Off Topic Political Debate

The bile filled whinging is from those 'hard done bys' on here, pathetic.

 

I'm not sure that WBGS qualifies for the 'elite grammar school' tag, but actually getting into it never really did much for me.

Apart, of course, from a drawer full of school reports containing the words lazy, idle, feckless, couldn't-care-less, indolent, will-never-amount-to-anything.... And I can well imagine the words that the teachers would like to have written, but were barred from doing so.

 

State schools should all be set to provide the best education they are capable of - however streaming by subject should not be ignored and from a certain age we should recognise that not everyone has to be Uni fodder. Having schools that encourage technical and other skills that provide a life of opportunity and employment is needed - not the stupid aim to get a % of people into Uni at whatever cost.

 

but did it make you a rounded, balanced and useful member of society with excellent social skills?

 

No - that was Australia and the experiences/opportunities it afforded me.

Although the 'rounded' bit happened after returning here.

 

Of course, naturallement.

 

You mean 'naturellement'

 

Just testing!

 

I bet I am more "rounded" than most on here unfortunately

 

I'm giving my belly some exercise tonight bopping to UB 40 and Heather Small (M People). Might have a few pints though.

Have a good weekend everybody.

 

I did not say that I was against all technology Leo, but I do not replace it every 2 years like most people replace their computers, smart phones etc. It is not hard to calculate your own carbon footprint and there is no 'good' level - but I calculated mine as being a third of the average for Engelskirchen (for the town 11.6 tons Co2 per head per year), so I'm on the way. My attitude to technology is firstly to ask whether I really need something in the first place (will the time saved by using this technology really be used productively) and then to use the one model for as long as possible. I also don't have a car, and grow as much of our food as I can - tools tend to be shared. I can't say what is good or bad in this respect, but think that if people went by the motto 'take from the World only what you need to live', then it would be a good start - because anything more than that is taken from someone else.

 

My car is ten years old - but I like it - so environmentally should I change it for a new car with much lower emissions?
You may not be against technology but the companies that produce it are not your local ma and pa operations.
Nor are cancer and heart drug companies.
My motto in life is to try to enjoy it - not to be bound by being pro or anti technology. As it happens Mrs L and I now have most pleasure in very simple pursuits such as gardening, cycling and walking. However if she were well it would be nice to be able to drive to visit my children or fly to Aberdeen to visit my brother - these though are enforced denials - not chosen for some artifical "better for the planet" reason. Why should people live artifically non technological lives so that the planet can have 8 billion people - any true environmentalist should in my opinion focus totally on the infestation of humans - not how they live.

 

Is there an ideological values split?:

The right favour competition
The left favour collaboration

 

It's much more fun to get information about politics from comedy shows, I just wish the Ian Hislop as he appears on "Have I got news for you" had shown up on Question Time, instead of the serious person who is the editor of Private Eye.

 

I think in two words that is as good a way to sum it up as you can. Which path leads to a better society - or do both in their own different ways?

 

Some of us who sit in the middle and don't define ourselves as left or right, like to see some of both.

 

The difference being that in sport beating someone one week still leaves the loser in a position to come back against you next week - real life is often different. If you accept the principle of inequality and private ownership what should be the criteria by which it is decided ? Should work be the only way of becoming wealthy - and what is 'work', how can we define it ?

 

I think you need both... in balance... wealth need to be for the good of all (I know that is where division occurs when we discuss this).

Evolutionary theories which have demonstrated that the species that survive are the ones that collaborate have also influenced my thinking.

The fact that some people work so much more than others is a hard one as clearly they 'deserve' the fruits of their labour whereas 'lard-ons' clearly need to pull their weight.

 

Are you talking about the lard-ons at the bottom or the lard-ons at the top? They appear to abound at either end...

 

A good friend's wife has a neurological disease that is quite new to doctors - they've only recently come up with a name for it. It is totally debilitating most of the time, but she has good days and bad days. She had a mobility car so that she could, on good days, get out, as her husband works all hours to support her and their three children (two of whom have disabilities). I know him because he, in his spare time (!) volunteers for a charity caring for disabled children. To get reassessed on the mobility car he drove her to the assessment centre. The very short walk of 21metres from the car park to the offices took her an hour with a walking frame and many rests. On getting inside, filling in the signing in sheet that included the car registration if you'd parked in the car park, they discovered that the criterion for getting a mobility car is that you can walk no further than 20metres. So, by making all the effort she made they disqualified themselves from having a mobility car. It was taken away a couple of months ago. She now sits in an armchair in her bedroom all day watching TV, reading books, on good days, waiting for her husband to come home. They are on the breadline.
One of the lard-ons from the bottom 'found out' by cynical assessment.