Gloom and despondency in the UK.

Big Business, Small Business, Investments, and Personal Finances
Clodhopper
Posts: 5115
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm

Gloom and despondency in the UK.

Post by Clodhopper »

spot: Reckon I'm between 15 and 20 feet above. By the time I'm at risk of flooding I suspect I'll have more pressing concerns (like: where's my next meal?)

Megacity...shudder.

gmc: Now now. Just because you didn't get to the World Cup.:p

Are you a keen fisherman, btw?
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"

Lone voice: "I'm not."
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15987
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Gloom and despondency in the UK.

Post by Bryn Mawr »

Raven;1314746 wrote: Have you looked around you today? Can you go anywhere where there are not at least 5 different languages being spoken? And how about all the Mohammed adverts in London lately? And what about English babies? All I see in my neck of the sceptered isle is mixed race babies. Mind you, they are cute as all babies are, but still. Britain isnt changing, mate. It has changed.


Britain always changes - it would not be the Britain we know were it not for the constant change.

Over just the last two hundred years the area I live in has been home to Chinese, French, Dutch, Irish, Jews, West Indians and Bangladeshis in turn (not counting the smaller migrations like the Somalis and Eastern Europeans).

When you expand your view to cover the last ten thousand years the "British" have been driven out by the Picts, the Celts / Geals, the Romans, the Angles / Saxons / Jutes, the Danes and the Normans. More recently, whilst the general population has remained fairly stable, if mixed, the ruling power has moved from the "native" British to the Scots, the Dutch and the Germans.

So what you're seeing is nothing new, indeed, anything else would be un-British.
User avatar
Bill Sikes
Posts: 5515
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am

Gloom and despondency in the UK.

Post by Bill Sikes »

Bryn Mawr;1314861 wrote: When you expand your view to cover the last ten thousand years


The British ar a mixed bag of allsorts. This applies to the fringes as well as the middle of the Islands, over that timescale. The issue now is the sudden influx of settlers, in very large numbers. It is, I think, the largest change in population composition ever - and it's happened, mainly, since the 1970s.
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15987
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Gloom and despondency in the UK.

Post by Bryn Mawr »

Bill Sikes;1314882 wrote: The British ar a mixed bag of allsorts. This applies to the fringes as well as the middle of the Islands, over that timescale. The issue now is the sudden influx of settlers, in very large numbers. It is, I think, the largest change in population composition ever - and it's happened, mainly, since the 1970s.


I'm fairly sure that, as a percentage of the population, we've seen this rate of immigration before. You're here, you notice it so it appears "worse than ever before" but people have been saying that during every upheaval.
Clodhopper
Posts: 5115
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm

Gloom and despondency in the UK.

Post by Clodhopper »

You know, the thing that surprises me is not our diversity - successive waves of migrants over thousands of years will do that - but the level of continuity. I can't recall the details off the top of my head, but they found some really old human bone in Cheddar Caves, about 4 or 5,000 years old, and extracted some dna. A study of the current local population found a descendent of his living in the village of Cheddar. A teacher, I think.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"

Lone voice: "I'm not."
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Gloom and despondency in the UK.

Post by gmc »

Clodhopper;1314819 wrote: spot: Reckon I'm between 15 and 20 feet above. By the time I'm at risk of flooding I suspect I'll have more pressing concerns (like: where's my next meal?)

Megacity...shudder.

gmc: Now now. Just because you didn't get to the World Cup.:p

Are you a keen fisherman, btw?


Try asking what people in the lake district think about having hosepipe bans while their water is piped to manchester. It's not sour grapes to point out the south east of england is overpopulated and water supply is going to be a serious problem. :yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl (sorry, just had an image of the SNP lining up along the banks of the reservoir to **** in it before it goes south)

We cannot feed ourselves as it is and are dependant on food imports, the water supply can barely cope, there is a finite number of people the UK can sustain. Just because there is empty space doesn't mean it is suitable for agriculture.
Clodhopper
Posts: 5115
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm

Gloom and despondency in the UK.

Post by Clodhopper »

Try asking what people in the lake district think about having hosepipe bans while their water is piped to manchester. It's not sour grapes to point out the south east of england is overpopulated and water supply is going to be a serious problem. (sorry, just had an image of the SNP lining up along the banks of the reservoir to **** in it before it goes south)

We cannot feed ourselves as it is and are dependant on food imports, the water supply can barely cope, there is a finite number of people the UK can sustain. Just because there is empty space doesn't mean it is suitable for agriculture.


