The Good News thread, local jobs, economy etc

[sphericalfox]

Right, having been shamed into watching this by spherical's razor sharp wit.Seriously? Half truths and specious arguments.

 

Good stuff Webbo. Glad to take you out of your comfort zone. Which bits specifically were half-truths?

[Webbo]

Good stuff Webbo. Glad to take you out of your comfort zone. Which bits specifically were half-truths?

He said that inequality was a deliberate policy because Citibank made a report saying it would be a good idea for businesses to cater to rich people.

 

That's business strategy, how is that (and by who) a deliberate policy to create inequality?

 

He said the riots in 2011 were a protest against inequality, a bare faced lie.

 

There are others, do you want more?

[sphericalfox]

He said that inequality was a deliberate policy because Citibank made a report saying it would be a good idea for businesses to cater to rich people.

 

That's business strategy, how is that (and by who) a deliberate policy to create inequality?

 

He said the riots in 2011 were a protest against inequality, a bare faced lie.

 

There are others, do you want more?

 

Yes, there we go, this isn't an argument, it's a discussion.

 

I'll disagree with you regarding the riots in 2011. The initial protests were against inequality. Just like the ones in Ferguson in the States were/are. Unfortunately, it resulted in individuals and groups of individuals who felt empowered in numbers, and decided to embark on anarchic destruction and theft. There are always a contingent who will try take advantage of a situation, just like bankers for example, and politicians. 

 

Please, if you would like to counteract my previous assertions after watching the programme, I'd be delighted to hear your thoughts. And also the radio programme that we've both listened to.

[Guest MattP]

Do you really believe the 2011 riots were about inequality?

[sphericalfox]

Do you really believe the 2011 riots were about inequality?

 

Tell me, why do you think they occurred?

[ADK]

I think inequality plays a part in riots like that but on the other hand they are just as much about greed and selfishness. People smashing up people's businesses and stealing consumer goods because they think they can get away with it. Frankly they deserve to be poor.

[Webbo]

Tell me, why do you think they occurred?

A drug dealer was shot.

[The People's Hero]

A drug dealer was shot.

 

You very rarely here of a crafts products seller - or scrabble rack gift seller being shot. I'm just trying to make a safe living for me and my family.

 

Drugs are bad, kids.

[Guest MattP]

Tell me, why do you think they occurred?

Well it had been going on for a couple of years in Tottenham, the gang violence that had plagued the area often resulted in large clashes that led to small riots that barely made the news. Then it escalated after the death of Mark Duggan to a large protest where a group also started rioting and stealing in parts of Hackney. Then it became clear no one was actually stopping it so it looked like you could basically nick what you wanted, this resulted in copycat incidents and with social media/mobile phones etc it didn't take people long to realise they could organise this on pretty large scales in any city. Plus you imagine it attracted sorts that love a bit of a ruck with the police.

Outside of Tottenham you couldn't even describe what happened as rioting, even to the most untrained eye it waa clearly looting, government buildings weren't being smashed up, it was supermarkets, electrical goods stores and bookmakers.

Saying these people were rioting because of inequality treats them with injurious exaggerated respect. It was theft in numbers with them doing it because they thought they wouldn't be caught.

We haven't seen any riots since? Has the equality gone away?

Maybe it was Thatchers fault?

[Webbo]

The programme maker said that the bail out money had all gone to the super rich, how do we? Because he said so, no proof just an assertion. As an example he showed us Chris Evans buying a car, even though he made his money pre crash buying and selling Virgin Radio.

[Guest MattP]

At least it smashes Rincewinds myth he often spouts about how the television refuses to paint the rich in a bad light and will only demonise those on benefits.

