NJS
-
Posts
13074 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Posts posted by NJS
-
-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,...1483189,00.html
.......... not that I expect it to make much difference to an I'm alright Jack though..
that is until they shit in your own nest.
You know, like McKeag did
LM, doesn't that article contradict a lot of what you have been saying?
That contradicts everything he's said and backs up what other like me and Rob have been saying - in the long term if you want "decent" citizens from people who've either made a mistake or are "genetic" scum then prison isn't the answer.
As I've argued unpopularly in the past on paedos, if someone like this rapist committed his crimes due to an actual mental illness then I'd rather he was treated and cured rather than "locked up forever" as LM wants. Do we want a society where "ill" people are jailed?
-
Nobody has said "I hope we lose" but there seems to a futuristic hindsight if you know what I mean where people will say "at least it got rid of Souness". My objection is the degree to which people entertain that notion now and also how much they will use it if we do lose.
Thats the "level of devestation" I'm on about PL - if people are as pissed off as they were after any defeat in the past against them (under Bobby or Gullit) then thats fine no matter how that is but if they let a sly "oh well" type thought then I think its wrong.
-
I'm quite willing to accept the "for good of the club" argument - there was a spell when Jim Smith was manager the season after we'd failed in the play-offs where I almost got to the "hope we lose" stage and if I was as vehementally as unhappy with Souness as some are and was offered a humiliation agsint West Brom or even Chelsea then I'd be tempted.
But this Sunderland.
Anyone who entertains the "maybe if we lose" thought for a second should not go to the match.
I also stand by my "banned for life" comment. In hindsight it may have been right for Gullit to leave but after that match all I could do was think about losing to them bastards. None of this "greater good" entered my head. Even when he left I didn't think "maybe losing was a good thing" as I thought that as others have said other events will take care of that.
Coming from South Shields I've had to occasionally put up with grief from "proper" Geordies from the city or just from north of the river who have questioned my right to be a toon fan and gone as far as to call me a mackem,
I tell you one thing - I have no doubts where I stand on Newcastle/Sunderland - it looks like some of you do.
-
I agree - anyone who isn't 110% behind the team next week should seriously consider not going and giving their ticket to someone else.
If we lose and anyone isn't as devestated as they should be because "ah well it hurts Souness" (whether it does or not) should be banned for life.
If it goes as far as a humiliation that gets some kind of "celebratory" reaction from a sizeable section of the ground then I hope we are relegated.
-
Stuttered to the finish line in 2003? Sorry even if the performances might not have matched those of the previous season the team was still up for a top place throughout the whole season. Until this heartbreaking 2-6 against ManUre came.
In some ways that result was more of a blow than the Belgrade game - the 7 or 8 games after that were were poor and that continued generally into the next season..
Results and finishing position do count but there wasn't that much difference between the last two seasons in terms of overall "excitement" or "satisfaction". Something like 11 points and 9 places don't really matter to me - I think we've been in a rebuliding phase for two years.
If anyone honestly thinks the "3rd top" team were only a couple of players away from being higher they're dreaming imo.
-
Do you honestlly think the squad as at august 04 would have qualified for europe under Bobby last season? Do you not think money needed to be spent anyway?
We may disagree about the manager to a degree but I thought we'd all pretty much accepted that the "good" squad was on the wane.
In answer to your question I don't know but I think key major purchases have been made. I'd like to see a few "middle notch" squad player brought in plus a couple of first teamers.
totally wrong mate. Almost every single person, and not just on these message boards, thought we were underachieving and finishing 5th was a real pisser.
That is why Bobby Robson was sacked.
We also, almost to a man, thought that we needed to replace Shearer and find a new partner for Bellamy, almost everyone also didn't see Newcastle without him,
and thought we were only a couple of good buys from being a lot closer to the top 3 than we were at the time, along with Liverpool.
Correct ?
Nowt like changing history ......... Souness and his spin cronies have done a good job brainwashing quite a few people from the true situation before he came it would appear.
No not correct imo.
That squad had stuttered over the finish line to 3rd the previous season and needed to be freshened up in 2003. We got Bowyer and nothing else. The next season was generally piss poor - 2 away wins? - that squad as DK had said had punched slightly above its weight.
Looking from the outside as people did Souness thought it was an excellent squad when he arrived - it is to his credit that he realised that it wasn't.
As I've said before putting all of your faith in one player - be it Bellamy, Shearer or whoever has been a major problem for us and needs to end.
-
Do you honestlly think the squad as at august 04 would have qualified for europe under Bobby last season? Do you not think money needed to be spent anyway?
