kidlewis Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 but if the budget itself and the policies are ridiculous, surely you should be reducing it any way? throwing money at something doesnt fix it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 They should just get the water canons out and let them bugger off home. Containing them only leds to frustration which in turn can lead to all sorts of violence. and they get to have a shower - always a bonus for the average student Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted November 10, 2010 Moderator Share Posted November 10, 2010 I'd just like to say I think a good ol' tear up protest is a brilliant thing. Poll tax riots - Ace! Anti Globalisation protests - Ace! [note I haven't seen the news and don't want anyone to die or get hurt] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaztonVilla Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 Brilliant!!! Protestor with a scarf covering his face immediately takes the scarf down to do an interview with Sky News. I don't want to be identified, but I'd like my mates to see me on the telly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 It's so obvious there are so many anarchists in there, Get the riot police and smash them out of the building, ffs someone is going to get pretty badly hurt soon. As soon as a man welding a baton enters the scene, flashbacks of the miners strikes will be all over the show. As soon as a man welding a baton enters the scene, flashbacks of ian tomlinson will not be all over the show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidlewis Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 someone said education is a right which is correct up to secondary education. Further education is a right, if you can pay towards it or unless you get a scholarship to pay for it all. Secondary education should (if it's worth it salt) give you the skills to be able to go into full time employment. If you think you can be a film producer, surgeon etc, then great, cos if you achieve it you will be earning a shit load. but you will have to put your money where your mouth is to achieve that. to say university should be free is quite frankly bollocks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 Can you imagine the indignation if the following happened. A lot of students cause mayhem, vandalise buildings and the laugh and joke at it all obviously under the influence of something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidlewis Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 I suppose taking the cost of repairs to the damage caused out of the university funding would go down well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 Did a student steal your missus? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidlewis Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 me? no Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 Nope. Still gibberish to me. I know the government doesn't wait till it gets my income tax before they spend it on benefits for the idle []. Nevertheless they plan to get X amount recieved in taxes each year/month....and they plan to spend Y amount on all kinds of stuff. The gap between what they get in and what they spend is ultimately defecit. (Yes I know they get income from other sources as well as taxes, but I'm trying to keep this relatively simple.) Taxes form a significant part of the government's ultimate income over time. It's somewhere just short of 40%. Like I said, no-one talks about raising the levels of taxes, really, no party wants to get "tagged" that way. All government spending needs us to be paying tax. But the credit crunch has hit this take too. - there, a yoghurt knitting link saying what I mean abut taxing. Here's a link to an explanation of some of the concepts in the theory I'm referring to. It includes a worked example, where he reduces the model to a simple household. (The household analogy only works because he has decreed himself the monopoly issuer of the currency in the household...he's emphatically not saying that a household is like a government.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 Should the 'breaking news' now be called 'broken news'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 ...just seen the fire extinguisher thrown from the roof... Do you mean you saw it being thrown from the roof, or that you saw a fire extinguisher which had been thrown from somewhere? I heard the radio report one had been thrown from the roof (pretty obviously immediately lethal), but later the reference was to an extinguisher which had been thrown towards police, the implication being thrown from the lobby, and not lethal. Pretty big difference. I can't see anything online which clarifies it either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidlewis Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 looks like the ones who broke inside are now not allowed to leave the building. looks like they're all getting (or increasing) a criminal record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 looks like the ones who broke inside are now not allowed to leave the building. looks like they're all getting (or increasing) a criminal record. I suppose they could just offer to pay for the vandalism and it will all be forgotten, this Gvmt seemingly like that precedent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidlewis Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 ...just seen the fire extinguisher thrown from the roof... Do you mean you saw it being thrown from the roof, or that you saw a fire extinguisher which had been thrown from somewhere? I heard the radio report one had been thrown from the roof (pretty obviously immediately lethal), but later the reference was to an extinguisher which had been thrown towards police, the implication being thrown from the lobby, and not lethal. Pretty big difference. I can't see anything online which clarifies it either way. no video footage showed in thrown from the roof, if it had hit anyone it was 100% game over for them. **** close to a police officer. He had a helmet on but he'd be quadraspazzed if it hit him/her anyway. few bottles etc as well thrown also on footage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaztonVilla Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 ...just seen the fire extinguisher thrown from the roof... Do you mean you saw it being thrown from the roof, or that you saw a fire extinguisher which had been thrown from somewhere? I heard the radio report one had been thrown from the roof (pretty obviously immediately lethal), but later the reference was to an extinguisher which had been thrown towards police, the implication being thrown from the lobby, and not lethal. Pretty big difference. I can't see anything online which clarifies it either way. Sky News helicopter caught it being held out over the edge of the roof railings and swung in such a way that, when released, it would be heading towards a bunch of coppers down below. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidlewis Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 looks like the ones who broke inside are now not allowed to leave the building. looks like they're all getting (or increasing) a criminal record. I suppose they could just offer to pay for the vandalism and it will all be forgotten, this Gvmt seemingly like that precedent it will be soaked up by taxpayers anyway or the buildings insurance policy. there are other offices apart from the tories in there aren't there? i'd be going tits if I had an office in there. I'd be down to argos to get a super soaker and be spraying my piss over the protesters in that building. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rendelc Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 A lot of ' student ' protestors faces on full view . Lets hope they are dragged in front of the courts i the coming days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted November 10, 2010 Moderator Share Posted November 10, 2010 Nope. Still gibberish to me. I know the government doesn't wait till it gets my income tax before they spend it on benefits for the idle []. ...url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/apr/25/tax-receipts-1963]All government spending needs us to be paying tax. But the credit crunch has hit this take too. - there, a yoghurt knitting link saying what I mean abut taxing. Here's a link to an explanation of some of the concepts in the theory I'm referring to. It includes a worked example, where he reduces the model to a simple household. (The household analogy only works because he has decreed himself the monopoly issuer of the currency in the household...he's emphatically not saying that a household is like a government.) It's no longer gibberish, which is good. It's now utter bollex, which is not so good. Maybe because he's simplifying, maybe because it's just one view. I won't go into the whole thing, but he's getting his kids to do work for the gov't (him), not as private sector. But he's making the analogy that they are private sector. If they were private sector they could get "business cards" from neighbours, and instead of doing jobs for him, would be doing jobs for others - The whole tax stuff would be different His example doesn't account for the costs of feeding them, and heating their beds etc. Money that he is also paying out (as the Gov't owner of the building) - he would have to pay out business cards (or real money) to the utility co.s which mess up his example and some of the conclusions drawn. In trying to simplify things, he's kept only the elements that support his conclusions, and left out all the ones that don't support it. t's too simple. I dunno if that's intentional or not, but to me it's misleading and I suspect deliberately so. (or I'm just not getting something, here) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts