
Huguenot
Member-
Posts
7,746 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Events
Blogs
FAQ
Tradespeople Directory
Jobs Board
Store
Everything posted by Huguenot
-
The figures that RosieH has linked to don't merit such sweeping generalisations about men's contribution to household chores, let alone the underlying malice. They suggest that of the total of 440 minutes performed daily, men perform marginally under 40% of them. Whilst there is certainly more to be done, this is hardly evidence of a large scale gender based dereliction of responsibility, is it? Likewise Neilsen research tells us around 40% of grocery trips are made by men - once more, whilst not exactly equal, it's hardly evidence of broad oppression, and certainly don't match RosieH's '9 out of 10 shopping trips are by women' that may just about justify her anger if it was true. But it's not. Regarding Christmas in particular, my experience is that men in general remain proportionally less enamoured with the occasion than women. It is not reasonable to assume that this is an act of oppression, it may well be a manifestation of a biological imperative regarding family life. I should also point out that consumer retail TV ads have nothing to do with real life. They are specifically design to appeal to aspirational fantasies amongst those who INFLUENCE the decisions, and not necessarily the buyer themselves. Asda have clearly picked up on an aspirational fantasy amongst women to be perceived as martyrs to family happiness - it doesn't mean they actually are, nor that they do all the shopping. It's not real life. Finally, given that almost 40% of the chores are done by men on average, I suspect that this varies substantially by demographic. It is highly likely that liberal and educated male readers of the EDF may do MORE chores than the women in the household. I certainly do in mine - more a product of the fact that the girlfriend grew up with domestic help. In that case, RosieH's abuse is unwarranted and inaccurate.
-
EAST DULWICH WARNING CLEANER SCAM NOW IN FRIERN ROAD
Huguenot replied to the-e-dealer's topic in The Lounge
That's made me mildly inclined to create a professional site for lunatics. -
I somehow doubt that Schofield's list was sanctioned by the BBC top brass. I'll share Quids drop jaw response if it was. I suspect that if they did sanction that document then they wouldn't have chosen Schofield to front it. If it wasn't agreed by the organisation then they hardly deserve this abuse for a spontaneous attention seeking flourish from a dim celebrity in a throwaway morning television live slot on a competitor privately owned channel. Ridiculous. The Newsnight fiasco demonstrated inexperience and, ironically, a desire to be seen as transparent. They reported an allegation supported by witnesses and the police, they're not a court of law. With Savile they were castigated for NOT reporting an allegation. WTF do people want? With Savile they were castigated for being editorialy subordinate to top brass, with MacAlpine they acted independently. WTF do people want? The only difference between Savile and Lord MacAlpine from a journalistic point of view is that one was alive to defend his name. I should add that at this stage NONE of the allegations against Savile and his peers are proven. Should the BBC not report them? To imagine that this is some part of anti-Tory agenda is paranoid. Is that what the political right has come to? What's your real agenda here Quids, because plastering your anti BBC comments across 2 sections and 3 threads is not proportionate to the crime? I think you're tilting at windmills Quids, and it's your ideology that's driving you.
-
The debt is not owned by us, but by the people who wish to trade in that currency. If we choose to exchange our own currency, and not trade in the currency in which others have acquired their wealth, then their currency has no impact upon our lives. We are, by definition, in charge of our own destinies.
-
I was intrigued by the idea that we have been overcome by contemporary definitions of Fiat currencies. You need to give me some time on this one, but I hope you'll find it... Currency has been established as a way of trading on a barter basis (I give you two tomatoes for your four potatoes) that triangulated.. i.e. we don't have a transaction directly, so we use currency to shortcut more diverse exchanges (you give me 2 quid, and I'll spend it on someone else's computer chips). All well and good. The essence is that it's an exchange of like for like goods and services. The credit crunch is that the principle has broken. That means there are people who want to paint the house, and we want the house painted, but somebody else has broken the system that allows us to transact. The current currency is corrupt - it has been traded by people who don't trade goods and services but gamble and speculate upon future availability - to the point that we can't transact. BUT Fiat currencies are intellectual constructions. They have nothing to do with our existence right here right now. Are we not capable of creating new barter points, and new currencies that carry similar trusts? Everybody fucked by the credit crunch wants to trade, but are prevented by an existing model. Is there not an opportunity that we could trade regardless?