You're telling me! A third of my home county vanished when they built Rutland Water!

But I concede the necessity. It seems sensible to me that parts of the UK with a high rainfall pass it on to regions with a lower rainfall. If we need more reservoirs it makes sense to build them in the high rainfall areas, especially if those are also low population density areas. Why is this sort of co-operation apparently so offensive to you?
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"

Lone voice: "I'm not."
Royd Fissure
Posts: 152
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 7:04 am

Gloom and despondency in the UK.

Post by Royd Fissure »

Bill Sikes;1314763 wrote: From their FAQ at http://www.westminster-abbey.org/faq:

Entrance fees: Why do I have to pay to look around the Abbey?

Westminster Abbey does not charge people who want to worship. But we do rely almost entirely on paying visitors and tourists to meet the costs of running the Abbey and maintaining the historic buildings.

It surprises most people to learn that the Abbey receives no funding from the Crown, the Church or the State. In fact, admission charges to Westminster Abbey have been in place for over 300 years and perhaps even longer. In 1697, visitors paid 3d to see all parts of the Abbey. By 1723 this charge had doubled and, by 1806, it had risen to 1s 11d, including a 2d tip to the ‘tomb-shewer’. In the latter part of the last century, entrance charges were 2s 6d in the sixties, £2 in 1989 and £5 in 1998. The admission charge is now £15.

The annual cost of the day-to-day running of the Abbey is around £9 million and the admission charges enable the Dean and Chapter to maintain the Abbey and neighbouring St Margaret’s – as well as meeting the needs of the millions of people from around the world who are very keen to worship at or visit the Abbey.

Although the Abbey relies almost entirely on admissions charges, the Dean and Chapter are keen to make sure access to the Abbey does not become too expensive to those less able to pay and for that reason concessionary charges are lower.


Cheers Bill. they'll never believe I'm a worshipper so it's either miss or stump up. :D
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Gloom and despondency in the UK.

Post by gmc »

Clodhopper;1314911 wrote: You're telling me! A third of my home county vanished when they built Rutland Water!

But I concede the necessity. It seems sensible to me that parts of the UK with a high rainfall pass it on to regions with a lower rainfall. If we need more reservoirs it makes sense to build them in the high rainfall areas, especially if those are also low population density areas. Why is this sort of co-operation apparently so offensive to you?


It's not offensive but it would mean rather than addressing the cause of the problem - overexploitation of resources and too high a population - they are just extending the problem elsewhere. It's sheer stupidity. It's the same way fisheries get wiped out because of overfishing so instead of changing practices they go elsewhere and do it again and again and then wonder why nothing is left. It's a resource that belongs to the people and to see it taken for private profit would get most scots angry. It's not a case that scotland and the north of england are subsidised by the south of england it's the other way round - everything gets sucked in there.
User avatar
Bill Sikes
Posts: 5515
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am

Gloom and despondency in the UK.

Post by Bill Sikes »

Royd Fissure;1314935 wrote: Cheers Bill. they'll never believe I'm a worshipper so it's either miss or stump up. : D


If you stump up, make sure you get your money's worth!
User avatar
spot
Posts: 40203
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Gloom and despondency in the UK.

Post by spot »

Since we're in the process of being gloomy and despondent about the UK in this thread, I wonder whether the new generation Conservatives are going to cause vile health crises like the old one did? BSE was an entirely Thatcherite disease, if I remember right. She brought on landfill cows and countryside pyres of burnt offerings in the name of increased profits and reduced standards. Maggie Maggie Maggie, Out Out Out - that was the sound of the nineties, I do hope nobody's forgotten. This new chap in the suit has a cleaner image but he's got a long way to go yet.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.

Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
My other operating system is Slackware
User avatar
Bill Sikes
Posts: 5515
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am

Gloom and despondency in the UK.

Post by Bill Sikes »

spot;1315032 wrote: BSE was an entirely Thatcherite disease, if I remember right.


Cripes, now you're blaming Margaret Thatcher for BSE! She was one of the best leaders we've ever had, and responsible for extracting us from the quagmire we were tipped into by the previous failed Labour administrations, abetted briefly by that nonentity, Heath. We were dropped squarely back into the ***** again by the last Labour mob, mostly by Blair, with the problems compounded under Brown. Now we've got to dig ourselves out again. You are *really* scrapieing the bottom of the barrel.
User avatar
Snowfire
Posts: 4835
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:34 am

Gloom and despondency in the UK.

