ChezGiven

The Wedding Present - El Rey

Parker was MOTM.

Are they going to hand them out to everyone? Sounds like a laugh.

Fop presents the argument against and represents an argument for, both at the same time.

I love those numbers! 0.17% of what? Your posts?

What was that case recently about the artist 'staging' some sort of violent event that got everyone shitting themselves? Heard it on the Radio and they talked about the Italian artist who set up an exhibition in Milan in the 70's with a loaded gun and asked a member of the audience to shoot them. [random]

I'm not sure that's entirely true (the latest tax band fiasco - firmly aimed at the voters in "middle earner" class), they have fiddled the books a lot though, hence the disappearance of long term unemployed and the explosion of long term sick (which has now reached the point where even they are shitting themselves over it). Whether its entirely true is arguable but the point was to compare and contrast with the tax structures inhereited from the tories rather than to judge new labour's fiscal policy independently. Well neither dare tax the super rich or big companies, and neither probably ever will. That doesnt really disprove the point either though does it? That New Labour and the Conservatives are essentially the same? The quote in the centre that you were seeking to contradict. That New Labour and the Conservatives are essentially the same? Apart from their tax policy to low income families, aye. Which made 2,000,000 low income people worse off (hence the mass political panic when people actually got their pay packets). And you say i pull statistics out me arse? You do. I always link to the source. You just scratch yours. However if you paid attention to the UK and its taxation you should already know what I'm saying was true (pre-panic anyway). About low income families being targeted by policies in 1999 and 2001? As thats what we are talking about, as in the centre of this post. I've not been following your side points enough to even know what you're saying Links to these 2 years of ground breaking policies please (if it was just "get a credit card", then I don't want to know ). I don't doubt they said something, but they said a lot of things that never amounted to what they claimed (the BBC has done an entire series of articles on Labours broken promises ). The links are in this thread.

I'm not having a go here but it's this countries fault we haven't created a utopian society for them to fit in to, which has caused us to reap what we sow? No, i meant the world at large and i wasnt assigning blame, just expressing the view that disillusionment with society is a common factor.

I'm not sure that's entirely true (the latest tax band fiasco - firmly aimed at the voters in "middle earner" class), they have fiddled the books a lot though, hence the disappearance of long term unemployed and the explosion of long term sick (which has now reached the point where even they are shitting themselves over it). Whether its entirely true is arguable but the point was to compare and contrast with the tax structures inhereited from the tories rather than to judge new labour's fiscal policy independently. Well neither dare tax the super rich or big companies, and neither probably ever will. That doesnt really disprove the point either though does it? That New Labour and the Conservatives are essentially the same? The quote in the centre that you were seeking to contradict. That New Labour and the Conservatives are essentially the same? Apart from their tax policy to low income families, aye. Which made 2,000,000 low income people worse off (hence the mass political panic when people actually got their pay packets). And you say i pull statistics out me arse? You do. I always link to the source. You just scratch yours. However if you paid attention to the UK and its taxation you should already know what I'm saying was true (pre-panic anyway). About low income families being targeted by policies in 1999 and 2001? As thats what we are talking about, as in the centre of this post. I've not been following your side points enough to even know what you're saying

I'm not sure that's entirely true (the latest tax band fiasco - firmly aimed at the voters in "middle earner" class), they have fiddled the books a lot though, hence the disappearance of long term unemployed and the explosion of long term sick (which has now reached the point where even they are shitting themselves over it). Whether its entirely true is arguable but the point was to compare and contrast with the tax structures inhereited from the tories rather than to judge new labour's fiscal policy independently. Well neither dare tax the super rich or big companies, and neither probably ever will. That doesnt really disprove the point either though does it? That New Labour and the Conservatives are essentially the same? The quote in the centre that you were seeking to contradict. That New Labour and the Conservatives are essentially the same? Apart from their tax policy to low income families, aye. Which made 2,000,000 low income people worse off (hence the mass political panic when people actually got their pay packets). And you say i pull statistics out me arse? You do. I always link to the source. You just scratch yours.

To be blunt about things, muslim extremists in this country are a bunch of utter idiots whose world view is based on pathetic religious dogma and they have very little worth as human beings. Society creates them though, as extremists need their recruits to be disillusioned and angry for their brainwashing to work. When the country that they grew up in also invades countries with little or no justification, its easy to see how it all comes together.

