Britain - The Official Thread
- Thread starter Ross
- 13,293 comments
- 604,854 views
- 15,994
- United Kingdom
- haitch40
- Xbox?
To add to that.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22087702
And one more thing. Thatcher supported deregulation. Is that not the very cause of this current economic crisis? The banks not being responsible with their freedom?
So where do the poor live? The streets?
Considering the reputation people get living on the streets they get restricted even further for jobs they can do. Also it is required that you have a fixed address to work in this country.
Last edited:
Keef
Premium
- 25,060
- Dayton, OH
- GTP_KeefRacer
- GTP Keef
No, that's not the cause. The cause was government policy which not only incentivised but effectively forced firms into risky decisions that they otherwise never would have made. Remember all that rhetoric from GWB about wanting more Americans to own homes? Well, the reason more Americans didn't own homes was because they couldn't afford them. So what the government did was incentivise lending instutions into subprime lending - basically giving loans to people who couldn't afford them. This was government policy. These loans had low variable interest rates initially, but when interest rates went up a few years later all hell broke loose because the people who recieved the loans could no longer afford them. The banks did what any human would do which was take an unusual risk for a guaranteed payment. So they did what the government told them, got bailed out, the economy went to hell, and then before anybody analyses what actually caused the problem the government starts pointing fingers at the banks and convinces the people to do the same through propaganda. A government lives or dies based on whether or not the people it governs trust it so it will do everything it can to make sure the people never fully understand its faults.
The poor would probably be supported by the numerous charities which do not currently exist because of the crowding effect caused by government welfare. Charities do what they can but cannot guarantee these people anything; the government does guarantee it and has the power to make people think that is actually true. Beyond that, the government isn't worried about making a profit or even staying alive so things like maintenance costs and liability are of no concern. Even the largest charities simply cannot compete with government guarantees and that's why the amount of welfare money flowing through our system makes charity dollars look like Monopoly money.
Maybe that should be changed so people don't have to make a downpayment they can't afford on an apartment that is required to get a job that they need to make the downpayment in the first place. Does that system make any sense to you at all?
arora
(Banned)
- 4,098
Pretty much all of that.
I'll add that there was some sneaky covering of ass's near the end and trying to pawn off the bad debts to others(at a profit no less). Your other two points about charity and housing/jobs is spot on.
I usually stay out of this thread because I am not Brit, but the idea that we need to depend on a gov is just so wrong. I can only imagine how well we could do relying only on ourselves and our consciences leaving only the truly gov needs we may have to them.
I'll add that there was some sneaky covering of ass's near the end and trying to pawn off the bad debts to others(at a profit no less). Your other two points about charity and housing/jobs is spot on.
I usually stay out of this thread because I am not Brit, but the idea that we need to depend on a gov is just so wrong. I can only imagine how well we could do relying only on ourselves and our consciences leaving only the truly gov needs we may have to them.
)
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
Who knows whether he committed these heinous crimes he's accused of at this point, he wasn't caught on videotape and then confessed like the Muslim extremist Boston bomber so the courts will have the final say on this, but I do believe a lot of stuff was swept under the rug back in the day. It's good to see a lot of it coming into the light even at this late date, and I hope it empowers all victims of this type of violence to step forward, regardless of how long ago the crimes took place.
- 29,791
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
I think you're looking into my facetious remark a little bit too much, but it is of course a good thing that justice is being sought in these cases, no matter how long ago they were.
Ominous...
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
Actually I wasn't, I knew you weren't being literal, sorry if my response came across that way
. I didn't want to get jumped on for assuming he was guilty was my main motivation because I could see the inevitable, "How do you know he's guilty" post following mine
We have the same kind of stuff happening here, it's a product of our recent history where women and children had little power and credibility in society. Sad that this stuff happened to begin with, but I'm glad many of guilty are finally brought to justice, even in their 70's and beyond in some cases.
- 29,791
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
MoD confirms UK is using armed drones
In Afghanistan, remotely from the UK.
Also, this is a major gravedig from way back in November, but I never answered the point.
Because, when they were allowed to advertise, tobacco companies spent an amazing fortune on advertising and marketing. Even a whippersnapper like me remembers the L&B billboards, and the Embassy Snooker at the crucible.
So they stopped adverts for tobacco, but the tobacco firms didn't lose any sales revenue because of the loyalty of smokers; they're not fussed whether there are adverts, they'll still buy cigarettes either way. Coupled with this, they saved all that money they were essentially wasting on adverts and sponsorship.
Very simple explanation:
Tobacco A spends £100 on advertising for £200 revenue.
They're only doing it because Tobacco B is also spending £100 on advertising for £200 revenue. They don't want to lose any revenue or market share to their rival.
It's now illegal to advertise tobacco.
Tobacco A still gets £200 revenue despite the ban on advertising because smokers will still buy cigarettes regardless, plus saving the £100 they were spending on advertisements. Same for Tobacco B.
In Afghanistan, remotely from the UK.
Also, this is a major gravedig from way back in November, but I never answered the point.
Because, when they were allowed to advertise, tobacco companies spent an amazing fortune on advertising and marketing. Even a whippersnapper like me remembers the L&B billboards, and the Embassy Snooker at the crucible.
So they stopped adverts for tobacco, but the tobacco firms didn't lose any sales revenue because of the loyalty of smokers; they're not fussed whether there are adverts, they'll still buy cigarettes either way. Coupled with this, they saved all that money they were essentially wasting on adverts and sponsorship.
