Ladymuck

I'm for Ed...he is more for equality. Miliband not Balls!

hmmmmmm...

Exactly Mac.....there are areas that could be trimmed without having to beg from the public or to cut front line services. Careful with your language now... The letter wasn't a request for money...remember?:))

X-post...my last post in response to DJKQ's last post.

That could be us in a few years!

Some do give a toss, but many of those who don't (and they are entitled to their opinions) appear to be completely missing the point. It's bizarre.

You have taken the quote out of context.

Sue - do excuse the poor dog...as well as being mad and flea-ridden this Lotto has taken up a great deal of his time. I can tell you though that 3 and 13 have gone to RosieH and karter respectively.

PS: @ DC Did you ever read The Spirit Level?

david_carnell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Actually LadyM, Singapore has a very high prison > population. It's close to 400 per 100,000 people. > In comparison the UK is just below 150 per > 100,000. Interestingly, prison populations are > almost directly related to income inequality > within a society. Although I didn't know for sure (my knowledge re. Singapore is sadly lacking), I suspected that the prison population might be quite high - hence my earlier comment: "Or does this absence of beggars/homeless persons have more to do with a highly effective police force efficient in swiftly clearing the streets of anyone considered remotely undesirable?". I can see why there might be a direct correlation between an unequal society and prison populations. However, in the case of Singapore I am wondering whether part of the reason for the relatively high figures you have quoted are more to do with the fact that the Singaporean authorities are more likely to impose a custodial sentence for "lesser offences" - e.g. vandalism - in situations where we might impose a fine, community service, or even simply a caution. I am not sure what the situation is now, but I recall a taxi-driver in Singapore telling us that he was not allowed to discuss politics with us because it could land him a prison sentence (this was two years ago). Whether or not there was any truth in that statement I wouldn't know, but he seemed pretty cautious with us and there was a sense that he was not speaking freely. Another point which might be relevant is the fact the Singaporean Judicial System has some very different aspects to the way they deal with criminal cases. For example, there is no trial by jury which means that a case and the administration of a sentence are decided by (case hardened and hence, possibly, prejudiced) judges. Moreover, the Singaporean Government rarely provides any form of legal assistance (and where they do, this is usually limited to cases where capital punishment may be an issue). Very interesting stuff though DC.

It says a great deal about our own culture. The Singaporean situation is interesting though - I wish I had the time to research it. I should say that what I really like about Singapore (other than the natives and the delicious cuisine) is the fact that one is able to walk the streets at any time of day/night in complete safety. As far as I can gather, the crime rate is relatively low and there are, on the face of it, little or no signs of begging. Furthermore, people are generally pleasant, civil and well-educated, and the place is clean. Given that the gap between rich/poor is greater than our own (and there is evidence to support links with poverty and e.g. crime, underachievement in schools, anti-social behaviour etc.) I think that is no mean feat.

All OK now - thank you xx

*screams Homer Simpson style* The "search" facility no longer works...does anyone know why that could be? Thank you in advance.

Very interesting re. Singapore. I don't know much about the welfare system in Singapore. However, I am aware of a much greater gap between rich and poor over there than here. What surprises me is that this apparent gap has never appeared obvious to me when I have visited (whereas in the UK, it's in your face). What is it about the Singaporean system that ensures that, e.g., the streets are free of beggars? And what, e.g., happens to the homeless who have no family they can turn to for a roof? They must exist - and yet (as far as I can tell) they are not in evidence; whereas here... Or does this absence of beggars/homeless persons have more to do with a highly effective police force efficient in swiftly clearing the streets of anyone considered remotely undesirable? As an aside, the programme Unequal Opportunities With John Humphrys will be examining the attainment gap in education between wealthy/poorer pupils later today (Monday) on BBC2 21.00.

Good...am glad to hear it. And...it's "Lady" Muckster to you! *fluffs up pillow*

Yes, but are you on time?

I forgive you...

