It is currently Wed May 22, 2013 10:35 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 87 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Nick Ferrari
PostPosted: Mon Apr 09, 2012 10:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 9:31 am
Posts: 760
Malcolm Armsteen wrote:
Yeah. 'Cos it would be ludicrous to concentrate resources on the areas of highest population, wouldn't it?


If it's at the expence of other areas, making it less viable to live elsewhere, and making it denser and denser populated becoming a self fulfilling prophecy, then yes.

Focus on moving jobs elsewhere, stop this tedious 'London is the bestest and everywhere else in the country is shit' attitude and spread the population out.

Of course, this isn't somthing the tories would ever fancy. Horrible, poor northeners having stuff likemoney and attractive opportunities.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nick Ferrari
PostPosted: Mon Apr 09, 2012 10:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 26, 2009 11:46 pm
Posts: 22984
Location: In la France profonde, without personal transport...
Ha.
That's just another stereotypical view. Come to Tower Hamlets and look at the levels of privilege there.
Perhaps to please this provincialism we could move the seat of government to Peterborough or Northallerton.

However much it upsets some people the seat of government and much of the wealth creation (sadly) resides in the bottom right quarter of England. It exists. It needs to be fed and watered.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nick Ferrari
PostPosted: Mon Apr 09, 2012 11:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2009 6:10 pm
Posts: 4254
Location: That fancy London, with it's book learning. Sadly not being anywhere else..
Silkyman wrote:
Malcolm Armsteen wrote:
Yeah. 'Cos it would be ludicrous to concentrate resources on the areas of highest population, wouldn't it?


If it's at the expence of other areas, making it less viable to live elsewhere, and making it denser and denser populated becoming a self fulfilling prophecy, then yes.

Focus on moving jobs elsewhere, stop this tedious 'London is the bestest and everywhere else in the country is shit' attitude and spread the population out.

Of course, this isn't somthing the tories would ever fancy. Horrible, poor northeners having stuff likemoney and attractive opportunities.


You can't stop people wanting to move to the cities if they want to. If they wrongly believe the London streets to be paved with gold, then that is their own stupidity. It doesn't mean they are coming here because we are telling them to.

Neither I nor anyone else I know here in London thinks it is the best place on earth and everywhere else is shit...perhaps that's just what the non-Londoners you know have told you we think? Consider the source.

_________________
"Now get those trousers off before someone dies!"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nick Ferrari
PostPosted: Sat Apr 14, 2012 10:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 9:31 am
Posts: 760
It it's where the jobs are and it's where the 'wealth generation' is. I know plenty of people who have had to move down there. Some of them wanted to, some had to. These include someone who wanted to work in politics. Fair enough. Someone who works in advertising. Why? And even a chuffing doctor!

I had to start my own business if I wanted to stay living up here. I work in PR and have pitched to local companies who have ended up going with London firms at far greater expense. Madness.

So we build more infrastructure to support all the jobs that clearly have to be in London (this being such a vast country) which pulls more people in as they create more jobs etc. Internationally it's the only city most people know about. (of course the government refused to back Manchester's bid for the 2000 Olympics and the city (and for that matter 'City') is still waiting for the transport links to the commonwealth games stadium after that money and money for another large project was redirected to crossrail) so because England and London are largely seen as synonymous immigration focuses there too. The polish deli in Macc actually shut down recently. not enough custom.

All in the dryest part of the country - omg we can't use hosepipes! It's not fair!

The move of the BBC to Salford is a great start, but has shown up a lot of people's attitudes (and gone some way to explaining the media bias) because of the absolute fury some people reacted with at being asked to move to the wild wilderness of Greater Manchester.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nick Ferrari
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 10:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2009 6:10 pm
Posts: 4254
Location: That fancy London, with it's book learning. Sadly not being anywhere else..
Perhaps for some though, it was the distance of the move and the issue of moving far away from family and mates and taking their kids out of their schools and away from their friends?

