Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by dipstick

  1. Most pensioners don't carry guns, Bill and as well you know it. Most dog owners are reasonable citizens of the country. Admittedly they can be annoying expecting other people to love their pets as much as they do - but no more than a lot of people with irritating kids. It's just a love thing. Just because the media are selling you the idea that a very few people are using their dogs as weapons - and I'm not saying they aren't, sure as hell some do - it's no reason to follow the Government bandwagon and want to skin the majority of the pet owning public. What's needed is better education and possibly training on pet ownership. What we don't need are any more unneccessary laws. It's like I said earlier. Years ago, before the pit bull (whatever breed) hype, it was collies and German Shepherds and Rottweillers. And next year it will be something else.
  2. Okay ... so now it's let me quote and it wouldn't let me quote Bill ... no matter. I think you have a very valid point. When money becomes no object and people are upset they can be convinced to continue with unviable treatments.
  3. Bill do try to stop talking down to me, it makes you look very badly brought up.
  4. "So a blanket ban on car travel (and lorries for that matter) wouldn't have disastrous effects on society? I think you are a fantasist if you actually believe what you have written here. Personally, if I don't have a car I don't have a job - it's written in my contract. So in my case it is necessary." I said unnecessary car travel. Stop putting words into my mouth. "I never said anything about kids having mobile phones. As a working adult, again, I am provided with the use of a mobile phone for use at work. If I didn't have one then I wouldn't be able to do my job properly." Of course, this wouldn't bother you. Only kids getting bitten bothers you. If kids are giving themselves brain tumours - so what. Incidentally I had a friend with a brain tumour who, for the first few months of having it could pick up mobile phone receivers wherever she went. If you think the mobile phone companies aren't interested in this - you're wrong. They come out and do tests on why it happens. "Cleaning your toilet is necessary if you want to avoid potential disease. I agree that we could look at less polluting ways to do this without using bleach. The fact that some people drive over the speed limit does not make it acceptable for dogs to shit in parks and maul the occasional person to death." Cleaning toilets by scrubbing is probably the most effective method. Get yer marigolds on. Why should I have to drink the reconstituted rubbish that you insist on pouring down the drains because you think it makes your world safer? And I say think. Dogs shit because it is a natural function - driving over the speed limit isn't. Dogs have always mauled the occasional person to death - but the solution of banning dogs is like trying to crack a walnut with a sledgehammer - completely over the top. Plus, as I pointed out earlier, having insurance won't stop this. "You are the one expecting dogs to run according to your own personal lifestyle. Dogs have not always been domesticated animals. At some stage humans seized them and trained them "to run according to their own personal lifestyles"" Dogs have been domesticated for thousands of years. They have provided food, guardianship and companionship. To expect that to cease now just because you get upset because you may, occasionally, get dog-shit on your shoes, isn't reasonable. "WTF are you on about? - I never mentioned anything about this. You have introduced it out of nowhere. You should have the basic integrity to wait until I have actually said something before you attack it." This response was about the Nanny State comment - I'm sorry, it was a conclusion that I drew because you seem to want to see dogs banned from society by the law. Isn't that wanting a Nanny State? And, there is a very, simple solution to the dog shit thingy - but I'm not going to say it because last time I mentioned it on a forum I got shouted down. "Say it, I don't think anyone else is remotely interested in my line of argument so I will be the only one to shoot you down. Or I might even agree with you." You get points for apparently being the only one that even noticed! If you feed dogs a minimum 50% cereal (not cornflakes and stuff) diet the birds/wildlife take it away very quickly - even if the other 50% is meat or kibble. Saves on getting it on your shoes, feeds the birds, no pooper-scoopers necessary or plastic bags needing transporting to landfill. Last time I mentioned it folk jumped on the 'Oooh feeding birds dog-shit - disgusting' bandwagon (as if you force the birds to do it) (Edited to put quotes in because people would think I was a dual personality."