[l444ry]

Well it had been going on for a couple of years in Tottenham, the gang violence that had plagued the area often resulted in large clashes that led to small riots that barely made the news. Then it escalated after the death of Mark Duggan to a large protest where a group also started rioting and stealing in parts of Hackney. Then it became clear no one was actually stopping it so it looked like you could basically nick what you wanted, this resulted in copycat incidents and with social media/mobile phones etc it didn't take people long to realise they could organise this on pretty large scales in any city. Plus you imagine it attracted sorts that love a bit of a ruck with the police.

Outside of Tottenham you couldn't even describe what happened as rioting, even to the most untrained eye it waa clearly looting, government buildings weren't being smashed up, it was supermarkets, electrical goods stores and bookmakers.

Saying these people were rioting because of inequality treats them with injurious exaggerated respect. It was theft in numbers with them doing it because they thought they wouldn't be caught.

We haven't seen any riots since? Has the equality gone away?

Maybe it was Thatchers fault?

Surely you would accept that these people came from economically depressed poor/working class areas, where economic activity and funding was very little and almost absent. 

[Guest MattP]

Surely you would accept that these people came from economically depressed poor/working class areas, where economic activity and funding very little and almost absent.

Well given it's going to be town centres these things occur in that's pretty obvious.

Although I remember reading a lot of the cases and being surprised at quite a few of the people up, quite a few teachers, social workers, even accountants and university students.

It certainly wasn't a monopoly on worthless scumbags going to the nick for being involved in this.

In other news according to tomorrows Times Natalie Bennett has apparently been the topic of discussion by senior greens as to whether she is competent enough to take them through to the GC. Could loopy Lucas be back in the top seat by May?

[Strokes]

In other news according to tomorrows Times Natalie Bennett has apparently been the topic of discussion by senior greens as to whether she is competent enough to take them through to the GC. Could loopy Lucas be back in the top seat by May?

Alls fair in love and war. Edited 26 January 2015 by Strokes

[Guest MattP]

Alls fair in love and war.

I bet that Andrew Neil interview shocked a few people, she's probably done a thousand green events and no one has ever bothered to question how they'll pay for the ridiculous promises being made.

I actually don't want her up for the leadership debates, she'll make Miliband look competent and sensible.

Imagine being a leftie in this day and age and seeing the choice you have, Respect and George Galloway might be most sensible option.

[sphericalfox]

The programme maker said that the bail out money had all gone to the super rich, how do we? Because he said so, no proof just an assertion. As an example he showed us Chris Evans buying a car, even though he made his money pre crash buying and selling Virgin Radio.

 

Webbo, you are making it really really hard for me not to use the laughy-face emoticon. But I'll refrain. I appreciate that you went to that programme and viewed completely with an objective view, and not ignoring what you didn't want to hear. Firstly yes, Chris Evans was at a car auction, was buying expensive cars. Now, I'm struggling to remember back a few days ago, so I may well rewatch it again, to laugh at the journalist pretending that Chris Evans had made his money of the crash and/or subsequent bailout. I'm vaguely remembering him just using examples of very rich individuals buying luxury goods, and there being no trickle down effect. You know, rich people live in rich people bubbles etc. I could be wrong of course, as you are pretty observant. You were clearly listening keenly to the radio the other day too, you know with that unbiased economics fellow. You know the one who works for a Tory policy think-tank. Now either you already knew that and were hoping that no one picked you up on it, or you genuinely didn't, and might hold your hands up, or alternatively you'll continue to ignore the points were they make you look a little foolish.

 

Well it had been going on for a couple of years in Tottenham, the gang violence that had plagued the area often resulted in large clashes that led to small riots that barely made the news. Then it escalated after the death of Mark Duggan to a large protest where a group also started rioting and stealing in parts of Hackney. Then it became clear no one was actually stopping it so it looked like you could basically nick what you wanted, this resulted in copycat incidents and with social media/mobile phones etc it didn't take people long to realise they could organise this on pretty large scales in any city. Plus you imagine it attracted sorts that love a bit of a ruck with the police.

