of repatriation, they actually have good old fashioned values that many people agree with. perhaps that is part of their appeal.

No, I don't vote BNP. In fact, at local elections I will ALWAYS vote independent when I can

Chips

Caslance
11th May 2004, 18:30
if you abhor their policies so much, you really should look into why they are gaining popularity Easy - the same reason that the Nazis gained popularity in 1930s Germany.

They present an "external" scapegoat that is to blame for all of our problems - just as the Nazis did.

They pander to the most base of human instincts - just as the Nazis did.

They shroud themselves in the trappings of patriotism and national pride - just as the Nazis did.

They preach hatred, intolerance and prejudice - just as the Nazis did. (And just, incidentally, as some of the "Mad Mullahs" do.)

They have stolen and defiled the flag of my beloved country so that is now seen widely as a symbol of thuggish xenophobia. Do you think that only rightie-haties love their country?

People of a certain type support them because they find it easier to blame someone else for their difficulties - especially when the someone else is an identifiable "other" - than to accept responsibility for their own lives.

They are scum - just as the Nazis were.

OneWorld22
11th May 2004, 18:37
Well said Cas, parties like that are the easy way out. Instead of being pro-active they allow people to blame everyone else for their predicament, they offer no real solutions at all, no "can-do" just blame, blame, blame.....

tony draper
11th May 2004, 18:41
Ok chaps int google wonderfull
This from the Goverment statistics page, what I wanted was, how many people were murdered from say 1950 to 1960, then, how many people were murdered from say 1990 to 2000, but of course that is way to simple for statiticians, I would not let me copy and paste so I have taken only ten year figures and skipped a few others not for any sisnister reason I assure you, I wil go back and get the URL
Number of homicides United kingdom per million population

1900--9.6
1910--8.1
1920--8.3
1930--7.5
1950--7.9

1970--8.1
1975--10.3
1985--12.5
1995--14.5
1997--14.1

Now by what statistical jiggery pockery do we arrive at the conclusion that murder rates are lower now than they were in the fifties hmmmm??
Incidently the above rates do not include Scotland for some reason, and personelly I do not myself believe those chaps suddenly stopped scragging each other in the fifties for some strange reason.
Now to my simple none statistical mind that says since 1950 murder rates have just about double, not quite I know but just about.
Anyway there is a solution to this countries problems gentlemen I have suggested it once before although slightly tongue in cheek, shoot every body under thirtyfive and start again from scratch.
I recon about the last generation that were worth bothering with were born about 1975 say, statistically speaking of course some of them born after that date are probably ok, lets be generous and say
14.1 per million
:rolleyes:

OneWorld22
11th May 2004, 18:52
Ooooohhhh, a frightening increase....

Its gone from 0.0009% of the population on 1900 to 0.0014% of the population in 1997.....

My god, it's like the Wild West, they're dropping like flies......

SphereSpredda
11th May 2004, 19:02
Actually OW22, I think the stats were posted to prove that a bald and bold statement made by Aaron G Strynge - to wit:

Actually, Tony, murder rates have been dropping. Check out the stats.

The reason you hear more about them is that the news media get news round far faster than they did in your younger days.

You're a victim of your own perception. Sorry, but 1W22 is right and you are wrong.



- was bollox.

Worked quite well I thought.

;)

OneWorld22
11th May 2004, 19:08
But I'm responding to Drapes assertion made earlier that Murder was all around us now, he's making out like he lives in East LA for gods sake!!

And what do we find the difference is between 1900 and 1997 per 1 million people? Eh, 5!!

Hardly a total decline of civilisation is it?

tony draper
11th May 2004, 19:12
Well look at it another way, according to my calculator ,one is no Mr Binocs with a calculator I know, but I think I have got it about right
1950 there were about fifty million folks in the uk
So I make that 395 people murdered 1n 1950.
1997 not very far off 60 million hmm, let me see add six take away 4.
Good grief! one makes that 846 people murdered in 1997, by gad to my simple mind tiz difficult to explain how those murder figures have come down from 395 in 1950 to just 846 in 1997 astounding Homes.
:rolleyes:

Caslance
11th May 2004, 19:16
Ah, but unless the population of this Scepter'd Isle remained steady between 1950 and 1997 (clue - did it b*ggery!) then there are bound to be more murderers just as there are bound to be more left-handed red-headed women.

The streets singularly fail to run with blood - even in Ordsall - and murder is still front-page news.

