ChezGiven

The kids involved in this years murders were often from 'decent' backgrounds in that they had a family unit with even working parents in some cases. Its a complex picture of course but gamers do get all defensive about this issue whilst essentially talking as much shit as the hysterics.

Thanks for explaining the obvious Fish, i'm old enough to remember Punk the first time and dont need a history lesson on youth culture. The point being made by me, is that violence (and murders in particular) is occuring in younger age groups. "More violent in younger ages" just to really spell it out. Pointing a few violent scuffles in the 50's in youg men doesnt compare to 14 year olds murdering each other. Not in my world anyway.

Nowt its all that Grand theft auto and gansta rap. is it? serious question. Either that or 11 years of soft ***** in government. Probably both. Cops and robbers, cowboys and indians, wargames....kids have always pretended to kill people for fun. Doesn't turn them into murderers. When i was a kid, we sometimes used sticks as replica guns, slightly different to an absorbing 3-dimensional interface with high definition graphical realisation of every aggression your parents have taught you. Seriously (it obviously isnt the only cause) its obvious that media (video games, movies, tv) has an influence as the 14 year olds who are stabbing other kids refer to 'gangsta' culture and use it as a reference point with respect to the violence. How do you think they learnt about such things and which media are they using the most? Its worth bearing in mind at least. When I was young, rival punk gangs would go down the fairground at easter with knives and bats and beat the everloving shit out of each other. Years before that the mods and rockers were at each others throats. When my dad was young the Teddy Boys kicked off the 1958 Notting Hill riots. Hells angels have killed many people and injured far more while adopting an image associated with Heavy Metal. "Gangsta" culture is just the current way to attribute youth violence to the must popular music of the time..Hip-Hop. You don't need to learn to be violent, it's innate, we're hunter gatherers. You need diversions for kids to stop them stabbing each other out of pure boredom. Like GTA4 or Brighton Rock provide. None of those groups were full of 14 year olds and dont pretend they were.

Nowt its all that Grand theft auto and gansta rap. is it? serious question. Either that or 11 years of soft ***** in government. Probably both. Cops and robbers, cowboys and indians, wargames....kids have always pretended to kill people for fun. Doesn't turn them into murderers. When i was a kid, we sometimes used sticks as replica guns, slightly different to an absorbing 3-dimensional interface with high definition graphical realisation of every aggression your parents have taught you. Seriously (it obviously isnt the only cause) its obvious that media (video games, movies, tv) has an influence as the 14 year olds who are stabbing other kids refer to 'gangsta' culture and use it as a reference point with respect to the violence. How do you think they learnt about such things and which media are they using the most? Its worth bearing in mind at least.

Torrent sites and the Radiohead forum. Helpful.

Can you recommend some good sites to find rapidshare links on? I use forumw.org and its bit temperamental.

Fat Pig. What are the examples of this regime saying one thing and doing another? I remember Shepherd promising world class signings and bringing in Sibierski and Bernard, but I have no recollection of being let down by any promises in the last year. He's right about one thing, we aren't fools. That's why we ignore every story in his shitty little rag about a different buyer being lined up every week for the last 6 months. I find it hard to reconcile the PR statements around the time of takeover with subsequent behaviour. Dont really feel let down though tbh, as i didnt believe them in the first place.

I stopped wiping my arse on it when our lass got distracted during a rimming session by an article on Big Brother.

Happy Birthday mate.