Outside of Tottenham you couldn't even describe what happened as rioting, even to the most untrained eye it waa clearly looting, government buildings weren't being smashed up, it was supermarkets, electrical goods stores and bookmakers.

Saying these people were rioting because of inequality treats them with injurious exaggerated respect. It was theft in numbers with them doing it because they thought they wouldn't be caught.

We haven't seen any riots since? Has the equality gone away?

Maybe it was Thatchers fault?

 

Do you have some sort of Daily Mail app, that you put in key words and it delivers you a diatribe? Seriously if you haven't then you need to get on it! You could make a fortune! That was wonderful stuff.

 

You do know the definition of inequality don't you? Have you EVER thought to yourself in big society that you are unequal. I very much doubt it. I love the gang violence had large clashes which turned into mini riots. Secret riots that no one heard of outside the locality. Gangs have scraps shocker!

 

The protests that occurred after Mark Duggan got shot, and the police bungled the evidence, and made a balls of how the managed the situation was a touch paper to the feeling within the community of oppression, inequality, and targeting of young black males in that community. Just like riots that have occurred over the years both in the States and in London/Bristol etc. They didn't start out with kicking in the local shops and robbing the place. When the protests were infiltrated by, as you described individuals looking for a scrap with the police after years of the aforementioned targeting and oppression they felt this was an opportunity not to be missed. When the police decided to move back and keep a perimeter the dickhead minority, and make that very clear, a small minority of the original protestors decided that they could loot, and destroy buildings, cars etc, in the absence of police.

 

Opportunists that both came to loot and have a ruck came from far and wide across London. Further to this, as you mentioned social media enabled a minority of individuals who decided that they could get away with it too across the country.

 

I think if you look at the demographic of individuals looting and rucking they come from poor, uneducated backgrounds, in communities where there is a feeling of no hope, where they are chastised and ridiculed in the media for being uneducated and poor. Mocked and lampooned. If you think they are fair game that's up to you, but in my view they are the treated with inequality. I'm not justifying their actions. Being poor and uneducated is not an excuse for lawlessness. But the underlying anger amongst the disenfranchised and poor is down to inequality. Look at the true underlying cause of riots for the last 100 years and tell me that they were all due to greed and selfishness.

 

Do I need to even go into the Thatcherite disenfranchisement of generations of black kids in London and elsewhere in the 80's. If you really want to keep blinders on, and genuinely never criticise your chosen party, or previous governments then this conversation is a pointless one, as you either don't want to hear it, don't want to believe it, or simply are not going to, as you think it'll wind someone up.

 

As for a programme that demonises the rich, whoop-de-doo, there's a two part programme that shines a light on a bunch of greedy dickheads who are holding the country over a barrel, as they've done numerous times, whilst posting laughy-face emoticons as they pay them handsomely to batter us, and demand we thank them for enriching us all, and making sure we tell them we're grateful for it with a gag in our mouth.

Edited 26 January 2015 by sphericalfox

[Strokes]

Respect and George Galloway might be most sensible option.

They could always join us with ukip, come on Larry you know you want too. X

[Strokes]

Webbo, you are making it really really hard for me not to use the laughy-face emoticon. But I'll refrain. I appreciate that you went to that programme and viewed completely with an objective view, and not ignoring what you didn't want to hear. Firstly yes, Chris Evans was at a car auction, was buying expensive cars. Now, I'm struggling to remember back a few days ago, so I may well rewatch it again, to laugh at the journalist pretending that Chris Evans had made his money of the crash and/or subsequent bailout. I'm vaguely remembering him just using examples of very rich individuals buying luxury goods, and there being no trickle down effect. You know, rich people live in rich people bubbles etc. I could be wrong of course, as you are pretty observant. You were clearly listening keenly to the radio the other day too, you know with that unbiased economics fellow. You know the one who works for a Tory policy think-tank. Now either you already knew that and were hoping that no one picked you up on it, or you genuinely didn't, and might hold your hands up, or alternatively you'll continue to ignore the points were they make you look a little foolish.