We may disagree about the manager to a degree but I thought we'd all pretty much accepted that the "good" squad was on the wane.
In answer to your question I don't know but I think key major purchases have been made. I'd like to see a few "middle notch" squad player brought in plus a couple of first teamers.
-
I think the thing that is pissing Souness (and the rest us) off the most is that its all the "creative" type player who are injured at the same time. LM mention the "going forward" thing but when your midfield is limited to Clark. Parker and Bowyer then "eye of the needle" passes aren'ty going to happen no matter how well they are coached or whatever.
I do however completely accept the point of PL that the squad as a whole isn't good enough which is down to him (and Freddie).
-
I can't speak for british car insurances, but here in Germany we have something called "no claims bonus". The longer you drive without an accident the less you have to pay. Beginners start at 190% of the standard rate. If they stay accident free the rate can down onto to 30%.
And if SSR's statistic is right and people who drive more are more likely to be involved in an accident, they should pay more, don't they...
The no claims bonus is the starting point but then other factors are applied - type of car, age, gender and strangely occupation. You can then of course have a protected no claims bonus which means I can "recklessly" have accidents without losing it.
I guess you're right about the likelihood thing but I see it in terms of the ratio of accidents per amount driven as an indicator of "safeness". Perhaps the future technology will be used in the exact opposite way to that I've suggested earlier and "heavy use" drivers will be charged more.
-
I don't think there was that much difference between how Thatcher saw Scargill and his like ("the enemy within") and how Hitler saw the jews. Not saying she'd have gassed them but she held the same contempt.
-
Yes.
When Dennis died I had a moment of false hope that it was her. My Mam who is the nicest person in the world told me off for wanting someone dead. She reckoned it would be better if Thatcher lived for as long as possible to "see her sins" which would make her suffer - only problem is she never will.
-
I would add that what made her different was the intent. All "civilised" governments set out with the intent of doing the best for the country no matter what their "beliefs". Sometimes this works and sometimes it doesn't and people suffer.
Thatcher on the other hand was driven by an idealogical "mission" to destroy what she thought were powerbases. Peoples lives (most people in our part of the world have a story like Cath's) became incidental "collateral damage" in her crusade to get revenge for what she saw as past battles and to give the middle classes their "dreams" of home and share ownership.
People say she thought she was doing what was right and I'm sure thats true but there was an indifference to the cost that set her apart and makes me define her as evil.
-
Millions of lives destroyed but a few sad, selfish wankers made money so we should thank the most evil woman in history.
No thanks - roll on the death for the proper celebrations.
-
I don't think even with future facilites you'll be able a fair insurance system based on mileage.
Look, insurances are basing their system on the cost of insured events. They therefore look how much money they have to acquire. The calculation is mostly based on a year, with insurants paying periodically (I don't think that's different in England).
To get a fair system they now have to generate a system where the contribution of each insurant matches the insured events he causes as good as possible. Mileage doesn't fit into this system, because you have one parameter too much. You would have to base this system on insured events/year on one hand and insured events/mileage on the other hand. Well, you could change the system by crossing out the time factor, but then how to calculate the contribution so that they provide the insurance with enough cash constantly. Mileage is also a far too variable. Gender on the other hand is a static parameter.
Renton is right, though. You could also base your calculation on other static parameters like race. That would obviously cause a huge uproar. Anyway, there exists an EC-discrimantion act that has to get implemented into national legislation. It prohibits every kind of discrimination of race, religion, gender etc. It is a big topic here in Germany (especially among privat law scientiest like me), because women right groups demand the act to be implemented as soon as possible, because they feel especially discriminated by one economical branch...and guess what...it's the insurance industry that is discriminating women in a lot branches due to their statistically longer life time. It's funny while those women are able to dig out loads of insurance sectors where they are discriminated, men do only come up with one...
I see what you're saying but....
My view is that if they do include a factor for "likeliness to have an accident" which is based on the number of accidents someone has had in the past then they should consider all of the factors that actually produce those stats and look further than "less women have accidents".
I think its the glib use of the phrase "women are safer drivers" that I object to - not because I don't think its true but because its basis is flawed imo and I don't think it should be applied to the cost on such an arbitrary basis.
On the equality issue in general there have always been swings and roundabouts - not so common now but the differential retirement ages being a classic.
-
Can someone please tell me why mileage doesn't matter, without throwing the statistics into this. Surely the further you drive, the more likely you are to crash (not statistically, but physically). In the same way that the older the car is, the more likely you are to crash. In the same way that the worse your eyesight is, the more likely you are to crash.