Post by Snowfire »

BSE was, surely an animal hubandry problem ie animal by products fed to cattle. In what way did Thatcher or indeed the Tories influence this event.

As much as I like to blame her for most things, I dont see the link
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."

Winston Churchill
User avatar
spot
Posts: 40203
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Gloom and despondency in the UK.

Post by spot »

And why were inadequately processed animal byproducts fed to cattle? Whose government lowered the regulatory standards? Let's all make a quick fortune by skimping on essentials, was it? Did Thatcher's get rich quick and wallow in champagne approach have nothing to do with it? On the contrary, she might as well have gone out at midnight with huge syringes injecting the dumb brutes with the stuff and it wouldn't surprise me if she did exactly that.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.

Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
My other operating system is Slackware
User avatar
spot
Posts: 40203
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Gloom and despondency in the UK.

Post by spot »

Britons never, never, never shall be slaves as long as the spirit of people like Leon Humphreys occasionally breaks cover...

Court refuses trial by combat

I know it's an old cutting but it's a delight. It lifts the gloom and despondency to find stories as pretty as this.A court has rejected a 60-year-old man's attempt to invoke the ancient right to trial by combat, rather than pay a £25 fine for a minor motoring offence. Leon Humphreys remained adamant yesterday that his right to fight a champion nominated by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) was still valid under European human rights legislation. He said it would have been a "reasonable" way to settle the matter.

Magistrates sitting at Bury St Edmunds on Friday had disagreed and instead of accepting his offer to take on a clerk from Swansea with "samurai swords, Ghurka knives or heavy hammers", fined him £200 with £100 costs.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.

Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
My other operating system is Slackware
Royd Fissure
Posts: 152
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 7:04 am

Gloom and despondency in the UK.

Post by Royd Fissure »

They would have pinched him for breaching the anti-duelling laws anyway spot :D
Clodhopper
Posts: 5115
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm

Gloom and despondency in the UK.

Post by Clodhopper »

Royd: I'm not sure about that. This is to settle a legal matter, not a matter of honour and the precedent is in Mediaeval and Saxon law.

Fortunately, there's a mechanism (I don't know what it is, but spot might) for ignoring age old law that never got repealed. Or a lot of us would owe a big sum in fines for neglecting our archery! :wah:

(Oh: Mighty fine set of backs your lads have! Enjoyed the game.)
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"

Lone voice: "I'm not."
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Gloom and despondency in the UK.

Post by gmc »

spot;1315054 wrote: And why were inadequately processed animal byproducts fed to cattle? Whose government lowered the regulatory standards? Let's all make a quick fortune by skimping on essentials, was it? Did Thatcher's get rich quick and wallow in champagne approach have nothing to do with it? On the contrary, she might as well have gone out at midnight with huge syringes injecting the dumb brutes with the stuff and it wouldn't surprise me if she did exactly that.


I would blame the cattle food companies. I can't believe any farmer would knowingly feed offal to their cattle they would however trust the feed supplier most of whom incidentally sold throughout europe the french and germans were better at blaming it on something else when the symptoms appeared in their cattle. I would personaly start with the scientists who thought it was a great idea in the first place. However, When it comes to ignoring scientific advice and not letting the facts get in the way of a good theory thatcher couldn't hold a candle to new labour. Compared to Tony Blair and gordon brown at kleast you could hate thatcher new labour are almost beneath contempt.

I hear their new manifesto is entitled it was nothing to do with us.
Clodhopper
Posts: 5115
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm

Gloom and despondency in the UK.

Post by Clodhopper »

It's not offensive but it would mean rather than addressing the cause of the problem - overexploitation of resources and too high a population - they are just extending the problem elsewhere. It's sheer stupidity. It's the same way fisheries get wiped out because of overfishing so instead of changing practices they go elsewhere and do it again and again and then wonder why nothing is left. It's a resource that belongs to the people and to see it taken for private profit would get most scots angry. It's not a case that scotland and the north of england are subsidised by the south of england it's the other way round - everything gets sucked in there.


Must admit I have been aware of how dependent on imports we are for basic food since my schooldays. But it seemed so big a problem and no-one else appeared worried. I just assumed it would continue because it has to continue because if it doesn't things will get really nasty. Not great logic, but that's often the way with assumptions when you look at them. And the only people who were on about immigration were the NF which made it even more difficult an issue to talk about.

At least people are now looking at the issue openly, which is a step in the right direction.