Do you have some sort of Daily Mail app, that you put in key words and it delivers you a diatribe? Seriously if you haven't then you need to get on it! You could make a fortune! That was wonderful stuff.

You do know the definition of inequality don't you? Have you EVER thought to yourself in big society that you are unequal. I very much doubt it. I love the gang violence had large clashes which turned into mini riots. Secret riots that no one heard of outside the locality. Gangs have scraps shocker!

The protests that occurred after Mark Duggan got shot, and the police bungled the evidence, and made a balls of how the managed the situation was a touch paper to the feeling within the community of oppression, inequality, and targeting of young black males in that community. Just like riots that have occurred over the years both in the States and in London/Bristol etc. They didn't start out with kicking in the local shops and robbing the place. When the protests were infiltrated by, as you described individuals looking for a scrap with the police after years of the aforementioned targeting and oppression they felt this was an opportunity not to be missed. When the police decided to move back and keep a perimeter the dickhead minority, and make that very clear, a small minority of the original protestors decided that they could loot, and destroy buildings, cars etc, in the absence of police.

Opportunists that both came to loot and have a ruck came from far and wide across London. Further to this, as you mentioned social media enabled a minority of individuals who decided that they could get away with it too across the country.

I think if you look at the demographic of individuals looting and rucking they come from poor, uneducated backgrounds, in communities where there is a feeling of no hope, where they are chastised and ridiculed in the media for being uneducated and poor. Mocked and lampooned. If you think they are fair game that's up to you, but in my view they are the treated with inequality. I'm not justifying their actions. Being poor and uneducated is not an excuse for lawlessness. But the underlying anger amongst the disenfranchised and poor is down to inequality. Look at the true underlying cause of riots for the last 100 years and tell me that they were all due to greed and selfishness.

Do I need to even go into the Thatcherite disenfranchisement of generations of black kids in London and elsewhere in the 80's. If you really want to keep blinders on, and genuinely never criticise your chosen party, or previous governments then this conversation is a pointless one, as you either don't want to hear it, don't want to believe it, or simply are not going to, as you think it'll wind someone up.

As for a programme that demonises the rich, whoop-de-doo, there's a two part programme that shines a light on a bunch of greedy dickheads who are holding the country over a barrel, as they've done numerous times, whilst posting laughy-face emoticons as they pay them handsomely to batter us, and demand we thank them for enriching us all, and making sure we tell them we're grateful for it with a gag in our mouth.

Thanks I've been having trouble sleeping lately, this will do perfectly.

[sphericalfox]

Thanks I've been having trouble sleeping lately, this will do perfectly.

 ho- ho.

[MooseBreath]

There was a clear but ludicrous implication that Chris Evans had directly benefitted from the 'bail outs'. Maybe it was just that none of the other people in attendance wanted to feature in a show that effectively called for violence against the rich, who knows.

I don't actually remember him exploring the trickle down effect at all, but it would have been interesting if he had. Would have been illuminating to see the scope of the supply chain and ordinary people therein that benefitted from Chris Evans' car purchase. Unless that is the money just goes straight to the bankers?

[leicsmac]

It was Labour that bailed out the banks.

 

Backed, of course, by the Tories. And if you believe that Blairs Labour government was left wing...more left wing than their counterparts, maybe, but that's about it.

 

In any case, spherical has made the salient points already and this has actually been quite an interesting debate in amongst all the mudslinging.

 

As for Greece...it's possible that they think they simply have nothing left to lose.

[Webbo]

Backed, of course, by the Tories. And if you believe that Blairs Labour government was left wing...more left wing than their counterparts, maybe, but that's about it.

 

In any case, spherical has made the salient points already and this has actually been quite an interesting debate in amongst all the mudslinging.

 

As for Greece...it's possible that they think they simply have nothing left to lose.