Its not greed, its the basic issue of scarcity of resources forcing people to make choices. Now, as predicted, the choices have become completely unpalatable, something has to give. That article makes most of the points i've been making since they announced the ability to make top-ups anyway. No it's the drug marketing model, which sort of falls down when people (even desperate dying people) don't buy your premium drugs. Which is an interesting issue in and of itself - as you get more and more expensive drugs for more and more minor improvement what happens? Clearly the drug companies cannot just keep selling older drugs, they HAVE to put out new ones even if the differences are very minor clinically. Also the more money that becomes available the more the drug companies will charge - it's like the idiocy of thinking you'll save money with saving power in the long term, when in fact if everyone slashes their power consumption by 30% the power companies will simply quickly put the amount charged up to cover the difference and the consumer will end up paying the same for using less. Twaddle. 93% of the costs of the NHS dont relate to medicines, they relate to services, infrastructure and capital. Spectacular inability to follow the argument too fop, as if what you were saying is true then it would hold in France, Germany, Spain and Italy. Whereas it doesnt, as i've pointed out. The argument about NHS organisation is one that is held in the light of our neighbours in europe, what they can afford to do and how they organise their system. That post was just vacuous bollocks. As alex pointed out, the world was very different to 60 years ago, so why should the system not evolve along with the rest of the world? There's a lot of very "expensive" drugs being pushed and developed (I notice you ignore my points about the reasons behind that). It's true the world was very different 60 years ago, we didn't have the corporate power to contend with then that we do now. As i've just said, corporations sell the same drugs to France, yet they can afford it. I ignored the point as its irrelevant to the debate.

Its not greed, its the basic issue of scarcity of resources forcing people to make choices. Now, as predicted, the choices have become completely unpalatable, something has to give. That article makes most of the points i've been making since they announced the ability to make top-ups anyway. No it's the drug marketing model, which sort of falls down when people (even desperate dying people) don't buy your premium drugs. Which is an interesting issue in and of itself - as you get more and more expensive drugs for more and more minor improvement what happens? Clearly the drug companies cannot just keep selling older drugs, they HAVE to put out new ones even if the differences are very minor clinically. Also the more money that becomes available the more the drug companies will charge - it's like the idiocy of thinking you'll save money with saving power in the long term, when in fact if everyone slashes their power consumption by 30% the power companies will simply quickly put the amount charged up to cover the difference and the consumer will end up paying the same for using less. Twaddle. 93% of the costs of the NHS dont relate to medicines, they relate to services, infrastructure and capital. Spectacular inability to follow the argument too fop, as if what you were saying is true then it would hold in France, Germany, Spain and Italy. Whereas it doesnt, as i've pointed out. The argument about NHS organisation is one that is held in the light of our neighbours in europe, what they can afford to do and how they organise their system. That post was just vacuous bollocks. As alex pointed out, the world was very different to 60 years ago, so why should the system not evolve along with the rest of the world?

Its not greed, its the basic issue of scarcity of resources forcing people to make choices. Now, as predicted, the choices have become completely unpalatable, something has to give. That article makes most of the points i've been making since they announced the ability to make top-ups anyway.

Picasso's early period i think

Tennis is for gay people and women. Not being prejudiced just stating a fact. Given that I'm neither; I'd say your logic is flawed. Just from personal experience all three of the men I know who really like tennis are gay. You know 3 gay men? That qualifies you as a gay.

Depends on how you design the system. Under an insurance based system, does everyone get better access to healthcare? You answered this with Avastin and France. Depends on how you design the system. Looking after terminally ill patients is expensive and does very little, you cant treat them so the only difference is the surroundings you die in. Going back to the question above, those paying higher premiums could be more liklely to die in a private hospital. Currently people in the UK are selling houses to pay for long term care of the elderly parents, thus destroying their savings. Does this happen elsewhere? Its already changing and the more we mix up the system, funding and provision, the better it will become. How would you design it? OK, for a giggle.... If you work, you pay for your own insurance. This is two-tier, one for general medical which comes out of your income directly and is the same % for everyone. The second is a top up scheme which has a minimum contribution but can be topped up which is for expenses above e.g. 5k per year. This gives those wealthy enough the choice to have 'hotel-like' conditions if they so wish. Those without jobs are subsidised by the government who make payments into schemes on their behalf, they can make very small contributions to the top up fund (minimal) that are then multiplied by the government into a much larger figure, allowing them to access better schemes. This has a number of interesting incentives on individual behaviours.

Reading the British tabloids over the weekend, i was shocked by the lunacy of this years contestants.