The relationship between North and South is both ways. London is a major world city and a major contributor to the British economy. That's the way it is. What do you think should be moved out to the provinces? Bits of the Civil Service are more scattered - DVLA in Cardiff, British Council based in Manchester for example.

And no matter what the property prices, people keep buying!

What do you suggest?

PS: Immigration is the smaller part of the issue. Birthrate and aging population the other part. Thare's a balance to be struck.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"

Lone voice: "I'm not."
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Gloom and despondency in the UK.

Post by gmc »

Clodhopper;1315552 wrote: Must admit I have been aware of how dependent on imports we are for basic food since my schooldays. But it seemed so big a problem and no-one else appeared worried. I just assumed it would continue because it has to continue because if it doesn't things will get really nasty. Not great logic, but that's often the way with assumptions when you look at them. And the only people who were on about immigration were the NF which made it even more difficult an issue to talk about.

At least people are now looking at the issue openly, which is a step in the right direction.

The relationship between North and South is both ways. London is a major world city and a major contributor to the British economy. That's the way it is. What do you think should be moved out to the provinces? Bits of the Civil Service are more scattered - DVLA in Cardiff, British Council based in Manchester for example.

And no matter what the property prices, people keep buying!

What do you suggest?

PS: Immigration is the smaller part of the issue. Birthrate and aging population the other part. Thare's a balance to be struck.


It can't continue and it looks like it's the generation to come that is going to be paying the price. I think the damage has been too severe to recover.

Don't think any of the current crop of labour politicians amount to a shadow of their predecessors.

YouTube - Tony Benn -- The issue is Thatcher

YouTube - War in Iraq: Robin Cooks' Resignation speech Part 1

None of what is happening is a surprise plenty saw what was happening but we've allowed a situation where government exists in a vacuum from society. I have no suggestions but i have always voted for parties that favour proportional representation and maybe coalition will curb the excess you get when one party or group within a party thinks it has a right to rule. On the other hand we've always done well despite the arseholes in charge.
Clodhopper
Posts: 5115
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm

Gloom and despondency in the UK.

Post by Clodhopper »

You can understand how the current young seem to be doing their best to party before Armageddon. Feel the same urge myself from time to time.

But the immigration/aging population/birthrate issue is complex. I don't see it as insoluble, but think we will have to rely on spot's tofu factories within my lifetime.

Every new gov'ts manifesto has at least a section titled "It was Them!" But increasingly it seems Brown was a disaster of the first order. Clegg and Cameron have both so far (v early days) impressed. Tremble at the thought of Osborne as Chancellor. Notice hown he's bracketed by Lib Dems? All most interesting and most clever. A good sign.

We'll see. It's not going to be pleasant medicine, though.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"

Lone voice: "I'm not."
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15987
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Gloom and despondency in the UK.

Post by Bryn Mawr »

gmc;1315542 wrote: I would blame the cattle food companies. I can't believe any farmer would knowingly feed offal to their cattle they would however trust the feed supplier most of whom incidentally sold throughout europe the french and germans were better at blaming it on something else when the symptoms appeared in their cattle. I would personaly start with the scientists who thought it was a great idea in the first place. However, When it comes to ignoring scientific advice and not letting the facts get in the way of a good theory thatcher couldn't hold a candle to new labour. Compared to Tony Blair and gordon brown at kleast you could hate thatcher new labour are almost beneath contempt.

I hear their new manifesto is entitled it was nothing to do with us.


Any farmer who fed it to his beasts not knowing what was in it should have his metaphorical licence revoked - it would be like mating stock without knowing or recording their pedigree.
Royd Fissure
Posts: 152
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 7:04 am

Gloom and despondency in the UK.

Post by Royd Fissure »

Clodhopper;1315540 wrote: Royd: I'm not sure about that. This is to settle a legal matter, not a matter of honour and the precedent is in Mediaeval and Saxon law.

Fortunately, there's a mechanism (I don't know what it is, but spot might) for ignoring age old law that never got repealed. Or a lot of us would owe a big sum in fines for neglecting our archery! :wah:

(Oh: Mighty fine set of backs your lads have! Enjoyed the game.)


if you're a protestant you should still be keeping your weapons ready to be called up by the monarch...oh wait a minute, I think that one was repealed as well :-3

I don't know if anyone is watching the Wallabies at the moment - media seems to be wondering why Germany thrashed us...I can tell them of course but they'd never believe me :wah:

Return to “Wall Street to Main Street”