-
Yeah, I'm wondering about cause and effect. The Maoist interpretation speaks to Chinese myths of centralised control, but given the dislocation of the Syrian rebel movement this seems unlikely. Petty tribal knock and run strategies would have the same effect, and sporadic attacks on high value targets may speak to the ebb and flow of the 'broken window syndrome' confidence of isolated mobs. Geography and population density will deliver that regardless. It doesn't require an organised holistic strategy to achieve the effects ascribed to individual acts of disruption. Whatever the guiding principle that Mao claimed in hindsight, the Chinese state isn't centralised in the way that European and Anglo Saxon social structures are. China was and is a federation of local political structures who share cultural conviction and see benefit in collaboration but not in obsequience to central doctrine. The idea that Mao had that degree of strategic control is at odds with the legacy of the country. China remains difficult to deal with not because it's decisions are at odds with international cooperation, but because it doesn't have a structure to enable national distribution of risk and responsibility. China doesn't interfere internationally not because it won't benefit, but because like the EU it can't obtain agreement. So if China can't do it, then Maoist asymmetrical warfare strategies are a sham, and the likelihood is that without a precedent the Syrian 'revolution' is too.
-
I like Ken, and continue to. Boris isn't so bad either. My general feeling is that both have been an asset to London, and that the overall London Mayor bit has been a terrific advantage to both the Capital and the nation, regardless of who held the role. Whilst I'm in a significant minority in my support for Blair, I think that the New Labour choice of Frank Dobson would have been a disaster for London, and a reflection of Blair's overreach in control. I'm a firm believer that politicians don't actually control that much in terms of discretionary spend, and so Ken and Boris can't possibly have done that much for better or worse to fundamentally alter the city. However, they have done much to alter the psychology and self confidence of residents, and through empowerment of the electorate created a positive impact on infrastructure investment. Personally, I'd like to see either, both or the next candidate take on the private taxi business. Door to door transport is a fundamental driver in private car ownership, and an effective private hire business could reduce car ownership dramatically. I think Chavez was pissing in the wind if he thought a deal with Ken could alter UK Plc attitudes to Venezuelan politics, so whatever Ken offered for the rebate was peanuts in real terms. So then the only choice you'd have to make in retaining it would be a moral one. Will you take from a disenfranchised nation to support London?
-
Well it seems from the public record that this wasn't half price oil but a direct contribution from Chavez to the Livingstone administration of TFL. It doesn't seem to be rocket science to assume that Chavez may have no longer wished to make that payment to a Boris administrated TFL, nor that Boris would have been able or willing to continue with whatever terms were agreed as a quid pro quo. The benefits or disadvantages of the agreement would have been dressed by both sides, but it seems relatively clear that transparency wasn't delivered by any of the parties. Until that point, I wouldn't feel that it's valid for any of us to make a call on the value of it?
-
I'm not suggesting the deal didn't end, I'm saying you can't judge it until you know the overall context. That particular item doesn't seem to say anything of value regarding that?
-
Had a look at that t-e-d, and it seems to be a complete misrepresentation of the facts. The redevelopment of Leicester Square was a decade long project that was calculated to deliver an overall reduction in public expenditure because of the ongoing cost of servicing and maintaining a failing infrastructure. Boris was neither responsible for the work, nor was it spent last year, nor was it an overall loss, but an overall benefit. I'm not sure of the terms of the 'cheap oil deal'. You may be right - but this was a two way arrangement that involved London providing technology and consultancy, so it's also entirely possible that the terms of this arrangement were no longer attractive to the Venezuelans. Is there any information about the circumstances (particularly anything that holds Boris responsible)? Your views regarding the cable car made be valid, but they're not substantially different to the views that city populations globally have taken to infrastructure work the later proved to be massively beneficial. Many of the bridges across the Thames were regarded to be white elephants at time of building, but are now invaluable.
