You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Cougar; I'm extremely flattered that you've waded through forum posts from five years ago, to find something that you believe 'proves' I'm someone I'm not. That person must have meant an awful lot to you, for you to dedicate so much time and energy on. I've no doubt they'd also be extremely flattered, were they aware of your efforts. I do hope you are being paid well for your time.
You could, had you wanted, chosen to email me directly, if you had any issue with my presence on this forum. Instead, you've effectively 'taken sides' in this debate, which as a moderator, I think most people would expect you to remain neutral.
But you know what? You've done me a favour. The thought of you spending so much time, looking for something to prove your 'point' (whatever that was, who knows?), made me realise just how much time I have personally wasted on this forum, arguing with people who are unlikely to move from their deeply entrenched positions, fed no doubt by their own insecurities. People such as the apologist for racism and xenophobia, Ninfan. The deluded, utterly closed-minded fools such as Jambalaya. Those, like THM, who cannot begin to comprehend anything that isn't presented as a list of numerical figures. And the rants of Binners; what on earth fuels those (I wonder if Binners has a 'sinus problem'. 😉 )? And for what? What's to be gained from such 'debates', other than to reinforce what you already knew, that some people are simply ****s. And that you should never get into an argument with an idiot; they will only drag you down to their level.
A wise man once said:
[b][i]"A lesson I learned far too late in life is, life is too short to spend in the company of arseholes."[/i][/b]
Quite.
Life is too short. And I simply don't have the time to waste, like some on here (seriously, how the **** can you spend your entire ****ing life on here?!?!). I need to get on with other things.
I came for the bike advice, and stayed for the nonsense. More fool me. 😆
Still, some of it's been fun. So, without further ado;
So long, and thanks for all the fish.
X
A flounce - how was that missed.
And that you should never get into an argument with an idiot; they will only drag you down to their level.
The 'accused' will remember that for your next new login. Until then, "au revoir, mais a bientot sans doute!"
Does a flounce still make a noise, even if no-one's around to hear it?
I'm gonna flounce Binners got a mention in the resignation speech.....
Does a flounce still make a noise, even if no-one's around to hear it?
😀
[img] 
[/img]
I did get an insult/accusation followed by a winky/smiley face.
Surely the ultimate act of passive aggression?
And therefore the perfect way to accessorise a flounce?
I'll take that up with him upon his return
Give it a week
wonder what that post delete was for?
not that I am asking, mind... 😉
I saw it, THM. The forum didn't need it.
is the thing that dare not be mentioned a danger to humankind?
it could have at least given a hint to the questions posed above?
[url= https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/nov/25/huge-rise-in-hospital-beds-in-england-taken-up-by-people-with-malnutrition ]first world economy for some, the rest well.....[/url]
Life is good. Stop arguing as life is too short.
Even shorter when youre freezing and starving to death
[quote=hora ]Life is good. Stop arguing as life is too short.
try living of £70 per week and not having your rent or council tax covered and having to pay all bills and food from that and then get back to us
I mam sure life is good for most of us on here we have ikes and a disposable income of varying degrees but there is a world outside your bubble if you look
Yep been there thanks. I'm struggling with what benefit does continual political topics have on a bike forum.
Plus Junkyard, aren't you supposed to melloe. Stop being soo bloody angry and negative.
[quote=hora ]Yep been there thanks. I'm struggling with what benefit does continual political topics have on a bike forum.
then may i politely ask that you dont bother to read them nor contribute on them and i will melloe as a result?
The reality is we dont all have it good and the rise of food banks and homelessness are clear indicators of this
As for angry and negative I am not angry - though clearly i care about injustice and suffering more than some and it does disappoint me- and its really not my fault the facts are more negative than your optimism supports.
I'm struggling with what benefit does continual political topics have on a bike forum.
[url= http://singletrackmag.com/forum/forum/off-topic ]Chat Forum[/url]
Ohhh, i'm bloody angry, the naked unashamed inequality in this country, tax breaks for the rich at the expense of the low waged and unwaged.
The crass ignorance of the "i'm ok, pull the ladder up" set
The "been there, but it doesn't effect me now" complacency
The constant attacks and demonisation of the poor and unwaged by the UK mainstream media and political classes
The cronyism in politics
The wholesale destruction of rights, housing, welfare and healthcare hard won by our grand parents after the horrors of WW2.