Depends on how you design the system. Under an insurance based system, does everyone get better access to healthcare? You answered this with Avastin and France. Depends on how you design the system. Looking after terminally ill patients is expensive and does very little, you cant treat them so the only difference is the surroundings you die in. Going back to the question above, those paying higher premiums could be more liklely to die in a private hospital. Currently people in the UK are selling houses to pay for long term care of the elderly parents, thus destroying their savings. Does this happen elsewhere? Its already changing and the more we mix up the system, funding and provision, the better it will become.

So it was nice because it backed up my point? But then you post something to counter it.... my problem is the inconsistency of the argument.

Thanks for proving my point and coming back to the Avastin example which i kicked off the thread with. The reason why you get Avastin in France is because its approved and funded i.e. my mutuelle would pay for it. It was rejected by the UK as they cant afford it. Firing up what? Your bullshit servers?

Well we're above Switzerland, Canada and the U.S.A in the WHo rankings can't be all bad. France is No.1 btw. A totally public funded free to all service. The WHO ranking is from 11 years ago, healthcare has changed massively since then. It also values the principle of equal access very highly. Your last sentence is just utter shite, i'm sat here with a payslip in front of me which details how much of my salary goes to EON, my 'mutuelle' in France. They are my insurance company here, which the law basically says i have to have. 60% of provision in France is public (i.e the hospitals are state run). Funding comes from insurance. Another doughnut. Just cause a third party handles some of the money doesn't mean it's private healthcare though does it? Are you just saying that some 'private entities' should handle the healthcare financial provision? If so why is that an advantage and how will they make enough money out of it for you to get your Bentley? I want answers!! You know you could have said the healthcare system in France is making the country bankrupt. What sections of the NHS service/financial services/delivery of care would be better of from privatisation? The unemployed are paid for by the state, the employed need an insurer. This site allows you to compare 'competing' companies offering different services and levels of coverage. http://mutuelle.compareo.net/ I'd also say the vaslty over-sized public sector iin France is causing them financial problems with the millions of civil servants who do nothing but whose jobs are protected by the hugely powerful unions being the main cause.

If you're talking about the Russian system as a historical overview, I suspect again monopoly plays a bigger role than private/public, it always does. A 100% publicly funded and run system is a monopoloy you doughnut. Yes I'm not arguing that, I'm just saying putting private companies in a similar monopoly/not other choice situation works out no better and often worse. Competition (so long as there isn't collusion - i.e. public building works in the UK +10-15% from collusion, and charging the NHS for services +15% from collusion) can drive prices down and efficiency up, but without that competition it doesn't work like that it just becomes a cash cow for the private company with massive profits and dividends - there's numerous examples in the UK's privatisation boom that completely up hold that. Privatisation has many, many pitfalls of its own (look at the private water business model currently causing chaos around the developing world). The thread title is just provocative, i'm not really advocating complete privatisation.

Well we're above Switzerland, Canada and the U.S.A in the WHo rankings can't be all bad. France is No.1 btw. A totally public funded free to all service. The WHO ranking is from 11 years ago, healthcare has changed massively since then. It also values the principle of equal access very highly. Your last sentence is just utter shite, i'm sat here with a payslip in front of me which details how much of my salary goes to EON, my 'mutuelle' in France. They are my insurance company here, which the law basically says i have to have. 60% of provision in France is public (i.e the hospitals are state run). Funding comes from insurance. Another doughnut.

If you're talking about the Russian system as a historical overview, I suspect again monopoly plays a bigger role than private/public, it always does. A 100% publicly funded and run system is a monopoloy you doughnut.

Parky, its not 100% publicly funded. I cant post PDFs of publications so here is a wiki "The Canadian system has been 69-75% publicly funded,[26] though most services are delivered by private providers" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_...ystems_compared You know best though eh?

The point about Russia being that its history is the greatest body of evidence against the notion that publicly organised systems are more efficient than private ones. If its going above your head, ask questions, dont be ashamed by that either. The point about Canada being that they use a different system to us with more private funding and provision.