  5. You seriously think we should have a vote on banning dogs??? What a twee little life you must lead. We have one person back there saying he was attacked by three farm dogs. Now, I don't know how badly this person was bitten, perhaps he will come back and say so ... or it could be possible, only possible mind, that he went to a farm and the farm dogs did what they always do (to cars, tractors sheep) and ran round him barking. Most people who aren't around dogs aren't confident people, they see every bark, glance, jump as being a threat and thus hate animals even more because people are generally scared of what they don't understand. Please stop trying to turn this country into an infantile playground where people have forgotten how to live and let live and the hunter-gather instinct in men really dissolves into fighting over whose got the nicest polished shoes.
  6. Ah yes, the old 'necessary risk' rubbish. For the most part car travel is not necessary. It's not necessary to run the kids everywhere, it's not necessary to go out on trips for the weekend or take them walking round the shops. Vehicle fumes are carcenogenic, but since most people actually like going out they will ignore that factor and deem everything they do 'necessary.' It's not necessary for kids to have mobile phones stuck to their heads for most of the time, God only knows the damage they do, but most parents will insist they are necessary for 'safety.' Actually it's for a quiet life and to prove their kids aren't 'deprived.' For a lot of people having dogs is not a necessity, they can function in day to day living perfectly well without them - but then again most people can function perfectly well without having to bleach their toilets or drive over the speed limit, both of which are a direct or indirect danger to others, but they still do it. The fact of the matter is that dogs exist in our society mainly as companion animals, which enhance a lot of people's lives - for the majority they don't run about biting people willy-nilly and when you get parents acting responsibly and teaching children both to understand and respect not just dogs but all animals, accidents are few and far between. The problem arises, as does in many cases these days, when humans expect the rest of the planet to run according to their own personal lifestyles - as if the world revolves around them, their two-bedroomed semi and their pension fund. News flash - it doesn't. You deem companion animals unnecessary - other's don't. I suppose as well that you are also going, at some point to post somewhere, that you don't want a Nanny State - oh yes you do. And, there is a very, simple solution to the dog shit thingy - but I'm not going to say it because last time I mentioned it on a forum I got shouted down.
  7. ... and besides which, getting a dog insured doesn't actually stop it biting people it just means somebody else is making money from it ...
  8. Shit, unfortunately, is something all living creatures produce - you've just had yours sorted out for you by somebody else. It's nice for you, all you have is a quick peek and then it's sorted ... nice clean life, somebody else's problem. You're very dependant on the infrastructure. If you didn't have an infrastructure you would have to shit in a hole like millions still do. Dog bites, like car accidents and burns and scalds and everything else in life, are precisely that, part of life. If you want to live a life free of risk then don't go out, don't ever put a child in a car or walk it across the road, or over-feed it, or feed it crap, or let it sit too long in front of whatever gadget you have purchased to keep it occupied and quiet ... in short, don't let it experience anything at all. Put it in a little cage and have done with it.
  9. I think, currently, the Labour way of thinking is to get third party insurance in case your dog bites somebody - slightly confusing this because years ago I always thought dogs were covered on household insurance (if you picked the right one) for causing accidents etc. The problem is now that people think, me included, that with all their yelling about insurance they are talking about individual pet insurances (and I don't think these plans actually cover owners if their dog bites somebody) and these are very expensive and limiting to certain people. But yes, it is a slippery slope. To be covered by pet insurance you need to have your dog vaccinated annually, and I for one would like to know why dogs need to be vaccinated annually (people don't have to be) Therefore the vets make more money, the insurance companies make more money ... and for what? Edit - and of course the pharmaceutical companies that make the drugs (how could I forget them) - let's face it, demand is falling off for swine flu vaccines, Again it's back to making money for the larger areas of business and sod the individual, all riding on the back of garbage like the Dangerous Dogs Act. Oh, and if you don't think the Dangerous Dogs Act is garbage then you just haven't lived long enough yet. I clearly remember years ago when the press were having a field day on Border Collies that were biting, then it moved on to the German Shepherd, then the Rottweiller ... you name it ... again it's a sheeple thing - gives the brainless something to hate while they're polishing their cars.
