what sort of government uses water cannon on protestors?

ninky_2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

They didn't charge YOU though did they.

You were part of a crowd they charged.

You were at a protest. You presumably knew this was a volitile situation to be in?

oh !!!!!!. any situation where there are other people is a potentially volatile situation. perhaps no one should go out their house ever.

vaporate

olly300 wrote: »

Yes I do

I enjoy winding them up.

Keep your dirty fantasies to yourself LOL. :rotfl:

olly300

ninky wrote: »

they might think our tax system is lacking. the scandinavian way seems to be tax higher and provide top notch progressive public services. if it wasn't so cold there i'd be tempted to emigrate.

It's not the cold that gets you - housing is well heated and insulated and public transport is on time - it's the extremes in daylight.

Some people can't cope with a few hours of daylight in the winter, while others can't cope with no dark at night.

wotsthat

Originally Posted by wotsthat
If you've got anything bad to say about Camilla you can just about say it to me first.

jamesd wrote: »

You're not as pretty a woman as Diana.

Get ye behind me Satan!

Graham_Devon

ninky wrote: »

oh !!!!!!. any situation where there are other people is a potentially volatile situation. perhaps no one should go out their house ever.

!!!!!! indeed.

Do you really see no difference between a marching protest, and "any other group" of people!?

Seriously!?

The key is the potential, as you stated.

Potential of disruption on an angry march about poll tax? Pretty high.

Potential of being charged at the annual choir meeting. Pretty low.

Potential of getting into trouble walking through a dodgy gang infested estate at midnight....pretty high.

Potential of getting into trouble walking around the zoo, 3pm on a sunday afternoon...pretty low.

And yes, 15 year olds can measure potential in these situations.

WhiteHorse

ninky wrote: »

what sort of government uses water cannon on protestors?

A very restrained one.

Try running around Red Square setting fire to things and see how far you get.

jamesd

ninky wrote: »

oxbridge already recruits 92 percent of students from the top 3 social classes. we already have problems with equality of opportunity in the uk. no need to make it worse.

Do you believe that:

1. There is an inherited component to intelligence.
2. There is an environmental component to intelligence
3. Those from the top three social classes are likely to have children of similar inherited characteristics to themselves.
4. Those from the top three social classes are more likely to see the benefit of providing an environment for their children that is conducive to learning and expressing intelligence than those with more difficult backgrounds?

If you believe those things, it would appear that equality of opportunity suggests that there should be a high proportion of those in the top three social classes at Oxbridge on the basis of merit, simply because of the inherited and consequential factors.

Changing the biology of inheritance is a tough problem. So is changing the perception of those who are intelligent that it's good for them to help their children to realise the benefits of their inherited intelligence.

ninky_2

olly300 wrote: »

Their highest rate of income tax kicks in at a much lower level than in the UK meaning that more people pay a higher rate. Hence they can afford to fund both their pre-school education and higher education.

You can't have it both ways. You either have to pay more income tax plus something like 9-25% VAT on currently zero rated items such as food, or you can pay the current level of tax we do now.

i'll pick paying more tax then thanks.:D

of course there are far more options for increased tax than the rather loaded suggestion of taxing food purchases you put forward. trying to scare the horses again with faux hobson's choices.

ffacoffipawb

what sort of government uses water cannon on protestors?

One with a water supply that isnt metered?

ninky_2

jamesd wrote: »

Do you believe that:

1. There is an inherited component to intelligence.
2. There is an environmental component to intelligence
3. Those from the top three social classes are likely to have children of similar inherited characteristics to themselves.
4. Those from the top three social classes are more likely to see the benefit of providing an environment for their children that is conducive to learning and expressing intelligence than those with more difficult backgrounds?

If you believe those things, it would appear that equality of opportunity suggests that there should be a high proportion of those in the top three social classes at Oxbridge on the basis of merit, simply because of the inherited and consequential factors.

Changing the biology of inheritance is a tough problem. So is changing the perception of those who are intelligent that it's good for them to help their children to realise the benefits of their inherited intelligence.

absolute rubbish. there is no evidence to support the upper classes being genetically superior. i agree traits such as a predisposition to intelligence may well be inherited but the way society has developed there has simply not been time for evolution to keep up with the traits that are socially rewarded. wealth can also leap a generation though chance. win the lottery and pay for your kids to go to the best schools and suddenly they have a good chance of oxbridge attendance.

regarding wealth and genetic superiority look further afield. the saudis are pretty damn wealthy. is this due to genetic superiority?