OneWorld22
11th May 2004, 19:22
That's very bad reasoning there Tony, the numbers are per 1 million people. The population has grown since 1950 as cas points out, so of course there'll be more murders in line with the increase in the pop!

Aaron G. Stryngge
11th May 2004, 19:37
The problem is that those figures are for reported crime. During my time at University studying various things, but Law and Statistics being among them, we were shown how you have to be very careful with figures like those. I was perfectly well aware of the figures Tony quoted. I have been looking for the URL myself this afternoon, but couldn't find it. Reporting methods have steadily increased, as have data capture and maintenance methods so you have to treat those figures with a huge pinch of salt. Since they show only a very small increase, you can expect that the actual figures have, in fact, been in decline.

tony draper
11th May 2004, 19:57
Well one did say in ones post that population in 1950 was aprox 50, mill and calculated accordingly, then population in 1997 aprox 60 mill and did the calculations accordingly, was that wrong?
Thats the trouble with statistics, what I wanted was actual numbers murdered in 1950 to compare to actual numbers murdered in 1997, tiz difficult to argue with a number int it.
So the population has gone up by ten million thats err 20% in tit, by what percentage did the murder figure rise?, bit more than 20% I recon.
The words Dead a flogging and horse, come to mind here.

Caslance
11th May 2004, 20:00
Errr.....maybe.

I think the point about "reported" crime is probably a reasonable one. After all, how many times were the unemployment figures fiddled?

Ah - I meant "recalculated", of course. Not fiddled - oh, dearie me no. That could never happen.

tony draper
11th May 2004, 20:11
Oh I see that the figures have actually come down,huh? lets see say the government put up Taxes by 10% last year but they only intend to purrem up by 5% this year, rejoice citizens yer getting a 5% reduction in your tax this year, tiz no wonder politician love lots of folks collecting numbers forrem instead of actually doing the jobs they get payed to do, boy, with those statistics they can't lose.
:rolleyes:

Miserlou
11th May 2004, 20:23
Caslance,
If you were German, unemployed and living under the oppression of the Treaty of Versaille and having to put up with the Vichy French on your streets, you'd think the Nazi Party was a good bet too!

Please, don't give the impression that the German population knew what they were starting when they voted the Hitler government into power and then lost, without even knowing, the machinery to remove it.

The party had a fantastic record until the direction changed to war.

Forgive my naive view of the political history.

Pilgrim101
11th May 2004, 20:30
How many unsolved disappearances ? How many gunshot wounds, Stab wounds etc etc treated by a vastly superior triage, A&E casualty, trauma surgery over that of the fifties ?

Caslance
11th May 2004, 20:56
If you were German, unemployed and living under the oppression of the Treaty of Versaille and having to put up with the Vichy French on your streets, you'd think the Nazi Party was a good bet too! Maybe so, but I'm none of those things.

I've been unemployed at various times in my life, but I didn't blame anyone else, Jew, Gentile, black, brown, yellow, or red for it, or go round setting fire to synagogues and such.

Err...and the Vichy French weren't actually around until after the German Invasion of France in 1940. They were the collaborationist puppet government that the Germans set up in the South of France and their record of whole-hearted co-operation with the excesses of Nazi rule is shameful.

Having said that, I accept your point to an extent, but surely in this day and age we now have the lesson of the Nazis to show us where the policies espoused by the likes of the BNP can ultimately lead?

Couldn't happen here? Let's hope not, for all our sakes.

OneWorld22
11th May 2004, 23:15
The party had a fantastic record until the direction changed to war.

I'm kind of staggered that you've made this comment....

Well before Hitler marched into the Rhineland, it was clear to even the most dimwitted simpleton what his politics were. To be fair to the man he had made speech after speech vilifying a plethora of people for Germany's woes, its not as he snuck in the oppression of Jewish people behind everyones back. His philosophy was crystal clear. There are no excuses for the German people at that time.

We hear these excuses about how the Germans were such a proud people and the humiliation of Versailles was too much for them to bear and it was inevitable that an extreme party would fill a void blah, blah, blah....

Mr Chips
11th May 2004, 23:16
Oh Sweet jesus. I guess if nothing else, this thread is now showing that some people will never change their opinion, even when presented with cold hard facts.


Aaron G. Stryngge said on this very thread that the murder rate had gone down. Mr Draper has provided official figures to show that they rate has gone up. As the figures quoted are per million population it doesn't matter what the actual population is, it is a statistic and therefore comparable across the years. The murder RATE has increased since the 1950s. Despite attempts to say that with more people there will be more murders.. these figurwes show the RATE not the actual number. have we all got that? Good.