  10. I actually wish people would look at this particular aspect more closely. Over the years I've said this more than once on this forum but I'll still repeat it: Back in 2004 GB was doing his party political bit and looked dead into the camera and said, "You are all now better off because your homes are worth so much more." A crock and we know it - but even so he was appealing to the snob within the Great British Public - the ones who liked to say "My home is worth 1/4 or 1/2 million quid" or whatever. People enjoyed it, it was all they could talk about and even now, even as we sit teetering on the edge, the one thing they can feel good about is that their houses are worth 'a lot of money.' I honestly believe it's a big factor in why Gordon still has his followers - if house prices fell he would be left with nothing at all.
  11. Good book out called 'Chucking it All' - in the same vein as the article but a lot, lot funnier. So funny in fact that an MP got it pulped first time round. Whoever mentioned the highspeed BB for rural areas was absolutely on the nail!!!!
  12. Dunno, cos as I said earlier I've never been on a plane. To be honest I'd be happy for anybody to actually make me a cup of coffee and smile about it! I can only compare what I've seen on this and other threads about BA travel and also what I've seen on TV about the bargain airlines (whose staff I think, are dreadful) Then again, you do, sort of link into another issue - how much of this profit making or money saving - is to keep shareholders happy? When we talk of investors on this forum are we talking of people who invest their capital in a company (presumably putting their money where their mouth is) and hope for a profit on their investment or are we talking specifically about shareholders who 'distance' invest in a company and expect divvies on their investment? You see I think, in recent years, shareholders have done a lot to shaft the economy - their expectations have become too high - the illusion that you can pin a fiver to a wall and next week it's turned into six quid has become all prevelant in our society. Companies are too reliant on them and will screw things up just to paint a good picture.
  13. I'd certainly disagree with that. Yes, retailers are open longer - greater choice, quality and availability are questionable. But staffing standards have certainly plummeted. Are you telling me that if BA reduced wages to bring them in line with the bargain airways you would get the same quality of staff as was on BA? I don't think so. You would simply get either a) Ex-BA staff with a grudge, or the type of staff that bargain airlines currently employ. Surely competition also allows for differentiation of standards even within the service sector. In short, you get what you pay for.
  14. It would be interesting to have a poll actually - I see a lot of people here now weren't here back in the 'good ole days!' Me Education - comp (Then put myself through uni as a mature student) Self employed with no employees First class travel - never been on a plane Gay or busty - Erm, since I'm a straight female I think going for the busty would actually make me gay?? Anyhoos - wouldn't care less as long as they did their job properly. Just wondering though; would all these BA travellers who don't support the strike actually want to travel with BA if they got staff that were of the same standard as the ones on Easyjet and Ryan Air? Maybe answering that question would make it easier to decide exactly how the two types of staff differ before questioning the wage scale? (and I have seen these staff on the telly - quality customer service and people skills....)
  15. I don't know if it's just me, but I'm getting so disallusioned with this site. Used to be, that disagreements aside, I felt like we were all more or less in the same boat, fighting for and against the same thing. I come in these days and see that the majority of posters are actually private school raised, employer investers who zip about the world travelling first class on planes and get enormously upset if their day is ruined by having a gay guy instead of a busty blonde serving them their coffee. Not to worry though, when we start getting power cuts their's will miraculously stay on because they are 'the special people.'