Or do you want to look at it the other way, and say that because someone drives 140 miles a day, he becomes a better driver than someone who drives 3 miles a day, as generally drivers become better with experience.
I've forgotten what I'm arguing about now.
Mileage doesn't matter because it is a far too uncertain factor to insurance companies. Again, the calculation is based on how much insured events a caused by a specific group. It doesn't matter to the insurance company how often or how good someone drives, but if his insurance contribution covers the risk of an insured incident. Anyway, a terrible driver who uses his car once a year is much more likely that he covers his risk by his contribution than a good driver.
Yeah you've described how it works at present but I think mine and SG's point is that it should and future technology might facilitate it.
-
As another view I've been a cyclist as an adult for about 11 years and nearly every minor accident and near miss I've had has involved a woman driver. Before anyone starts I never cycle on the pavement or go through red lights.
I don't know whether its a thing of girls not using bikes as much as kids and having no concept of how fast semi-fit adults can go or what but its something I'd stand by within normal "shocking generalisation" levels.
-
Mileage doesn't matter. If someone male who drives 1000 miles a day causes an accident every 1500 miles he statistically is still more accident prone than a woman that drives 5 miles a week and statistically causes an accident every 10 miles.
They do however already roughly correlate mileage with accidents via projected mileage/number of accidents in 5 years questions. Of course these are very arbitrary which as has been said technology may quantify in the future.
I just think if they do want to assess risk properly then they should "firm up" the stats or not bother.
Another gripe is that insurance in most peoples view is to cope with accidents but the risk of theft via postcode factors are given too high a proportion in my view.
-
Just taking the gender comments to a more serious point I'd accept that young lads can be worse drivers but I do find the "insurance companies can discriminate because women are better drivers" argument to be infuriating. The statistics may show that women have less accidents but I'd love to see a correlation between those stats and mileage/journey times. On the whole men tend to do more driving and in more "accident prone" times like the rush hour. I'd bet "adjusted" figures would show that driving is the same as everything - a range of good and bad across all categories.
I can see that the proposed future "road tolls everywhere" could provide the data for "fairer" insurance for everone.
-
That's unfair. I was making (what I thought was the reasonable point) that people tend to campaign on things that affect them, as prostate cancer doesn't affect women, they're unlikely to take a massive interest. I don't agree with that kind of sentiment, but that's the way it seems to work. I'm not likely to be against raising the profile of health problems, regardless of who they affect but merely being realistic.
I remember a few years ago a bloke had the gall to write an article in The Times or one of the other "qualities" which highlighted exactly the point that smear testing was "in" whereas something like 4 times as many men die of prostate cancer ever year.
Some utter fucking bitch wrote a "reply" in which she basically dismissed his argument and even made (snigger) references to the size of the writers organ which of course has everything to do with prostates doesn't it?
The media promote and campaign on a fashion basis.
-
Dogma
Clerks
Mallrats
Life of Brian
Holy Grail
Blazing Saddles
Airplanex2
Top Secret
The Blues Brothers
I'm with Cath on Austin Powers - cringeworthy.
-
This may not sit easily with the "nail'em uppers" but I'm sure that studies of "unconventional" punishments like the classic mechanics courses for joyriders etc actually caused less re-offenders.
Maybe the problem is the the Daily Mail solution has been used too much and the PC one not enough.
The major problem is that when we see the crime alot of us react angrily and want revenge. The law should not be about revenge, it should prioritise prevention and then cure. I think too many Daily Mail readers would be more appalled at the thought of those young offenders benefitting from their crime than they would be concerned about the crime itself.
If the result of a crime is that a waste of space has their life sorted out to the point where they aren't a waste anymore, which lets face it kneejerk punishments short of death won't do, then to me the crime is lessened.
-
This may not sit easily with the "nail'em uppers" but I'm sure that studies of "unconventional" punishments like the classic mechanics courses for joyriders etc actually caused less re-offenders.
Maybe the problem is the the Daily Mail solution has been used too much and the PC one not enough.
-
When Rob was talking about automatic washing machines were completely luxury items. Even in the 80s if you see the repeats of Bullseye you'll see audience "Oohs" at hostess trollies and food processors so I think he has a point.
Having said that I can see where you're coming from as well - Thatcher taught people to want material goods above all else as you did mention.
-
the weekly hang em flog em debate
in General Chat
Posted
But then that goes back to what we actually have communities/societies for. The alternative where the "aggrieved" party simply punishes the wrongdoer leads to vigilantism and the breakdown of all law.
There has to be a "detached" view when it comes to justice which doesn't mean the severity of the crime is ignored.