I'm not saying some of the people who were not happy were been so out of prejudice (although quite a few of the angry presenters involved were not in fact from London or the South originaly), but I'm sure some had good reasons.

I also think the partial move of some BBC departments is a goid idea for the area, and if some of the White City staff still don't want to move, fine - they need to understand that there will plenty prepared to take their places.

_________________
"Now get those trousers off before someone dies!"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nick Ferrari
PostPosted: Sun May 20, 2012 1:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2011 10:50 pm
Posts: 2838
IDS MUST DELIVER ON WELFARE REFORM

Quote:
AT FIRST glance, the Government’s plan to crack down on disability benefits, which is likely to result in around half a million claimants losing their allowances, seems the stuff of political suicide. The cash is paid out to help with the extra needs that arise from an impairment or health condition, so the charge that the Government is callously targeting society's most vulnerable and weak is easy to mount. The idea of our soldiers returning from the front line in Afghanistan minus some of their limbs and now possibly minus their benefits is gruesome and it will test the mettle of this Government to stick to this plan.

However, while bowing to the waves of public unrest would undoubtedly be the easier option, it would also be the wrong one. It would mean giving in to the "sick-note culture", accepting the system is being hideously abused by hundreds of thousands, watching money being effectively robbed from the public purse and having to impose necessary spending restraints possibly unjustly elsewhere, just because the fight was too tough.

Forget momentarily the images of once strapping young soldiers now strapped to wheelchairs or frames and the sight of disabled people in wheelchairs padlocking themselves together, and then to the gates of parliament, and pouring buckets of fake blood over themselves.

Instead, look at the cold, hard facts. There are now 3.2 million people receiving the Disability Living Allowance and the expected spending on that for 2011/12 is £12.6billion. To give you an idea what that means, we now pay out more on disability benefits than on unemployment benefits and it is part of a total welfare bill that will account for a third of ALL public spending. If you worry about police cuts, teachers' pay or public sector job losses, just try getting your head around how much money we are handing out in this area.

In less than 10 years, the number of people claiming DLA has jumped by 30 per cent. No corresponding rise in illnesses, trend in society, plague or epidemic supports this considerable jump so it's being fuelled by an ugly combination of motives: greed and the ease of claiming.

Perhaps the most telling statistic of the sorry lot is this: 130,000 have been claiming the benefit for 20 years without having ever had any form of assessment or review as to whether they still need the money. A further 70 per cent were granted lifetime awards. That meant they never have to justify their claim ever again.

Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith is brave to take this on. He wants the DLA scrapped and replaced with a Personal Independence Payment that, in many cases, would be granted only for a limited time. It is thought up to 500,000 people will lose out and the savings could be as much as £2.24billion each year.

He also wants every claimant to be assessed. What, pray, is so wrong with that? If we're dishing out hundreds of pounds every month, is it so wrong to ensure the money is actually deserved?

For this to work, Mr Duncan Smith will need two things: delivery and determination. This newspaper has rightly highlighted that in his handling of the Remploy dispute he appeared more dictator than diplomat and bringing that approach to potentially an even more explosive issue could prove fatal. He will also have to keep his Coalition colleagues, who have proved themselves as resolute as QPR's defence in the closing minutes of a game, on side and resolute.

Tony Blair tried a similar reform in 1997 and buckled under the weight of sustained and vivid protest. It now falls to the man who confronted Blair across the despatch box when leader of the Tory party to show he can do better.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nick Ferrari
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2012 7:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 1:23 pm
Posts: 4950
Location: West Midlands
Off the top of my head:

1. Ageing population.
2. People active at later ages.
3. More awareness of what's available.

Longer, more detailed post to follow.

_________________
Ten seconds... the pain begins.

Fifteen seconds... you can't breathe.