  16. It's also quite interesting that most sociopaths (back to the Bulger case) are identifiable as being bullies - yet recently when the PM was identified as coming into this category many of the voting public saw this as a positive factor and began to see him as a 'strong' individual. For me it just confirmed what I'd always thought ... (PS - I'm with D'oh on the Venables issue)
  17. No, the show wasn't a fix ... believe me, I know, those people were typical manual working long-term unemployed. Unfortunately they didn't show any long-term unemployed white collar workers. And you are who exactly to call anybody else a retard? ... and are we right to presume that you are now going to rush off, set up an asparagus farm and employ only UK workers (sounds like a doddle the way you mention it)
  18. Hellooo! Erm ... I worked for quite a while with both the newly unemployed and the long-term unemployed, and I've also done tattie picking and worked in a beetroot factory .... guess it qualifies me to have an opinion. First things first: much as I hate to say it but the BEEB didn't skew the programme reality wise, BUT, let's not forget here that they were showing the unemployed of 1+ years. After six months claiming benefits attitudes towards work and the establishment do tend to change somewhat. Look at it this way; you're employed as an IT programmer, you lose your job, the next employer wants to know why you lost your job (didn't you earn the company enough money, make errors, get a bit on the older side - what?) Basically, if you don't find a job before leaving the one you are in, you start to look a bit grubby. Then you do get an offer but it's not as good as the one you are in, so for whatever reason, you don't take it. Thus the downward spiral continues and then you find yourself in the 6 month plus category - Ahha, you obviously don't want to work then, you won't accept ANY job (people who are in work always say they would accept ANY job if they were out but you tend to find this isn't the case as it hits their ego very hard) By the time you realise you should have accepted the first job offered your skills are being out-dated (gosh, doesn't IT turn on a sixpence) and you haven't got any recent practical experience. Again the downward spiral continues. And, before you know it, folk are calling you a scrounger, a lazy sud, and a load of other things. Trouble is in this country we haven't had much experience of mass white collar worker job losses - yet - and anyway, slating those underfoot makes you feel better about yourself. Back to the programme. I could have told you half of them wouldn't have showed and it was embarrassing, but you need to define what problems there are first and get round them before dropping somebody into a job and this takes a lot longer than a TV company going round and asking people if they want to be in it. People have different reasons for working, different reasons for not working; pride, particularly with men, is a very, very, big issue and they will squirm in circles, blame everybody, be angry, until they get good at it. The lad in the restaurant I would have tied down to make him complete his day at work - he could have done it, but his confidence got undermined, he needed to complete that day to move forward. And as another point of interest, both Ireland and France pay a lot higher unemployment benefits than the UK.
  19. But it doesn't fall at the feet of that generation ... not at all. It may be currently being driven by it, but if all of us had been sensible in the first place things would never have come to this. Tell you what, if you and your kind don't want to be blamed by the next generation why not do something about it NOW. Why not lobby parliament and tell them you want short term tenancy agreements changing to give tenants more security. Why not tell them that all houses which are inherited, instead of paying tax, they have to be sold off at half the market value (that should sort out your house price problem in double quick time - and after all they were only derived from the boomers, who wants to benefit from that) Why not tell them you want credit cards banning. Why not tell them council housing should be built again to give people somewhere to live? Why not right the wrongs, now.
  20. Why shouldn't my heart be in great shape...? And lets face facts, you don't want me to get excited about a definition, which I'm presuming the nature of the thread derives from and I believe you started, yet you don't want people to think you hate boomers - you just blame them for everything ... So, we are talking, I suppose about the generation I was talking about before ... that generation who lived the years after the war, with rationing as children, didn't get many educational opportunites or have many livestyle luxuries, or own their own homes ... and you think they should've stayed like that, do you? Or perhaps you know nothing about that social class, maybe you think everybody had their own home, daddy worked in a profession and then everybody (clutches hands together) simply everybody, got sent to uni from the purse of mum and dad? Or are you going, yet again to throw some kind of placating nicety out there because you're too cowardly to get the splinters out of your backside???? Face it, we are all to blame for this mess - because if we hadn't taken more than we needed even when it was offered, we wouldn't be in debt now. So you can look at the 'investors' (that's them that swarm all over this forum) and think how driven companies are to provide them with their divvies at whatever cost. And you can look at the twenty somethings, who, if I remember rightly, had that much to concern them during the first five years of this century the fact that a man bought the first of a certain type of phone made the news headlines, or you can look at those who wanted to make money from housing (and they came from all age-groups) or the ones that thought they could 'buy' three holidays a year on an interest free credit card - or those that couldn't live without a plasma, or the latest gadget even if their old one was doing fine. WE drove this crash ... make no mistake about it. It was like a mother feeding an obese child and never learning how to say, enough, I'm too fat already. Just think about it, what will the next generation call you. The 'have-it-alls' Couldn't stop spending and never gave a thought about their kids as long as they had the latest Iphone.