Labour we're in power with a healthy majority, if they'd wanted to go another way they could. Saying the Tories would do the same isn't good enough.

 

As for the debate it hasn't been interesting at all. I said the programme was opinion not fact and I've not been proven wrong.

Edited 27 January 2015 by Webbo

[leicsmac]

Labour we're in power with a healthy majority, if they'd wanted to go another way they could. Saying the Tories would do the same isn't good enough.

 

As for the debate it hasn't been interesting at all. I said the programme was opinion not fact and I've not been proven wrong.

 

I think it has. I was referring more to the decision to bail out the banks being a cross party decision rather than the subsequent semantics regarding one TV show that was interesting, though even though facts are thin on the ground it's been good to see the back and forth.

 

I like to see people argue for morally black or white positions over something which is clearly nothing but. It's fun.

Edited 27 January 2015 by leicsmac

[sphericalfox]

Labour we're in power with a healthy majority, if they'd wanted to go another way they could. Saying the Tories would do the same isn't good enough.

 

As for the debate it hasn't been interesting at all. I said the programme was opinion not fact and I've not been proven wrong.

 

And yet when I've proven your non-biased economist on a radio programme to be nothing but a Tory stooge, you've ignored it. I understand that regardless if I laid out 40 indisputable facts and linked you to all of them, you would either ignore them, or dismiss them as lefty socialist panderings. I have never once seen you or the various typicals, who use this particular thread as a wind-up, concede one single point. And you wonder why I laugh at you, and you those like you.

 

It hasn't been interesting for you, as you wouldn't recognise fact if it slapped you in your stubborn visage.

 

Whilst I'm not Labour enthusiast or LIb Dem rimmer, and have no affiliation to any particular party, perhaps I find it easier to look at things objectively. You flatly refuse to do so, which isn't surprising given some of the flecks of revealing character you've had to reign in over the years of me reading and participating in FT. But that's another story.

 

I think it has. I was referring more to the decision to bail out the banks being a cross party decision rather than the subsequent semantics regarding one TV show that was interesting, though even though facts are thin on the ground it's been good to see the back and forth.

 

I like to see people argue for morally black or white positions over something which is clearly nothing but. It's fun.

 

Facts are thin on the ground, as though I can provide numerous, they'd be wasted on Webbo. He doesn't want to know. However, he wants to make statements which are based on nothing but his own biased opinion (or someone else's biased opinion) before being shamed into 'looking into for himself' and coming away with the answer he went into it with in the first place because he refused to to hear anything that didn't suit.

 

I'm neither arguing for black or white, it's all grey, and variant shades of. 

[Webbo]

And yet when I've proven your non-biased economist on a radio programme to be nothing but a Tory stooge, you've ignored it. I understand that regardless if I laid out 40 indisputable facts and linked you to all of them, you would either ignore them, or dismiss them as lefty socialist panderings. I have never once seen you or the various typicals, who use this particular thread as a wind-up, concede one single point. And you wonder why I laugh at you, and you those like you.

 

It hasn't been interesting for you, as you wouldn't recognise fact if it slapped you in your stubborn visage.

 

Whilst I'm not Labour enthusiast or LIb Dem rimmer, and have no affiliation to any particular party, perhaps I find it easier to look at things objectively. You flatly refuse to do so, which isn't surprising given some of the flecks of revealing character you've had to reign in over the years of me reading and participating in FT. But that's another story.

 

 

Facts are thin on the ground, as though I can provide numerous, they'd be wasted on Webbo. He doesn't want to know. However, he wants to make statements which are based on nothing but his own biased opinion (or someone else's biased opinion) before being shamed into 'looking into for himself' and coming away with the answer he went into it with in the first place because he refused to to hear anything that didn't suit.

 

I'm neither arguing for black or white, it's all grey, and variant shades of. 

Was the economist announced as a tory stooge? Post the link for us please so we can all judge.

 

As for posting facts, give it a try and we'll see.