Very simple explanation:
Tobacco A spends £100 on advertising for £200 revenue.
They're only doing it because Tobacco B is also spending £100 on advertising for £200 revenue. They don't want to lose any revenue or market share to their rival.
It's now illegal to advertise tobacco.
Tobacco A still gets £200 revenue despite the ban on advertising because smokers will still buy cigarettes regardless, plus saving the £100 they were spending on advertisements. Same for Tobacco B.
Last edited:
- 29,791
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
Double post, but that odious wretch Marlon King is in trouble with the fuzz. Again.
ExigeEvan
Premium
- 17,192
I don't really get the focus that has been put on this story. The only difference is instead of sending our pilots out to Nevada for a bit of tan and few nights in Las Vegas, they're now operating from the UK.
The fact we've just had our first drone-specific pilots graduate didn't seen to make the news.
- 3,460
- Hollywood
Yup, armed drones aren't necessarily a bad thing, it's the ROI that makes the difference.
- 29,791
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
I'm not well versed on the pros and cons of armed drones, but to me at least, it presents less danger for the pilots if they're operating in or from a much safer area. As for drone strikes which kill civilians, much like has happened with the US, it shouldn't make the incident any better nor any worse; a pilot or commander using weapons which inadvertently (or not) kill civilians is still a pilot using weapons which inadvertently (or not) kill civilians, regardless whether it's a drone or a piloted vehicle.
arora
(Banned)
- 4,098
So because you have some tech above the rest it's ok to hone in on whoever and just strike out of no where? Maybe you are friends with someone who gives you that capability and that makes it fine?
I think it is a very big deal, no declaration of war, remove the human factor and reality of risk, just play a video game with human life.
Call me crazy if you wish but drones are very bad news, I can see the lines of war and state eroding into a world where people abuse power with no consequence. It's ok now because they are attacking boogie men some believe are evil strictly because of the kool aid they drink.
It also seems to me the so called collateral damage is fluffed off where as in a war it would be scrutinized.
I think it is a very big deal, no declaration of war, remove the human factor and reality of risk, just play a video game with human life.
Call me crazy if you wish but drones are very bad news, I can see the lines of war and state eroding into a world where people abuse power with no consequence. It's ok now because they are attacking boogie men some believe are evil strictly because of the kool aid they drink.
It also seems to me the so called collateral damage is fluffed off where as in a war it would be scrutinized.
- 4,475
- Vancouver, BC
- GTP_Grand_Prix
"When the battlefield is under control, war... Becomes routine."
- 29,791
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
What I'm saying though, is that an aerial attack which results in civilian casualties is equally unacceptable with a manned aircraft and an unmanned aircraft.
Government overhead snooping is equally infringing whether it's done with a manned aircraft or unmanned aircraft.
I'm not condoning or contesting the uses of drones, but simply having them is fair enough. How they are used is another matter. Equally, if crimes are committed or liberties are compromised/infringed, that in itself is the area of criticism. The method, whether manned or unmanned, is extraneous to the crime.
That's how I see it without looking further into things.
arora
(Banned)
- 4,098
Point taken.
Let me ask though, if you where married to a fighter pilot and his missions scared or concerned you to a point that you feared for his life, would you think harder about the war or task at hand? Vs. if you knew he was just going to an undisclosed location where the harm factor was greatly diminished to carry out his task.
Let me ask though, if you where married to a fighter pilot and his missions scared or concerned you to a point that you feared for his life, would you think harder about the war or task at hand? Vs. if you knew he was just going to an undisclosed location where the harm factor was greatly diminished to carry out his task.
- 29,791
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
I probably wouldn't worry as much, if my wife was merely playing with an R/C aeroplane from an RAF base in Lincolnshire, and not flying over Darfur or Baghdad in a Hawker Nimrod. That's fair comment.
The dehumanisation of war/removal of human emotion in war is a tricky business. It's been a slow process over several millennia. Generally speaking, in war or in a battle, we no longer kill people physically with our fists; knives, swords and bayonets enabled a tool to do the job for us. But then, cannons enabled us to kill people without having to get into close quarters. More removal. Following the cannon, guns enabled us to precisely kill enemy soldiers from either long range or close range, without touching them personally, yet more removal. Aeroplanes and UAVs are merely an evolution of this process.
Granted, this 'slow' process has been increasingly rapid since the 19th century. I'm actually not sure what point I'm trying to make; maybe that it seems to me that removal of personal contact or interaction is a natural technological development which either cannot be stopped, or we are not stopping.
The dehumanisation of war/removal of human emotion in war is a tricky business. It's been a slow process over several millennia. Generally speaking, in war or in a battle, we no longer kill people physically with our fists; knives, swords and bayonets enabled a tool to do the job for us. But then, cannons enabled us to kill people without having to get into close quarters. More removal. Following the cannon, guns enabled us to precisely kill enemy soldiers from either long range or close range, without touching them personally, yet more removal. Aeroplanes and UAVs are merely an evolution of this process.
Granted, this 'slow' process has been increasingly rapid since the 19th century. I'm actually not sure what point I'm trying to make; maybe that it seems to me that removal of personal contact or interaction is a natural technological development which either cannot be stopped, or we are not stopping.
- 3,460
- Hollywood
Thinking about the war and worrying yourself sick about the wellbeing of your partner are two different things. I don't think a wife worried about her pilot husband overseas will be having too many level-headed thoughts about the war itself.
Seeing how ridiculous the R.O.E for British forces in Afghanistan was, I'm fairly confident that civilian casualties from British drones will be very low.