I'm angry, but i dont let it consume my life 24/7 - until ignorance or complacency is displayed in regards to the state that this country is in, despite being the 5th or 6th strongest economy in the world
That tends to spark me up a bit
and the article refers to a period covering three main parties in power in one form or another - which one is to blame do you reckon?
is it capitalism and the way some turn the other cheek to the excesses of the rich and defend low taxes and "competitiveness"
The wholesale destruction of rights, housing, welfare and healthcare hard won by our grand parents after the horrors of WW2.
No really....
capitalism
Without this there would be no welfare nor an NHS. Without Capitalism JY you would have no job. The non-for-profit sector can only exist as Capitalism supports it.
tax breaks for the rich at the expense of the low waged and unwaged.
Some examples ? The tax breaks I am familiar with benefit the country as a whole and thus in particular the lower paid. The top 1% pay 30% of the taxes. You only have to watch a programme like Victorian Slums to see how much better off the poor are today. As a minimum they have full access to the NHS. Taxes on the "rich" are substantially higher than they where in 2006
Some examples ? The tax breaks I am familiar with benefit the country as a whole and thus in particular the lower paid. The top 1% pay 30% of the taxes. You only have to watch a programme like Victorian Slums to see how much better off the poor are today. As a minimum they have full access to the NHS. Taxes on the "rich" are sunstantially hogher than they where in 2006
You would hardly expect people on minimum wage to pay most of the taxes would you?
The point is that the poor pay more in tax as an overall % (not helped by blanket VAT) and they are the least able to afford it.
Who cares if they are better off than 100 years ago, are they supposed to thank anyone for that?
The only impact to the richest paying a high % of tax means they end up with a Bentley instead of that Rolls they really wanted
Is a couple of years old but worth you reading this [url= https://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/jun/16/british-public-wrong-rich-poor-tax-research ]https://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/jun/16/british-public-wrong-rich-poor-tax-research[/url]
Without this there would be no welfare nor an NHS. Without Capitalism JY you would have no job. The non-for-profit sector can only exist as Capitalism supports it.
The Soviet Union had universal healthcare, welfare and full employment. Evidently these things are not dependent on a capitalist system.
Philanthropy existed before the guilty rich found it to be the perfect salve for their consciences or an oft bragged about example of their largesse.
Equating it with capitalism makes about as much sense as the idiots who claim moral and ethical standards are a direct consequence of religious belief.
The Soviet Union had universal healthcare, welfare and full employment. Evidently these things are not dependent on a capitalist system.
Please can you provide an update of how this progressing?
The Soviet Union also needed watchtowers with machine guns to keep its population from escaping and everyone* was much poorer than they would otherwise have been.
Not really a great example for us to follow now, is it ?
* except of course for those party members who crawled to the top.
The top 1% pay 30% of the taxes.
Given they also own 24% of the assets, and the constant barrage of statistics about how inequality has never been higher, I don't see a problem with that at all...
.Without this there would be no welfare nor an NHS
Dont confuse the fruits of hard work and a progressive society with capitalism. Capatilsim will dismantle the NHS.
Cuba has a good health system.
you would hardly expect people on minimum wage to pay most of the taxes would you?
The point is that the poor pay more in tax as an overall % (not helped by blanket VAT) and they are the least able to afford it.
Who cares if they are better off than 100 years ago, are they supposed to thank anyone for that?
You are correct. Too much is said about taxation as opposed to wages as a bench mark of a successful economy.
Not really a great example for us to follow now, is it ?
It was said you can't have the NHS without capitalism. Lots of countries have other issues besides.
The non-for-profit sector can only exist as Capitalism supports it.
You're conflating all sorts of things. Not for profit can exist in all sorts of economic environments. It's never capitalism that's supports it, just hard work.
As a minimum they have full access to the NHS.
... for now. Come back in twelve months.
and the article refers to a period covering three main parties in power in one form or another - which one is to blame do you reckon?
worth a second attempt - any answers?
so income inequality over past decade - under which administration did it rise the most, stay the same and/or fall - Labour, the Tory/Lib-dem coalition, Tories?
.You only have to watch a programme like Victorian Slums to see how much better off the poor are today
The point is that sort of benchmark is hardly indicative of where we should be. The thing that existed in Victorian times that still exists today is the concentration of wealth and control over the poor, and the mindset that bottom rung deserve all they get.
We ought to be way way ahead how we treat each other.
