DJKillaQueen

Oh Tarot please....you can do better than that. FYI my aunt worked her entire life in the prison service and was responsible for Peter Sutcliffe up until her retirement (and tells me that no-one made her shudder more - cold, calculating and truly a first class psychopath).....and most of the people that suffer at the hands of serial killers (as indeed your list is comprised of) are dead. Psychological profilers know what they are talking about.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > DJ - I said 30 years, not the financial crisis. We > can all be selective on our dates but global free > trade and capitalism has raised millions and > millions out of subsistence level poverty across > the globe...anyone who thinks otherwise is mad. But it's not proportionate Quids...that's my point.....as a percentage...growth is helping less of a percentage of global population. So in other words...new growth is less effective in combating world poverty more than ever..... You know as well as I do that growth/ wealth and it's distribution is localised. And we both know that developing economies rely on what can be considered as no better than slavery - so that means people working for very little above a meal a day money and children working long hours for fec all too. India is a classic example of this and China too. We were the same during the early stages of our own industrial revolution. Maybe it's a necessary stage to making it to ultimate national wealth (I think it is, and more than ever) but let's not pretend that it doesn't exist.

I agree Otta....it is important that opportunity exists for all if they can demonstrate abilty and dedication.

From a United Nations annual 'Least Developed Countries Report' 'the poverty rate in the world?s 50 least developed countries is rising ? despite an overall economic growth in these countries of 7% on average each year, the fastest in 30 years. Instead of the poor though experiencing substantial improvements in living conditions, 277 million people still live on less than US$1 a day (compared with 265 million in 2000 and 245 million in 1995); while two-thirds of all people in those 50 countries survive on just US$2 a day. Since 2006 the situation for the poorest of the poor has worsened with the biofuel and climate change induced food crisis having led to a steep increase in world and domestic food prices in 2007/2008. In some countries the prices of staples such as maize, wheat and rice have doubled in the past 18 months. While a rising population and a shortage of well-paid jobs are named as major reasons for the surge in the number of people living in poverty, unequal distribution of income and wealth of course is also a major factor behind the poor not being able to improve their life?s circumstances. The increase in the number of people living in poverty means that the 50 least developed countries will not be able to achieve the first of the UN millennium development goals, halving the proportion of those living on less than $1 a day between 1990 and 2015. To achieve this, they would need to cut their absolute poverty rate to 20% by 2015. UNCTAD said that if current trends continued, they would only achieve 33% of the target by that date. And it is important to note that things like rising food costs...things that are directly affected by the current global crisis are influential in the bench mark for poverty. It is pure fantasy to think that wealth and growth in a few economies is somehow redressing the balance of global poverty.

It is real poverty and population growth is not the whole story...the proportion of those living in poverty compared to those who are not has not improved. Yes there are more wealthy, but there are also more poor. I'll look for some stats to illustrate but it's percentages that matter not individual numbers.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You mean DJKQ isn't Dave Cameron? Damn. I > thought I'd sussed him out. 'How very dare you' lol ;-)

I think UDT was referring to the MP making the porposal?

Pulling millions out of poverty???? Are you sure? Last time I checked with the WHO there were more people living in poverty around the world than there were a decade ago.

That's a very good post indiepanda. The other thing that has changed in the past 50 years also is the flexibility of the workforce, with most jobs being on a contract to contract basis. Even if the government wanted to enforce a universal scheme on all workers (both private and public sector) it would be hard to do given how often the labour market is forced to change jobs. Just to comment on the point in the previous post regarding the lack of union influence in the private sector. That too is partly a direct consequence of the changed labour market described above. I work in a freelance sector and am part of a uinion for my industry but that union has no power to call anyone to strike. Why? Because when you are a freelance worker, you will soon be out of a job and if you want another then you can't antagonise employers, esp if your industry is a small one. So freelance workers tend to be too afraid to strike.

Tarot on this you are I'm afraid talking nonsense. Pornography is about as much a causal factor as eating chips. Use of pronography by deviant criminals is an extention of their deviance not the other way round and as Loz correctly says, the numder of serial killers is just a fraction of the population....so doesn't even really merit an attack on pornography. Far more people drop their crisp packets on the floor instead of putting them in a bin afterwards....so the banning of crisps has far more merit for my money.

Yep...when I saw this I was speechless. What world do some of these MPs live in? The tories opposed any idea of a minimum wage in opposition and in power before that, claiming that it would cost jobs. All the evidence says that it hasn't. Also almost 700,000 households on low incomes (which ARE minimum wage jobs) need help to make ends meet from the benefits system. There is no sense in lowering that rate for anyone. Getting the LTU and disabled into work is a challenge....but it's only one that can be solved by a change of attitude from employers. Lowering the minimum wage as some kind of means to make already vulnerable people attractive as cheap labour is not the answer and quite frankly insulting to those people. On another note...did anyone see the excellent but heart wrenching doc the other week 'Poor Kids' ?