Aaron then goes on to say

The problem is that those figures are for reported crime.
I accept that some crime rates have appeared to go up because they are being reported, but we are talking about MURDER here, not mugging, domestic violence or racial assault. You don't "not bother" to report a murder. you have to be pretty clever to cover up a suspicious death. Or maybe you are saying that back in Drapes' day they would just shrug and chuck the victim on the compost heap. I'm thinking that that is rather unlikely.

so. Assertion - Murder rates have decreased
Evidence - No they haven't, they have increased.
If I were better at Latin, I would know whether "QED" was appropriate here.

OneWorld22
11th May 2004, 23:22
Chips, wind your neck in.

We know what the figures represent, they show an increase from 9 per 1 million to 14 per million.

An increase of 5, have you got that?

What I was pointing out is ths is hardly an indicator that the UK has turned into Dodge City, a point Drapes was hinting at.

Need any moe help Chippy?

Bletchley
11th May 2004, 23:25
I think the point Drapes was making was not too far out at all.

Why say 5 ?.

Why not say that there has been an increase of over 50%, which is the correct statistical statement.

Mr Chips
11th May 2004, 23:27
I am worried that I will be seen as spokesman for the BNP - which i am not, but you cannot simply dismiss them as "Fascist Scum". they are gaining popularity too fast for that...

Caslance - you said

"They present an "external" scapegoat that is to blame for all of our problems - just as the Nazis did."

True, they do blame most of societies ills on immigration. they also have robust theories on other crimes - I believe they advocate birching for anyone who assaults OAPs. many people agree with this theory. You cannot simply write the BNP off as Rascist (or Racisit only perhaps)

"They pander to the most base of human instincts - just as the Nazis did."

I'm sorry - you may have to expand on this one...

"They shroud themselves in the trappings of patriotism and national pride - just as the Nazis did."

Umm... not sure that "National Pride" is such a bad thing. Have you noticed that all US politicians wear a Stars and Stripes Pin badge? Shame our Government don't show the same pride....

"They preach hatred, intolerance and prejudice - just as the Nazis did. (And just, incidentally, as some of the "Mad Mullahs" do.) "

As do the Anti Nazi League (see my post about assault)

"They have stolen and defiled the flag of my beloved country so that is now seen widely as a symbol of thuggish xenophobia. Do you think that only rightie-haties love their country?"

They have not stolen the flag of my beloved country. The rest of society have decreed that they have, hence many people are left scared of waving the George Cross in case they are accused of being BNP. perhaps if we all took pride in the flag and had more national pride, then the BNP would not be seen to have it as a symbol. No, wait, National Pride is Nazism.....

"People of a certain type support them because they find it easier to blame someone else for their difficulties - especially when the someone else is an identifiable "other" - than to accept responsibility for their own lives."

"People of a certain type" are turning out to vote for them.. and the number is increasing

"They are scum - just as the Nazis were."

Caslance, I don't disagree that the BNP are a rather disagreeable party, however, simply calling them "Nazis" and "Scum" does not address the issue of why they are gaining popularity. There is a poster on here that regurlarly infers anyone right of centre is a fascist....

tony draper
11th May 2004, 23:30
Indeed the boys in blue took special care with murderers then twas worth doing all that paper work and all the knocking on doors, remember they didn't just stay in the big house long enough to get a OU arts degre, then out and a good job for brecky television or write books about poor folks in Glasgow,no indeed not, we strung the sorry feckers up in those days, they rarely re offended after that.
And just to really turn your liberal toes up, one recall 9am on a particular day, in the school yard, all the kids cheering because at that very moment, they were stringing up one Gunta Fritz Padolla (SP),for murder, funny how that name has stuck in me head all these years.
:rolleyes:

Mr Chips
11th May 2004, 23:31
One World
Chips, wind your neck in.
Oh good, reasoned argument.

Which part of my post was incorrect? Aaron G Stryngge asserted that the murder rate had decreased. Drapes proved that it has increased. Simple fact. I never discussed the question of Dodge City.

Having sai dthat, the murder rate is national, so it is quite feasible that the rate has substantially increased in Drapes' neck of the woods, just as it appears to have done in mine.

However, my point, which you have not addressed, was that although the figures were posted to prove the rate had gone up, some posters still tried to assert that the rate had not gone up. it matters not by how much.

OneWorld22
11th May 2004, 23:43
AAArrrrggghhhhhhhhh!!

Bletchley, because it is 5 for gods sake!! If the increase had been from 1 to 2 the increase would have been 100%!!