FFS not this again we live in a mixed economy capitalism needs healthy people who are well educated with roads to get them to work and police and prisons to keep them safe etc so without the state neither would you.Without Capitalism JY you would have no job
Its a symbiotic relationship within a mixed economy to claim only the private sector helps makes money is fatuous BS as they work together
Capitalism requires me as much as I require it whilst I live under the yoke of capitalism
Anyway you were meant to be convincing me it distributed resources adequately and evenly between all people to end hunger and want...try that approach will you rather than - as its is you its hard to tell if it was deliberate- completely miss the point i made.
the reality is some folk dont GAS about the needy and the hungry and are comfortable with a vast disparity in wealth that capitalism creates they dont mind a massive yacht or multiple billionaires as long as it others paying the cost by having to live in poverty unable to heat their homes or feed their kids. Lucky for us its not our kids.
We cannot all care about the less fortunate as you have demonstrated numerous times
Again I dont GAS about capitalism- though clearly it does produce great inequities if unregulated- i only care about ending suffering keep capitalism just spread the money around fairly as it stops people dying from things we could end
WHy do you not want to stop children dying from poverty Jamby?
The point is that sort of benchmark is hardly indicative of where we should be. The thing that existed in Victorian times that still exists today is the concentration of wealth and control over the poor, and the mindset that bottom rung deserve all they get.
Not true. Income inequality is still below the norms of the 19C and early 20C. It fell in early 20C (no shit Sherlock) and then rose steadily and then faster under she-wh-cannot-be mentioned. It is not high under long term standards - it is better.
Income inequality is still below the norms of the 19C and early 20C
Why are we still struggling then? Apart from the fact that our toilets are inside.
I wasn't using inequality in this example, more the make-up of society.
In general we are not. In some case we are. Overall life is much, much better, but that isn't such a good narrative for a rant is it? Have we done foodbanks recently?
. Overall life is much, much better
But do you think we could be way ahead in terms of looking after our poor and needy, or is there always going to be disparity?
All these brains and technology and we still live in effectively an antiquated society, with the haves and have-nots. The standards may have improved but the game is the same.
We can always do better = otherwise there would be no progress. Society is by definition modern or contemporary not antiquated. How many penny farthings do you see at BPW?
No one has suggested it is as bad as it has been what they have said it is it is not as good as it could be and it is still vastly unequal
Are you venturing into post truth politics now THM or do you fancy arguing that its all fairly distributed and we have ended [ or frankly even tried] to end want and suffering?
When presented with indisputable facts what one should do is play the man with "rant" claimst isn't such a good narrative for a rant is it?
No one is ranting here I am not even sure we a re disagreeing that much
Essentially do you want the world to be a fiarer place yes or no?
Do you want to stop people dying form hunger
yes or no
How many centuries of capitalism that gave us slavery, dark satanic mines and food banks 😉 do you need before you reconsider ?
Rone - we do have clear and very contemporary evidence 😉 that we could do [b]much better[/b] at educating people. But much better if all governments keep out that.
depends where you look we still have an outdated view of how the world came into being- can I call a 2000 year old + account antiquated ?- and worshipping gods in some quartersSociety is by definition modern or contemporary not antiquated
We can be both modern and antiquated depending on where you look
Agreed the real question is whether capitalism [or what we are doing now] is the vehicle to achieve thisWe can always do better
Inequitable distribution of wealth and income is clearly a flawed way to achieve less of it and its clearly an intrinsic outcome of capitalism that there must be millions of losers for every winner
Its ends up in the hands of the few not the many
How many penny farthings do you see at BPW?
If your measure of how well consumerism has done is a measure of how far we've come then you have inadvertently justified how poor we've done as society.
(I am by no means excluded in this process of enjoying my toys but I also realise material gain doesn't really fix an whole lot.)
If your measure of how well consumerism has done is a measure of how far we've come
sorry no idea what this means
then you have inadvertently justified how poor we've done as society.
are you still riding a 70s MTB by any chance?
I am just drinking a nice hot cup of ginger pubes tea. Twenty years ago it was PG or Tetley. Now the ginger pubes even makes into food parcels!
Your examples of progress are all based around products or material stuff rather than well-being.
As for 70s bike, see previous response.
do we have to go outside to have a crap with the scraps of paper to wipe our backsides
do we live longer
are we able to find out facts within a few seconds without having 20 copies of the encyclopaedia brittanica
do kids still suffer from polio
etc - the list is endless.
Given they also own 24% of the assets, and the constant barrage of statistics about how inequality has never been higher, I don't see a problem with that at all...