-
There's something about that analysis that smacks of post rationalisation. I'm sure I'm entirely wrong.
-
So the NSA320 doesn't actually have any storage in, is that right? You need to buy that separately?
-
You need to make up your mind what you're paranoid about old chap. Is it cloud seeding (a process so mainstream that it's barely worth a mention) or airborne chemical brainwashing? They're not the same thing. You also need to clarify whether it's terrorists or governments that are plotting against you?
-
I think most people vote for a party, not an individual in national elections, so Tessa Jowell's reelection tells us very little in terms of her quality or competence. I thought Burbage's pr?cis of a parliamentary career was perfectly astute. I'm more inclined to think MPs as idiots rather than vermin. I guess the nicest thing you could say is that by the time they reach parliament they've been ruined by the years of compromises they need to engage in to get there. Visionary thinkers don't really fit into party hierarchies.
-
BHO Alex K? Is that an unsubtle approach to reminding us that his middle name is Hussein? It's a very particular acronym that is predominantly used in certain circles with minority apartheid agendas. If anything is abundantly clear, an executive branch run by Clinton would be indiscernible from one run by Clinton. So why would you prefer Hilary?
-
Pregamatism, or at least the way you present it in a political context Quids, is an ideology :D It's like shooting the injured guy on the floor because his moaning was distracting the others. It may well have been 'practical', but it demonstrated a particular ideological approach to social issues. Your determination to stick with your 'practical' approach to politics through thick or thin in the face of whatever the world throws at you makes you an ideologue. I should add that since things don't always turn out the way you'd prefer, it's entirely possible that your cause and effect calculation is missing a few key variables ;)
-
Anyway, I give it Obama by the tightest margin you can squeeze from a Florida rectum. We have seconds to weight/wait.
-
BTW, I do post rationalise, and respect I've poked the crumblies too far... I'm 42
-
Ah yes. It probably was a tease, but borne from frustration rather than anguish. It wasn't a troll. I've vented my spleen on baby boomers before. History will refer to a financial system that wasn't essentially flawed, but allowed consecutive governments to borrow against future earnings to spend today. The output was low taxation and the transfer of expense for today's investment to tomorrow's exchequer. The anticipation was that today's borrowing would be dwarfed compared with tomorrow's valuation. There is an equivalence argument that despite the persistent disagreement between fundamentally opposed political ideologues like myself and Quids, that we both actually agree. Some tossers (read baby boomers) spent all the cash, and we need to pay it back and find some confidence. Not so easy as some people imagine.
-
Hmmm! The US is different because you can lose the popular vote and still be president/prime minister....? Well, where else could that happen?
-
Yes they do... :( http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/domestic_politics/who+voted+bnp+and+why/3200557.html
-
Re. Lib Dem defections, you'd have to be an ideological chimp to move your vote from the Lib Dems to UKIP. The two parties have virtually no beliefs in common. You could be disappointed that the Lib Dems hadn't implemented all their manifesto, but to then vote for UKIP would entail supporting a party that shares absolutely none of your beliefs. Cretinous. On that note I should add that UKIP clearly don't believe in anything apart from a baseless attack on our closest and most important trading partners. A strategy that could only be justified on the basis of 'divide and conquer'. So anyone wo really wants to have these witless pricks running our national economy needs to have their head examined. Some of the views expressed on here about the Lib Dems are so poorly informed that it sounds more like the slack jawed chanting and goading of a football terrace. Do some people really believe that this is a reasonable way to run a country? I do think that a foundation tenet of electoral reform should be that an IQ over 70 is required to vote.
-
Well why don't you find out uncleglen, rather than all this rather destructive innuendo?
East Dulwich Forum
Established in 2006, we are an online community discussion forum for people who live, work in and visit SE22.