I never tried to argue or suggest that the murder rate had gone down on this thead as you'll find if you scroll back....

In fact I was surprised as I would have thought the rate would have gone up far more dramatically that it has. I mean 12 per million is nothing.

Heres a question, how many people die in traffic accidents per million people?

Or how many fatalities per million are there due to household accidents?

And of course it matters by how much, Drapes is giving the impression that he's sitting in his front room on tyneside, drinking tea in a china cup with a Woodbine, with his flat cap on listening to George Formby on the "wireless" with bullets whizzing past his nose and all hell breaking out outside!

And Chippy, there's a big difference between Nationalism and Patriotism.

Caslance
11th May 2004, 23:53
Mr Chips.....It's getting rather late and I have had a very long and very fraught day, so I hope you'll forgive me if I don't address all of your points.

Umm... not sure that "National Pride" is such a bad thing. Have you noticed that all US politicians wear a Stars and Stripes Pin badge? Shame our Government don't show the same pride.... I quite agree - I wonder why it is that people assume that pride in one's nation is a peculiarly right-wing characteristic? However, organisations like the BNP hide their nasty ideology behind the symbols of national pride - who, after all, can argue against displaying the Union Flag?
As do the Anti Nazi League (see my post about assault) As an ANL veteran of the 80s and 90s, I can assure you that I have never handed out a good kicking. I've been on the wrong end of one or two, however...
They have not stolen the flag of my beloved country. The rest of society have decreed that they have, hence many people are left scared of waving the George Cross in case they are accused of being BNP. perhaps if we all took pride in the flag and had more national pride, then the BNP would not be seen to have it as a symbol. No, wait, National Pride is Nazism..... See, apart from that last little bit, we would be 100% in agreement. I used to take my Union Flag (veteran of many Rugby League internationals) with me on ANL marches, on the grounds that if it was good enough for Gurkhas to follow into battle, it was certainly good enough for me. It's our flag, not theirs.
"People of a certain type" are turning out to vote for them.. and the number is increasing When I was a lad (no, stop laughing.....) there was a very popular poster. It said " Eat sh*t. 10,000,000,000 flies can't be wrong." If numbers were all that mattered, Barry Manilow would be a musical genius.

And I'm sorry, but IMHO the BNP and the like are Nazis and they are scum. I've seen the pain they cause at first hand and it isn't pretty. But that's just my opinion, and certainly no better than yours or anyone else's.

There is a poster on here that regurlarly infers anyone right of centre is a fascist.... That's their problem, Mr Chips, and you'll have to take it up with them.

And now - and I've been looking forward to this - it's Goodnight, Mr Chips. :ok:

Mr Chips
11th May 2004, 23:57
One World - I think you are creating your own arguments.

I never tried to argue or suggest that the murder rate had gone down on this thead as you'll find if you scroll back....

I have scrolled back, and I can't find anyone who has suggested that you have.....

Drapes is giving the impression that he's sitting in his front room on tyneside, drinking tea in a china cup with a Woodbine, with his flat cap on listening to George Formby on the "wireless" with bullets whizzing past his nose and all hell breaking out outside!

I think an awful lot of your description is probably accurate! However, as to the last part

we have had three murders and a drive by shootin within ten miles of where I am sitting right now in the last three bloody weeks,

Sounds quite nasty to me....

tony draper
12th May 2004, 00:17
Spot on 100 %, just sitting here waiting for Dick Barton Special Agent to come on me wireless.

;)

The three murders and one drive by shooting in the last fortnight within ten miles of me is quite true by the way, and your quite right tiz getting like the wild feckin west here,the barbarians int at the gate mate they are here living among us and in ever swelling bloody numbers.

surely not
12th May 2004, 00:21
Thread creep alert..........

I had a neighbour called Dick Barton, but his dog wasn't called Snowy.

thread creep over.......

OneWorld22
12th May 2004, 00:23
I'm telling you Drapes, I gotta book you'd love,

"1968 - The year that changed the World"

The year where everything that happened in the 60's, all the changes, reached a crtitical mass in that one year and exploded!

Student rioting from California to Paris, the DNC in Chicago, Tet, Bobby Kennedy shot, MLK shot.......

What a year that was.....

tony draper
12th May 2004, 00:35
yup they all switched off dropped out and turned on,might be a better world if all those sorry twats had stayed switched off instead of becoming social workers. ,
If I remember correctly the people that really mattered just got on with putting men on the moon, remember that?,
;)

Unwell_Raptor
12th May 2004, 00:36
I shall buy that book as soon as it is in paperback.