But where is your evidence that any of them were murderers because of pornography Tarot? Pornography does not turn someone into a psychopath or serial killer. People with those psychological profiles develope them from an early age long before they ever come into contact with any pornography. Sexual/ violent abuse in childhood is far more likely to be a factor for many sadistic killers but the majority of children that are abused do not develop into sadistic murderers either.

My biggest forum regret has to be getting into debates with Huguenot when I'm pre menstrual - I never learn :-$

There's a huge difference between having sex and terminating a fetus because it has Downs Syndrome H. That's not really a good counterargument. Nor too is relying on semantics when devoid of anything to counter argue with. 'We' clearly in my post refers to us as we the human race. It is perfectly valid to refer to some of the morally questionable things some humans do as a collective 'we'. There are countries that execute people for little reason and of course we as a nation can disassotiate ourselves from that because we as a nation don't carry out such thngs, but we as human beings cannot disassociate ourselves from that. We have just as many murderers and psychopaths as any nation for example. We just don't give them jobs in positions of power where they can legally practise their sadism. And similarly we feel free to discuss things happening in the rest of the world in other threads. Don't see anyone saying discussion on genocide in another country isn't worth having because genocide isn't happening in this country. Of course I don't think anyone in their right mind on this forum would argue for the merits of forced sterilisation, so perhaps the debate is dead in the water from the start.....but that as far as I can see is the only reason the debate is a dead one.

Annette Curtain Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes Lady Laddy , & as you well know, one tit is > usually bigger than the other. Just choked on my sandwich pmsl.......

Hmmm I feel a cue for my favourite painting coming on!

You would only get caught out...because 'the tapping of the feet' is an impossible thing to control at a Tom Jones gig Annette, only to then be named and shamed accross the Daily Mail and I suspect that if you didn't need a wheelchair going in there, you'll need one by the time you get out! Having said that....a plaster cast on both legs beforehand might help.

I would argue though that the fact that we allow anyone to abort a fetus is in essence the same thing. It is the decision by another to terminate a potential life because they either don't what an impingement on their own or argue from the quality of life perspective (I have no views either way on the morality of abortion btw). And offering people money to be sterilised (wherever in the world that is) is also in essence a act born out of the view of one over another's suitability to parent. Of course, neither of those things are compulsary, but we still have the legality to make decisions or help others to make decisions that are simply one persons view of another, when it is never possible to really know just how a unborn person's life will turn out to be. *and what spelling error? fetus (plural fetuses) is one correct spelling along with foetus, f?tus, faetus, or f?tus*

Or that the chopper got bitten by one of the dogs!

But we do abort fetuses because they have genetic disorders. Downs Syndrome is the most obvious example. In that context it is a relevant debate. Eugenics as a theory has been replaced by genetics. Genetics may well be devoid of the obvious descrimination and prejudice of Eugenics but it still concerns itself with moral questions of whether someone's right to live should be determined by the quality of the life they are likely to live.

Again it is nonsense for any bailiff or debt collection agency to say that just because a court warrant is in force that nothing can be done. The Police would only be involved in a warrant that is for an unpaid court fine (resulting from a law breaking offence) anyway. In all other incidents the client (not the court executing the warrant) would rely on other sources for confirmation of address, which may be the Police but may also be the DVLA or a local council etc. And even then...best that they often can provide is the last 'known' address.

Surely the point of any demonstration is to raise debate. Look at the debate here. That's what the various 'slutwalks' around the globe do.......

Even council tax have no right of forced entry....only utility companies....who simply change meters to key meters in the instance of unpaid debt.

As well as not opening the door to them...do not leave windows open either. They can enter through an open window. But as long as you don't let them in they can't do anything. They can only force entry if you have previously signed a walking possession order after letting them in, by agreement for promised payment instead of their removal of goods at the time. Only utility companies can get warrants for forced entry for unpaid bills. But it's not bailiffs who deal with that. If you know who the client for the bailiff is...then contact them directly and ask them to withdraw the warrant. If bailiffs do turn up, speak with them through the door and tell them you are dealing with their client, as the person they are looking for does not reside at that address and is unknown to you. Btw Equita are currently being sued for bad practise. And it is a common tactic for bailiffs to misrepresent their powers in their correspondance, in an attempt to frighten people.

Facebook And Twitter: What If The Real World Was Like Social Media? Life like a social networking site Put a smile on my face anyway!