"Statistics" come from campaign groups with an axe to grind. Rich are materially poorer in terms of real assets than they where 100 years ago. For example instead of owning a whole house in Belgravia now they have a small flat. Also these campaign groups gloss over the value of universal health care and welfare payments. They value a flat in London or a house in SE at today's market value and then look at a renter in say NE and so look at the wealth disparity ?
If you asked a poor person today to go back and be poor 200, 100 or 50 years ago they would take their life today all day long.
I was going to post this in the Corbyn thread but our resident Comrade-in-chief has been praising Castro for his work on schools and the health service and glossing over the torture of opponents, Christians and homosexuals. This to be added to the economic catastrophe he oversaw in particular after Russia withdrew it's support. Cubans who's relatives have suffered at this hands have been celebrating his death in Miami. Communism in practice.
Red Ken has been putting his oar in too of course, a "beacon of light" - see notes on torture above
Ohhh, i'm bloody angry, the naked unashamed inequality in this country, tax breaks for the rich at the expense of the low waged and unwaged.
The crass ignorance of the "i'm ok, pull the ladder up" set
The "been there, but it doesn't effect me now" complacency
The constant attacks and demonisation of the poor and unwaged by the UK mainstream media and political classes
The cronyism in politics
The wholesale destruction of rights, housing, welfare and healthcare hard won by our grand parents after the horrors of WW2.
I'm angry, but i dont let it consume my life 24/7 - until ignorance or complacency is displayed in regards to the state that this country is in, despite being the 5th or 6th strongest economy in the world
That tends to spark me up a bit
Just dipped into this thread.
Having some close personal experience with pip in my family and a friend with MS the system said to help them is doing totally the opposite.
It is shameful and immoral. It disgusts me.
Not trying to convince anyone. It's just that reading the above comment and other similar ones reinstates my faith in humanity. There are others out there that see the hidden tragedy unfolding just as I and some others do.
That's all I wanted to say.
Having some close personal experience with pip in my family ... the system said to help them is doing totally the opposite.It is shameful and immoral. It disgusts me.
Right there with you on that one.
CMD banging on about how they've reduced the number of benefits claimants, whilst neatly glossing over the point that they've done so by implementing a system inherently designed for people deserving of help to fail. ****.
All of the advances in society Thm mentions, were all won at the risk of offending him AGAIN, after the War.
Up until 1979 where we have seen reversal of these advances via Chicago School of Economics ideology. This ideology was used by the big 3 parties as rightly pointed out previously, even New Labour. But what we have seen since 2010 appears to be a last hurrah of dying Neoliberalists, raiding the piggybank as much as humanly possible in the limited time available. I don't think in 2015 that Conservative couldn't believe their luck in Labour being so unelectable after constantly climbing in to bed with Tory policy, attacks on unemployed or disabled, or just as bad, abstention. Rachel Reeves, Frank Field, Liam Byrne and above all, David Freud make me vomitous.
So can we be clear, up until Corbyn, the political establishment were different cheeks of the same arse.
Weather Corbyn can change this, and offer a real form of opposition remains to be seen
But what we have seen since 2010 appears to be a last hurrah of dying Neoliberalists, raiding the piggybank as much as humanly possible in the limited time available.
In what way has the piggy bank been raided? Ok, the BoE has been stealing money off savers but that is not the Tories fault. Can you explain?
I don't think in 2015 that Conservative couldn't believe their luck in Labour being so unelectable
True.
If you asked a poor person today to go back and be poor 200, 100 or 50 years ago they would take their life today all day long.
Totally irrelevant. We are talking about the situation today not 200 years ago.
Thm, the NHS firesale, royal mail sold under market value to crony mates and best men at weddings, outsourcing of government bodies to pic's,-atos, Capita and so forth, Pfi, selling of public bought and owned royal bank of Scotland but only the profitable part of the bank, and again sold below market value, selling of profitable public owned railway infrastructure...
jambalaya - Member
Rich are materially poorer in terms of real assets than they where 100 years ago. For example instead of owning a whole house in Belgravia now they have a small flat
😆 brilliant
Do we really want to return to the condions that Robert Tressel waxed so lyrically about in The Ragged Trousered Philanthropist?
Because for some sections of society it's certainly looking that way
Sorry missed the firesale and RM share price pretty much where is started. Does your argument get better or should I just stop there?
Please can you provide an update of how this progressing?