I was thre - I graduated in 1968, and got married right at the end of the year.

Much less changed that we thought at the time. Once the beautiful people and the love went out of fashion we discovered that old money and old boy networks still ruled the world.

And they still do.

ssultana
12th May 2004, 00:56
You got married, the year you graduated!

I don't know anyone who is on course for that (and yes i do know a few people at uni, not just ppruners)..

My how the times have changed in relation to marriage and romance.

Unwell_Raptor
12th May 2004, 01:03
Yes, it's true. I was 22, my bride was 21. Getting married was just what you did. Most of our friends married within a year of us.

Lots of us divorced too (including me).

Davaar
12th May 2004, 01:12
Ah Yes, Unwell; but those old boys are dead now, and now it is YOUR old boys' network.

One good thing about 1968 was the Chevrolet Caprice 2-door hard top. For the rest, the world was run by wimps, starting with the top brass at Yale.

Mr Chips
12th May 2004, 09:15
Oneworld I knew we would agree at some point...

"1968 - The year that changed the World"
The year I was born!!!!!

Chips

tony draper
12th May 2004, 09:27
1964 was my favorite year,one came home in the spring, tanned, fit, pockets bulging with pay off money and four months leave,loads of nightclubs had opened in Newcastle during ones absense,one dropped out and turned on that summer allright.

:rolleyes:

Alas one signed on a new ship in the Autumn, pockets empty, tan faded a much sadder and wiser man.

:(

OneWorld22
12th May 2004, 09:35
Quite a year indeed Chippy!

I knew Drapes would have something to say on 1968! I just can't picture him part of the peace movement or sitting outside the US embassy in beads and long hair in Hyde Park!

And of course those people are the ones in power now, they might have lost the long hair, but I still think they've carried some of their beliefs back then with them.

They were (I was part of it) a magnificent generation IMHO. in the UK for example, there was an explosion of chairty organisations, there was another very good book written about them not so long talking about the utter unselfishness of so many young people back then in getting involved and setting up charities, often learning as they went along. These were people who wanted to get involved in society and really make a difference and they certainly did.

Most of those charities are still going strong today making a huge difference in the fight against poverty, illness and despair.

surely not
12th May 2004, 09:37
......and the music was good as well OW22!!! and Man Utd won the European Cup :D

Oh yes 1968 was a good year....so I'm told :O

Big Tudor
12th May 2004, 10:16
And on this day in 1994 John Smith, leader of the Labour Party, died. Some, myself included, would say the best Prime Minister the country never had. Then again, some would brandish me a liberal luvvie since I have voted Labour in both previous general elections (although I've also voted Labour ever since I was old enough to cast my ballot).

Aaron G. Stryngge
12th May 2004, 11:38
I've found on the Government Statistics site the rates for "Homicide and injury purposely inflicted by other persons (E960-E969)" http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/xsdataset.asp?vlnk=5679

They make interesting reading.

Rates 1901-1905 9
1906-1910 8
1911-1915 8
1916-1920 7
1921-1925 6
1926-1930 6
1931-1935 5
1936-1940 4
1941-1945 6
1946-1950 5
1951-1955 4
1956-1960 5
1961-1965 6
1966-1970 7
1971-1975 9
1976-1980 10
1981-1985 6
1986-1990 6
1991-1995 7
1996-2000 6
1971 8
1972 8
1973 9
1974 10
1975 10
1976 11
1977 9
1978 12
1979 11
1980 8
1981 4
1982 7
1983 6
1984 7
1985 7
1986 7
1987 7
1988 6
1989 5
1990 5
1991 5
1992 5
1993 10
1994 7
1995 7
1996 6
1997 6
1998 5
1999 6
2000 7

As you can see, they are generally steady. If you incorporate better statistic gathering, better reporting and monitoring over the last century, I think it generally establishes that the murder rate has been decreasing.

QED (="Quod erat demonstrandum")

tony draper
12th May 2004, 11:55
I think the crime we mentioned was murder, not injury to person,that covers a broad church, the numbers have already been posted and are undeniable , as has been said, your flogging a dead horse, you and your claim were caught filleted and hung out to dry, give it up mate.

:rolleyes:

Aaron G. Stryngge
12th May 2004, 11:59
Did you read the title? Did you look at the site? Did you actually read my post? Tony, my friend, it is you who is flogging the dead horse. You are trading on people's perceptions of crime based on what they read in the Daily Express. However you dress it up, the figures do not support your claim. If you are going to use statistics, you have at least to understand their limitations and what it is that they represent. Clearly you do not.

tony draper
12th May 2004, 12:05
Theres a word new to the lexicon, that expresses ones thoughts well, Bollix!!
When your in a hole mate the protocol is to stop digging.

