what sort of government uses water cannon on protestors?

ChrisMcKendrick

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

Are you sure it was men? Could it not have been 2 women dressed as men or 2 boys that just looked old?

Best punish everyone including yourself, just in case.


Thanks for the apology. I didn't read any of it apart from the first & last paragraphs.

Don't do it again.

It may have been 2 women dressed as very convincing men, but they sure were surly and well practiced at the old mugging game. Anyway, you shouldn't encourage any further misanthrope or masochism from me!

You probably saved valuable time ont reading it all. I'll try not to do it again

PhylPho wrote: »

@ Chris McKendrick: a welcome and thoughtful post but I'd have to quibble over some of the points.

For example, the reference to the 'cabal' of politicians ushering in the cuts, as if we're all peasants and subject to the whims of Sun King courtiers. We're not, and they ain't. A pragmatic electorate voted pragmatically at the last election and the will to end the days of the UK dining out on credit is actually a desire of many. Not the hobby-horse of some elite group.

As to the banks, the extent to which this country's finances were getting out of control was pretty obvious before the credit crunch.

In respect of the banking / finance sector, Society needs it to function for Society to function. The amoral thugs who turned banking into gambling knew that just as much as the elected institution of governance knew it. The tab we're picking up now for 'saving the banks' is a necessary tab in everyone's interests, though that we're having to do so as much because of the cynical greed of bankers as the utter dumb incompetence of our elected representatives is galling.

Your concluding point about context is well-made, though as your post refers to earlier episodes of history it might've been best to keep context in mind in that respect.

For example: when these current days of ultra-low interest rates come to an end, many will no doubt complain how unfair it is that earlier generations benefited from mortgage interest relief at source (MIRAS) and why then can't they?

The answer is in your word 'context' -- that and an explanation, perhaps, that contexts change. Always have. Always will.

I agree that we are getting the governance we voted for, and that the access to easy credit must contract for the sake of economic sanity and stability. And I do appreciate that banks perform an important function, and that for the preservation of stability, bailing out the banks was seen by many as necessary. It is where the burden of the economic crisis is being placed that I take issue with.

Point taken about context!

ninky wrote: »

i wish i could thank you more than once for a sensible and thoughtful post.

Thanks I wouldn't count on it happening too often, I was having a rare serious moment!

purch

It's media pandering to its own desires. Dramatic news makes for dramatic presentation -- and if the visuals are great, so much the better

Of course the CCTV footage of the bloke firing his handgun at people at a School Board meeting in Florida was only shown on BBC News due to.........errr nothing other than drama.

Maybe, it's because the TV schedules are so full of Singing or Dancing competitions, or programs showing non celebrities eating spiders, that the News has to meet the TV Channels Drama program quotas.