  21. No, it's you that's missed the point - THERE ARE NO SUCH THING AS UK BABY BOOMERS - It is a term derived from the USA during a time of prosperity (set in times of The Fonz) You, and half the nation, are discussing something that didn't even exist - twerp.
  22. ... and while we're at it, what about the children of boomers who are hanging around waiting for their inheritance? Are they going to be throwing it back at their parents together with a few of the fond messages they have posted on here ... betcha don't! Honour and delicate sensibilities seem to go out of the window when they're in line for a fair bit of dosh, don't they? So a word to all the boomer haters ... just tell your parents how you feel, how you don't wish to benefit from their greed and selfishness, and to donate the house to a worthy cause. Put your money where your mouth is.
  23. And just to try and stir some empathy in you lot ... not that it will happen because it appears to be a dying emotion, but what the hell did you expect the working class to say when Mrs T offered them the chance to buy houses and get on the 'property ladder,' that you lot are screaming is your birthright? "No thanks, we'd prefer to stay as we are: asking the council if we can have the heating repaired/We don't want to leave anything to our children/We prefer to be touching our forelocks and saying 'thanks' for everything" Don't be so absolutely stupid - of course people were going to take the opportunity to take something that brought them into line with the middle-classes - and don't even bother to deny that you wouldn't have done it, because you damn well would have! They were thinking of their own kids (that'd be you lot) and the benefits it would bring to them. No, it probably wasn't right to do it, at least en masse - but in the long run I can't see anybody on this forum today that wouldn't snatch at the chance to get a house at a third of its market value irrespective of what it would do to the seller, their family or their children ... or am I wrong????
  24. Sorry Dubai - didn't see your divide and conquer statement before posting - thank God I'm not alone!
  25. Why does this stupid argument keep rearing its head when the term 'baby boomers' originated in the US and was applied to their lifestyle in that era? In Britain during the late 40's and early 50's the people (and children) had just been bombed out, had their husbands and fathers killed in the war and were still suffering from food rationing ten years later. The majority didn't have cars, didn't go to uni, left school to go to work at 14 or 15 and didn't have a TV or phone. (Christ, my mother didn't get a phone until the late 70's and then it was a party line) This, of course, wasn't what was happening in the US at the same time. Yet over and over again on here we read how 'spoilt' this generation are - it's ridiculous. Why the hell, if everybody is so smart, didn't this generation start yelling and screaming in the first few years of this century that debt was spiralling out of control, that increases needed to be made in productivity, that we were spending beyond our means??? - Because the majority of folk, young and old, were too busy enjoying it, that's why - forethought wasn't exactly on top of their agenda. And as a point of interest, back when Mrs Thatcher was selling off council houses and, make no mistake, the working class were happy about this because it allowed them more integration to the rest of society, my nan (not a boomer - just a working class woman who couldn't read or write - presumably this made her 'thick') turned to me and said, "It's not right all this. These houses were meant for poor people. There will always be poor people needing homes." So some people, those without a voice, did see it coming. Bottom line is, this government are doing a cracking job of dividing and conquering. If they aren't getting us to hate boomers, it's the folk who don't pay their car tax, TV license, benefit fraudsters, single mums, teenagers, immigrants... this list is endless ... and you lot fall for it hook, line and sinker.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.