I'm not sure that's entirely true (the latest tax band fiasco - firmly aimed at the voters in "middle earner" class), they have fiddled the books a lot though, hence the disappearance of long term unemployed and the explosion of long term sick (which has now reached the point where even they are shitting themselves over it). Whether its entirely true is arguable but the point was to compare and contrast with the tax structures inhereited from the tories rather than to judge new labour's fiscal policy independently. Well neither dare tax the super rich or big companies, and neither probably ever will. That doesnt really disprove the point either though does it? That New Labour and the Conservatives are essentially the same? The quote in the centre that you were seeking to contradict. That New Labour and the Conservatives are essentially the same? Apart from their tax policy to low income families, aye. Which made 2,000,000 low income people worse off (hence the mass political panic when people actually got their pay packets). And you say i pull statistics out me arse?

I'm not sure that's entirely true (the latest tax band fiasco - firmly aimed at the voters in "middle earner" class), they have fiddled the books a lot though, hence the disappearance of long term unemployed and the explosion of long term sick (which has now reached the point where even they are shitting themselves over it). Whether its entirely true is arguable but the point was to compare and contrast with the tax structures inhereited from the tories rather than to judge new labour's fiscal policy independently. Well neither dare tax the super rich or big companies, and neither probably ever will. That doesnt really disprove the point either though does it? That New Labour and the Conservatives are essentially the same? The quote in the centre that you were seeking to contradict. That New Labour and the Conservatives are essentially the same? Apart from their tax policy to low income families, aye.

There is nothing to support your view that society was better with better moral values and social order at the beginning of the 20th century. There were high levels of crime and drug use from the 19th century up til after the first world war. There were also high levels of crime with commentators of the day complaining about crime families controlling inner city areas. Also you have to consider the actions of government and corporate owners who were quite happy to work people into there graves with little or no reward. The only difference between then and now is the level of media intrusion and the inevitable problems which come from overpopulation. I've bolded the bit where i accepted that this is not something you can say incontrovertibly so your point is well taken. I wouldn't say there was 'nothing to support' the view though. Crime existing at a significant level in the early parts of the 20th century does not indicate that it was at the same level as it is today, nor that it has risen or fallen. I don't think i implied society was better either, i was trying to make a point about social order and contrast the existence of the apparent (according to the media) 'Underclass' today with previous generations and reflect what the elder generations of my family say to me. My Gran is 99 now and as lucid as she was 30 years ago. She would support my view that the 'social constraints' (freedoms in the OP) hardly exist today compared to 100 years ago. I don't doubt that society had many many problems 100 years ago and perhaps you are right, such an underclass may have existed then. It was the time of the great social projects, the rise of Labour and ultimately, once the wars were out of the way, the NHS. These political changes imply a massive amount of poverty and social need. The question at the heart of this is whether presented with the same opportunities that the current generation have, would the people from 100 years ago have embraced the 'benefits' culture or sought to better themselves?

The fucking french and their fucking politics. Bunch of wanks.

To let you knock her bottom drawer out?

You never seen them live? G'N'R Fan? Now it all makes sense.

I'm not sure that's entirely true (the latest tax band fiasco - firmly aimed at the voters in "middle earner" class), they have fiddled the books a lot though, hence the disappearance of long term unemployed and the explosion of long term sick (which has now reached the point where even they are shitting themselves over it). Whether its entirely true is arguable but the point was to compare and contrast with the tax structures inhereited from the tories rather than to judge new labour's fiscal policy independently.

Iirc Ricky and Bianca were fond of going 'Up west'. I dont think they meant Mayfair clubs tbh.

Why on earth did you get that done? Being eliminated from enquiries would be my guess.

They've all been stabbed by black teenagers. When the foreigners cotton on to the squatting trick, thats when you need to worry. Apparently the foreigners bed down in the parks whilst Stephanie / Tarquin et al twoc the best real estate. I dont know why but i've always assoicated squatters with an unjust sense of priveledge. Possibly unfairly. That's the ones in West London squats. In Hackney it's more Andy and Bez. Mayfair is neither of those, its WC1. To me, west London is Fulham, Acton, Ealing etc.

They've all been stabbed by black teenagers. When the foreigners cotton on to the squatting trick, thats when you need to worry. Apparently the foreigners bed down in the parks whilst Stephanie / Tarquin et al twoc the best real estate. I dont know why but i've always assoicated squatters with an unjust sense of priveledge. Possibly unfairly.

An inherently biased question meaning that even the most impartial of observers is unable to judge this unless they have led a very strange life. If anyone is interested in Oppenheimer's work, here is an article by him in Prospect Magazine from 2006. http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article...mer&id=7817

I thought people hissed at Danny B because he is a pantomine villain.