;)

Aaron G. Stryngge
12th May 2004, 12:21
Draper, are you actually going to argue with what has been posted, or merely resort to insult and childish "nyaaah" type of posting?

tony draper
12th May 2004, 12:42
Let me see if I can chisel this in stone fer yer,we were discussing murder figures not crime or assalt on the person or arson piracy,uttering forged coinage or anything else feckin murder ,right?

Murder rate per mil 1950
7.9
Murder rate per mil 1997
14.1
ok so far?,

1950 aprox 50 million peeps in the UK

So 50 X 7.9 = 395 people unlawfully scragged


1997 aprox 60 milion peeps in the UK

So 60 X 14.1 = 824 people unlawfully scragged

Surely even a politician even should he be aided in the task by Steven Hawkins can claim that the number 395 is larger
than the number 824 and keep his/her face straight. although come to think one is not 100% certain of that

Nor is it a increase in "MURDERS"in line with percentage in populaton it is higher,
Ergo, since 1950 the muder rate has increased in real terms as those chaps are wont to say
QED one rests ones case for the last time.




:rolleyes:

Davaar
12th May 2004, 12:45
Mr Stryngge:
____________________________________
Actually, Tony, murder rates have been dropping. Check out the stats.
____________________________________

I am not a rabid pro-capital execution man. I know of a person who was convicted, wrongly I believe, of attempted murder. If the "victim" had died, it would have been a charge of murder, and if there had been capital punishment the accused might have been hanged. That is an argument against capital punishment.

Mr Stryngge uses the "statistics" argument, that old litany. Abolish capital punishment, it runs, and See! The murder rate evaporates.

Mr Draper says, No, not so. Then the luvvies dump on him because, they say, the net increase in numbers is only a handful. If Mr Draper's increase is only a handful, so is the luvvies decrease. If the the luvvies want to rely on statistics, why do they object to Mr Draper's reliance on the same statistics?

Mr Chips
12th May 2004, 12:53
Mr G String

using the link that you provided, I scrolled down and found the following:

"A better estimate of homicides in years 1993 to 1999 may be obtained by combining ICD codes E960 - E969, E980 - E989 with inquest verdict 'open'.

This produces the following :-

Number Rate per million

1993 649 13

1994 671 13

1995 686 13

1996 631 12

1997 610 12

1998 649 12

1999 653 12

2000 764 14

So you give a figure of 7 for 2000, and yet the corrected figures ON THE SAME PAGE give 14. You also conveniently ignored the final column in the table that is headed

"Injury undetermined whether accidentally or purposely inflicted"

So once agin, by use of official statistics it can be shown that the murder rate has indeed increased. Whether it is to epidemic or "Dodge City" proportions is a matter of opinion. The fact that it has indeed risen is a clear fact.

You have been proved wrong. please accept this and move on with your life.

OneWorld22
12th May 2004, 13:02
Davaar, who or what are the "Luvvies?"

surely not
12th May 2004, 15:24
and this clearly underlines why statistics cannot be relied on 100%. Both sides can use the statistics in whatever way they want to make their side of the argument more plausible.

well done to all the statisticians, you can please everyone

tony draper
12th May 2004, 15:48
One just luurvs that phrase "the trend is down" crime figures are still going up but not as fast as last week, so the trend is down, 17800 breaking and enterings this week but this week last year there were 18200, so the figure is down, dont matter apparently that there were 22000 the week before, the figures are going down folks we got them scallywags on the ropes we gorrem beat yes siree,so go and vote for me like I said in a previous post small wonder the authorities love statistics.
Lies dammed Lies and statistics, stick yer head in the microwave yer feet in the freezer and statisticaly your body temperature will be just peachy, no worries mate.

:rolleyes:

Davaar
12th May 2004, 15:52
Come now, Mr OneWorld, you can do better than that.

tony draper
12th May 2004, 16:08
It would be perfectly true to say however in all fairness, that one crime figure has come down in a astonishing manner since the forties, the forging of food coupons.

:rolleyes:

chippy63
12th May 2004, 16:20
Yes, Herr D, and not too many prosecutions for breaches of the blackout regulations, either!

tony draper
12th May 2004, 16:26
Good stuff Mr Chippy, quick add em to the crime figures.

:rolleyes: