louisiana

Today: http://www.elanga.com/news/about-2/ Would you do business with this person? What the f*** is she doing with her hand and her hair? What is happening with her tits?

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > People can try and sell you any old rubbbish, it's > your choice if you buy it. > > It's this desire to blame other people for our own > decisions that destins us to repeat the same > mistakes over again. Don't know about you, but many many years ago I was subjected to high pressure sales tactics on a non-repayment mortgage (can't remember what they were called). I soon got out of it. But those people were basically shysters who told lies. If even I can have fallen for it (at a young 20-something buying a first home, who worked as an accountant) I'm sure those less well educated would be likely to do the same. Yes, people take their own decisions - but often they are not given the straight facts, and sometimes they are told lies in order for a sale to be achieved. (On the other hand, I'm not a fan at all of the blame culture that has infested so much of life these days.)

SteveT Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The police often hang extra crimes on to felons as > they get no additional time to serve, > > but it helps the police's figures on clear up > rates. > > How would anyone remember they have 645 to plead > to A prolific burglar (seems to be a standard term in police publications) is someone who's doing more than 10 a week. More than 10 a week is more than 500 a year. I'm sure they can't remember all they do, and I'm sure they probably admit to a few they didn't. But a few of them do a lot. One burglar who entered my neighbour's property was apparently linked to around 200 burglaries. When he was arrested, the expression 'going equipped' would have been an understatement (considering what he was carrying in terms of tools). When burglar and co turn up to court in their top-of-the-range BMWs, you understand that for them this is very much a way of life and a way of earning a good living - and that means they're robbing a fair few properties, week in week out.

Another substantial player in the US at least: the churches: many of which promoted property purchase among the (too) poor in their sermons, and a number of which had pastors who, funnily enough, were on the payroll of those sub-prime lenders, on commission. I kind of expect circling sharks in life, but those people had pastors who were not worthy of the name.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm sorry DJKQ but I think your conviction that > there is a conspiracy of rich people keeping all > the money for themselves is hopelessly class war. There was no conspiracy. What there was, was a pile of actions. > > The housing boom took place because we created it, > and nobody was wise enough to anticipate the > likely outcome. Not very bright, but there was no > room of purple faced satans deliberately trying to > screw the country. > The housing boom happened because interest rates were kept low and banks decided to lend ridiculous multiples of incomes, in a range of countries. Sub-prime (and its equivalents elsewhere, and its later incarnations) was very much the consequence of JP Morgan's activities in 'creative products', which every other bank then imitated. People like Demchak, Winters, Hancock, Masters... And then there were of course the ratings agencies that gave those products credibility.

mockney piers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "can we please get away from this idea that hard > work and education equate to wealth" > > though in fairness it's a damn good start. I'd add > ability to spot and exploit imbalances in the > market or at least willingness to partake of a > lucrative market rather than a depressed one. Oh > and of course a healthy dose of luck always > helps. > A huge dose of luck, and often a willingness or indeed hunger to do the dirty on others (employees, clients, other firms, whoever), sometimes in spectacular fashion. (I speak from experience, having been involved in running various organisations including my own and other businesses.)

'Dip' may turn out to be an understatement. Such an inoffensive word, suggesting something light and temporary.

HAL9000 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Twirly Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I have no idea what the solution is. > > No one knows - we are on the cusp of a new > paradigm. No one alive has ever experienced what > is about to unfold. All we know from history is > that past civilisations have collapsed so suddenly > that no one survived to tell the tale - only > centuries of silence marked their passing. > > But that can't happen to us, surely - they say? I think it would be a good idea if a whole lot more people read Joseph Tainter's book The Collapse of Complex Societies. It's a great book, and has lessons for where we might be going wrong.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So what are you suggesting SMG, upping the > minimum wage? Legislating a maximum wage? > > It strikes me that a maximum wage is > unenforceable, and regardless it should be up to > shareholders to 'correctly' incentivise senior > management to maximise return on their > investment. Shareholders do little. Even major institutional investors (some of whom are rebelling against excesses) have problems achieving anything. Small shareholders find it almost impossible to organise. Mostly shareholders just rubber-stamp what senior management want. The model is broken.

The main thing with energy is that we need to use less of it. First, because we're rapidly using up the resources we have. Peak everything. Second, because energy use is contributing environmental degradation, climate change etc. (each to a different degree) Third, because the price is only ever going to go up! If you're interested in how you can use less energy at home, or even in whether generating some energy might be worthwhile, why not come along to this evening's Dulwich Going Greener meeting upstairs at the Crown & Greyhound (8pm), where we have an expert speaker discussing these issues, with plenty of opportunities for questions and chat. See this thread for full details: http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?6,545368

Jeff Buckley - Dido's Lament

Terrible experience. Methinks if they are taking out entire windows from one home, the same will be done again. Crims tend to be fairly conservative when it comes to MO. What sort of windows Gareth? I mean are we talking traditional sash on Victorian?

Admin, can we please have a thread entitled 'rambling nonsense from a first-time poster'? :)

RosieH Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My neighbours are having building work done. > That's fair enough, but it's really, really noisy > and I want to kill them. > > To avoid going to prison, I thought I might try > putting music on at a level that, while not > drowning out the noise of concrete mixing lorries > and skips being filled and spades scraping > scraping scraping, at least puts it in the context > of something more soothing. > > But what? I can't find it. Something uplifting > but not distracting: not muzak, because that would > make me kill myself; no clever lyrics because then > I forget what I'm writing; not classical that's > all gently swelling then spectacular crash of the > cymbals quite throwing me off course; not Jeremy > Kyle because then I'll be sucked into a vortex of > sleeping with my mother's boyfriend and spending > all my ill-gotten on scratchcards and scrunchies. > > Homeworkers of East Dulwich, help me. What do you > do? RosieH Don't dismiss classical. Why not try the Goldberg Variations on the *harpsichord*. As played by Trevor Pinnock or Pierre Hantai. No crashing cymbals, all very orderly. In other words, the Baroque is your friend - no Romantic nonsense there. Otherwise, I'd plump for electronica. No lyrics to distract, choose a speed to suit circumstance (from chill through to house and then German minimal or Chicago techno and ultimately (!) gabba - though personally I'd avoid the latter) I can recommend a golden oldie: Global Communication's 76:14.

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My wife's aunt is married to a man who has not > worked for years. He receives disability benefit > even though wife's aunt has said he has admitted > that there is absolutely nothing wrong with him > but he been receiving this money for years. > > I think all children are a more deserving case > than him. > > That's my short story. I'd rather children > received child benefit in hard working families, > instead of denying them in preference to people > who take advantage of the state. Your wife's aunt clearly needs her head examined if she stays with such a man. And how about you, Mick Mac? Why haven't you reported him to the relevant authorities? Are you (your family) not to a degree culpable if you do not? AFAIK, there is a big crackdown starting on disability benefits. Are you doing your bit to solve that particular issue?

Emerson Crane Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But surely smoking isn't good for the health of > your lungs? Let them eat cake!

I'm re-posting this from another thread, as this seems the more appropriate place for it. The fact that this cheeky chappie was just 19 but asks for 645 other offences (on top of the 17) to be taken into account... Where did he find the time? When he was at school? --- This is the kind of thing we're up against: "[bW], 19, was put on an new three-year rehabilitation scheme being trialled by Essex Police last October after he admitted 17 counts of theft and burglary, and asked for another 645 to be taken into account." What's known as a prolific burglar. These kind of peeps are probably doing 10-20-30+ places a week.

Indeed. But I just wonder how happy they feel when this is all taken to its logical conclusion. Gated communities, surrounded by those in indentured servitude, and defended by police and armies. Remember, those in indentured servitude in the bad old days had all their expenses paid; today's low-paid workers (in their hundreds of millions, in whichever country) do not. Progress? (There's another gated community currently proposed for Crystal Palace, BTW.)

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Cmon Brendan, its not the British Empire anymore. Well, take a look at what's happening with pineapple farming at present, and tell me that big-industrial-agri-business from the first world has nothing to do with it. And that local people (who are having a cocktail of chemicals thrown into their drinking water) have any choice in the matter. We have, unfortunately, created a dog-eat-dog world.

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In the same way that 'having money' boosts your > rich-o-meter exponentially, 'having none' has the > same effect - in the opposite direction. And it's > not just a matter of money. > > The richer you are, the more that government, > society.. life in general.. is on your side. Like CGT 6 grand profit a year free and gratis. Or minimal taxation on sale of your company. > Society cuts you slack, big-time. You get away > with it. But if your chips are down and you > haven't got a pot to piss in, you get pissed on > instead - at the drop of a hat. Like paying 15% or more of your (taxed) income to travel in to work on a bus at 5am every morning and at 9pm every night, if you're a cleaner (and facing over-inflation bus fare increases next year). And still paying tax on your measly earnings which aren't enough to feed a hamster! > > In short, if you're a top-rate taxpayer then > 'fairness' in life has very little to do with a > couple of grand that you're only going to put > towards a skiing holiday anyway. Well said, *Bob*.

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > SeanMacGabhann Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > > The tax system is not some kind of piggybank. > To > > be paying a lot into it means you are one of > > life's winners already > > > It is a piggy bank / pot of money / numbers in the > Chancellors budget model, call it what you like. > > Its not a personal piggy bank, but it is money > received for the benefit of all people in the UK. > > > A balance needs to be struck and govt has to > consider the needs of those whose need is greatest > and most deserving. > > Saying all the "right" things and "those who earn > more pay more" is all a bit of a yawn to be > honest. > > There is a stage at which the balance sways too > far in favour of those who do not make little or > no contribution to society in financial form or > otherwise. > > The tories are addressing this imbalance. > Thankfully. Whilst hopefully ensuring deserving > causes do not suffer. > > I have no problem with this particular measure at > all. But the concept of fairness should consider > all in society not just the worse off. > > of course to extract the maximum from higher > earners to throw at underserving causes would not > be "fair" to high earners. I think a very deserving cause will be to put those going out to work and earning 10k or less to keep that income free of income tax (but not free of NI, of course). That is the policy that the LibDems have, and which the Tories seem to have accepted. I think that achievement will be a fair result. And I don't think it will be possible without those 75k+ earners (along with others) taking a hit.

And while a 42" TV might not strike you as an obvious burglar target, I have been a neighbour where an entire household of goods were removed by a gang of four carting them all out *while the residents were there*. Numbers, and threats of violence, make many things possible.

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It is truly awe-inspiring to see how lucid, > inspirational and visionary those who don't smoke > cannabis can be :)) I particularly liked the bit about ",and basicly." That is an affliction I hadn't heard of before. Clearly some people need no weed to indulge in mindless rambling. They must save a packet.

Marmora Man Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Seems fair to me - and, although I loathe the word > - progressive. > > If you are elegible for higher rate tax then a > ?1,000 a year "bung" from gov't seems > inappropriate. > Particularly when people earning just ?7,000, ?8,000 or ?9,000 a year are contributing to that "bung" with a marginal tax rate of 31% (20% basic + 11% NI) and - if they are single - no entitlement to benefits. In other words, people are being taxed on incomes that are insufficient for living on (particularly in London) while those earning many times more are in receipt of non-means-tested benefits. I hope the LibDems manage to achieve a 10k income tax threshold, equivalent to what many other parts of Europe have had for many years. It does strike me as iniquitous to be taxing people who are barely scraping a living.

This is the kind of thing we're up against: "[bW], 19, was put on an new three-year rehabilitation scheme being trialled by Essex Police last October after he admitted 17 counts of theft and burglary, and asked for another 645 to be taken into account." What's known as a prolific burglar. These kind of peeps are probably doing 10-20-30+ places a week.