I don't have to. The things Jamba said were dependent on capitalism were sustained for decades under the soviet system and were not the cause of it's collapse.
And this reductionist 'poor people are better off today' rubbish, the comparison to make is not against standards from the past, but against those who sit at the top of society today. The gap has grown massively in modern times to the detriment of not just the poor, but to society at large. There is perhaps a valid comparison to make between the poor here and those in other parts of the world, but again the difference between western poor people and developing world poor people is on a much lower scale than western poor vs western rich.
The gap has grown massively in modern times to the detriment of not just the poor, but to society at large
No it hasn't, it's narrowed but don't let that stop you.
And this reductionist 'poor people are better off today' rubbish, the comparison to make is not against standards from the past, but against those who sit at the top of society today. The gap has grown massively in modern times to the detriment of not just the poor, but to society at large.
That's nonsense. Nutrition, health-care, education (to name just a few) are closer today than they have ever been. Stop obsessing about shiny crap nobody actually needs and you might see how good everyone has it.
don't let that stop you.
Doesn't stop the other side talking bollox. Post-truth n all that. 😉
So the growing admissions to hospitals of malnutrition, and diseases associated with poverty are nothing to be concerned about, 5thelephant
Concening true, but whose to blame - worth asking a third time?
Blame? Frank Field, David Freud, Ian Duncan Smith would be a good starting point for that one.
The architects of welfare reform.
Who'd have thought if you dismantle welfare safety nets and sanction benefits income for up to 3 years, folk might not, y'know, not be able to eat nutritiously
Obesity is now a 'disease' of poverty. Wasn't long ago you had to be wealthy to get it.
Just because you're eating enough cheap sugar and carbohydrate laden shit to suffer obesity, it doesn't follow you getting the correct nutrients in your diet.
So are we saying that the food industry is responsible for malnutrition AND obesity in the poorer spectrum of society?
Chalk up another one to blame on capitalism, eh THM
How about "quick to blame, slow to take responsibility" ism?
Who makes people buy sugary crap instead of drinking free water?
The advertising industry. Chalk 2 to blame capitalism
So are we saying that the food industry is responsible for malnutrition AND obesity in the poorer spectrum of society?
That's the problem with living in a free society. You're free to make bad choices. You no longer need to be rich to get gout.
Sugar addiction
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23719144
Good article here
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(16)30795-4/fulltext
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/sugar-has-similar-effect-on-brain-as-cocaine-a6980336.html
Undernutrition remains a serious health issue for women and children in several developing countries, as pointed out by George Davey Smith in his Comment on the report on BMI trends (April 2, p 1349).1 However the situation is not exclusively undernutrition for the poor and overnutrition for the better off. The burden of obesity shifts progressively from the wealthier to the poorer groups with rising country income.2
Additionally, undernutrition and obesity can exist concurrently. This double burden of malnutrition has been observed at country, household, and even individual level. The typical pattern is an overweight or obese mother with a nutritionally stunted child. Although poverty is associated with undernutrition among children, it can result in obesity among adults.3
The Tories aren't just to blame for the rise in malnutrition, food bank dependency etc, they are also to blame for brexit ( Cameron you tit) that is going to hurt the poorest hardest, sweet 😉
Obesity is now a 'disease' of poverty. Wasn't long ago you had to be wealthy to get it.
When I see bottles of Laurent Perrier scattered about the council housing block instead of Buckfast you may have made a good point.
Obesity is now a 'disease' of poverty. Wasn't long ago you had to be wealthy to get it.
this is bollox to be honest. there is no link between social class and levels of obesity. The two groups least likely to be obese are poor men and rich women
Thing is... it's much much cheaper to buy frozen processed food than it is to buy fresh produce..
I could get a bag of Turkey Twizzlers and some oven chips for the same price as a cauliflower and a head of broccoli..
In fact.. buying an oven ready lasagne would be half the price.. Setting up a cycle of sugar, msg and carbohydrate addiction at a young age for poor families desperate to feed their kids
It's a cynical profit orientated system and it's the poor that suffer most
Putting your fingers in your ears and singing lalalala just demonstrates what a useless **** you are in terms of fixing society's ills
You no longer need to be rich to get gout.
FFS is that now the benchmark? I suppose we can also be thankful that working class proles can now afford to snort coke too?
It's even cheaper to buy half as much frozen processed food.
That aint coke, that's ephedrine and some kind of novocaine based anesthetic with a hefty price tag 😉