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It wasn't personal pookie, it was general. > > But really, if you are habitually late for your > friends then quite simply you do not respect and > value them. You don't. > > If you're late for everyone then you don't respect > and value anyone. > > I'm not talking about time in a clock way, I'm > talking about it in a keeping people waiting way. I do understand your point(s) Huguenot and (to a degree) you are right. However, as alluded to above, my post was merely conveying a genuine realisation that my habitual tardiness was in fact a serious matter (as opposed to a laughing one). And the statement that I would try harder was heartfelt. Unless I am clearly messing about, I rarely say what I do not mean. I regret having posted though. But perhaps I shouldn't because, whilst I had taken CC's and Quid's comments on board, yours have rammed them home to such an extent that I don't think I shall (without reasonable excuse) ever be late again. I should just add that, when any of my friends are late, I don't get upset about it - I just get out the knitting. Usually no harm is done.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm afraid I'm totally with cc and quids. There's > only one thing to do to be late, and that's to > think that your time is more important than > theirs. The rest of it is technicalities. > > The 'I don't mean to be' is utterly pointless. > It's effectively 'I don't mean to be completely > self-centered and think I'm more important than > you, but I do, and I'm going to rub your nose in > it'. > > The 'I honestly' bit just makes it even worse. It > means 'I honestly honestly think I'm more > important than you'. > > 'I will try much harder' isn't floating my boat > either. Because you're talking about disguising > your contempt for other people. > > There's no answer to being on time, this threads > exists because somebody wants third party > justification for being smug and selfish. Somebody > wants a 'get out of jail free' card to wave > around. > > There isn't one, you're just selfish. Blimey Huguenot... I too am with CC and ????...was that not evident from my post? And I was actually being sincere when I said that I would try harder...clearly that didn't come across either. And I do respect and value all of my friends, though I agree that being continually late would, prima facie, appear to be a contradiction. Nor do I think I am more important than them - not at all. My post was meant to be a heartfelt one of shame and regret and of wishing to do better in the future...but I have clearly failed there. *walks aways utterly dazed at Huguenot's response*

charliecharlie Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- >... but I am pretty good about being on time for other > people. In the main, I think this is because I > feel like I'm giving off a pretty blatant sign > that I don't value their time (or them) by keep > them waiting around for me... > Being late makes me feel like I am saying "My time > (ie. the wonderful and fabulously busy me) is more > important than yours" and so I try not to keep > people waiting. > So my tips would be:- > Leave plenty of time > Put the other person first and value them enough > not to keep them waiting for you... Also, ???? Wrote: -------------------------------------------------- > I'm hardly ever late as, sorry Katie, it is a sign of bad > manners and being a bit inconsiderate and selfish in my > book to be late. Sorry but it is not uptightness but just > good manners and pretty striaghtforward to be on time for > anything in most circumstances. Oh gosh...I'm ashamed to say that I am nearly always late...I really don't mean to be...and it cetainly is not down to a lack of respect for the person that I am meeting. It's just that I cram too much into a ridiculously small amount of time. I.e. I might actually be on time with (say) a spare 20 minutes. But then, instead of heading to my appointment, I will think "ah..I'll just do this, and that, oh and that"...and so on...until I then become late. Until both your posts (CC and ????) I honestly hadn't thought about how rude my continual lateness might have appeared to others. Indeed my friends continually rib me about it (as some of you know) and up until now I have always made light of it. I see now that I shouldn't have. So as from tomorrow I shall try much, much harder. Thanks for this thread katie7628.4.

The no. 1 - of course... Coz you is a no. 1 fleabag...

Well done doggie... *throws stick* Go on...fetch...

woofmarkthedog Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dazie KMSL PS: Fleabag, if you are going to charm a lady off her feet, at least spell her name correctly! It's Daizie (with an "i")...

I'd like to know too as I'm nearly always late for anything... (...can't see any of this making any difference Katie 5657.1...how about you just keep bringing a book and I'll keep bringing the knitting... LOL!);-)

I think it's Sean's (picked by mad dog)