Twenty seconds... you give up and turn off the Jeremy Vine show.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nick Ferrari
PostPosted: Sun Sep 02, 2012 12:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 5:23 pm
Posts: 3762
Location: C*nt, c*nt, c*nt, c*nt, c*nt, c*nt, c*nt...
Old Nick was on BBC TV this morning where the burning question of the day was 'Should charity start at home', this following an announcement of £87m in aid to the Gambia. He opined, 'Should charity start at home? Yes it should and if that means people elsewhere in the world suffering then tough'.

This from a bloke who could eat at almost starvation levels for a year and still be carrying a few pounds.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nick Ferrari
PostPosted: Sun Sep 02, 2012 3:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 5:59 pm
Posts: 5495
Location: London
And that from a bloke who slavishly follows Mailite dogma on the iniquity of the BBC.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nick Ferrari
PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2012 2:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 8:24 pm
Posts: 3824
Anyone who says charity should begin at home invariably thinks that's where it should end.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nick Ferrari
PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2012 2:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 11:45 am
Posts: 4376
Location: The woods outside the big society
Fozzy wrote:
And that from a bloke who slavishly follows Mailite dogma on the iniquity of the BBC.


And like others we could mention, never too proud or pricipled to take the Beeb's shilling.

_________________
Mailwatch. Love us or leave us.
http://www.coalitionofresistance.org.uk/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nick Ferrari
PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2012 3:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 2:33 pm
Posts: 11881
Location: East London
Nick Clegg is the real bigot!

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/346 ... t-is-Clegg

But Ferrari's reasonable himself.

Quote:
Now, for what it’s worth, I am pretty open-minded about the idea of same-sex marriage. I can understand why homosexuals want a ceremony that has more emotional and spiritual resonance than the rather Soviet sounding “civil partnership”. I also get why many millions of people with deeply held beliefs have a serious problem with the word “marriage” as more than one religious teaching says it can only take place between a man and a woman.


And of course he's never insulted people who disagree with him.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nick Ferrari
PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2012 3:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 2:33 pm
Posts: 11881
Location: East London
Guess what? Winfarms!

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/347 ... m-windfall

The sensible idea of allowing places to bid for things that most people don't want in their backyard is called "bribery".

Quote:
Wind energy is both intermittent and unreliable and needs fossil-fuel back up


You can't argue with people that thick, can you?

But at least there's a picture- that can't be faked.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nick Ferrari
PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2012 6:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2009 6:10 pm
Posts: 4254
Location: That fancy London, with it's book learning. Sadly not being anywhere else..
Tubby Isaacs wrote:
Nick Clegg is the real bigot!

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/346 ... t-is-Clegg

But Ferrari's reasonable himself.

Quote:
Now, for what it’s worth, I am pretty open-minded about the idea of same-sex marriage. I can understand why homosexuals want a ceremony that has more emotional and spiritual resonance than the rather Soviet sounding “civil partnership”. I also get why many millions of people with deeply held beliefs have a serious problem with the word “marriage” as more than one religious teaching says it can only take place between a man and a woman.


And of course he's never insulted people who disagree with him.

"Marriage" as opposed to "civil partnership" because the latter sounds to Soviet? Even though both types of ceremony are basicaly the same except one doesn't have God business, so it is in fact about a lot more than just the sound of the term. Never mind that though, eh Nick - you can simplify it for all of us hard of thinking can't you?

_________________
"Now get those trousers off before someone dies!"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nick Ferrari
PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2012 9:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 9:08 am
Posts: 7330
Tubby Isaacs wrote:
Guess what? Winfarms!

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/347 ... m-windfall

The sensible idea of allowing places to bid for things that most people don't want in their backyard is called "bribery".

Quote:
Wind energy is both intermittent and unreliable and needs fossil-fuel back up


You can't argue with people that thick, can you?

But at least there's a picture- that can't be faked.

Image


I suspect he doesn't know the difference between intermittent and unreliable.
I can't find fault with the idea that some form of backup is required.
The decision about the nature of that backup is better left to experts than a fat bloke who runs a phone-in.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 87 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: D.C. Harrison and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group