[Closed] Apparently this Jeremy Clarkson article was pulled

Thought so. Get back in your box.

so your not going to explain what your gibbering means then?

so your not going toZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz

as chancellor, he allowed, even encouraged a boom based on debt (buy to let, rising house prices, release of equity, etc.)

just because the american bubble burst first doesn't mean Comrade Gordon is any less to blame for the situation here.

What, you don't think he should have left it all to the "invisible hand of the market" to decide then ?

You think he should have introduced credit controls, house price regulation, taken away the right to buy to let, and generally reduced the freedom of individuals to do as they please ?

Never mind about referring to him as "Comrade Gordon" ..........you sound like a right little commie to me.

Well done geezer 8)

Its funny really if I have a problem with Clarkson and his like its that he spouts shite but never gets taken to task on it as he just plays the dumb ass. You seem somewhat similar backhander.

You're just embarrassing yourself now.
Better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

So your not going to explain your views on equal opportunities then?

If ernie or even grumm had asked, I might.
But they're either not interested or are intelligent enough to know what I mean. As you are obviously not then no, I won't.

But they're either not interested or are intelligent enough to know what I mean.

I know exactly what you mean, you're insinuating some bullshit about how white men are discriminated against, despite all the evidence showing the opposite, I just can't be arsed listening to it.

See.

So your not going to explain your views on equal opportunities then?

Let me see if I can help you with this one.

Ever since backhader posted this :

backhander - Member

anagallis_arvensis
You are easily the most boring person on here.

Posted 1 day ago # Report-Post

I reckon it's been clear that backhander would rather restrict his comments to just personal insults.

He is probably working on his theory : "Better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt" And is therefore keeping his mouth firmly shut 💡

But they're either not interested or are intelligent enough to know what I mean

I'm really not very intelligent - despite any evidence to suggest the contrary.

So take it as "not interested".

Ernie, I really don't think that you can criticise people for personal insults now can you?
I actually firmly believe in equal opportunities.
Firms/govt etc etc should not be allowed to "target" any group regardless of colour or kin. The fire service/police etc should not have minority targets put upon them. I don't feel victimised and am certainly not a racist by any stretch. ANY discrimination is wrong.

backhander - Member
ANY discrimination is wrong.

Don't let Mark hear you say that... 😉 🙄

Ernie, I really don't think that you can criticise people for personal insults now can you?

Now that's not really very fair is it ? ....... I've always tried to combine my personal insults with a "point" which I'm trying to make. I accused you on the other hand, of restricting your comments to "just" personal insults.

Having said that, ever since discovering that many punters on here are right posh "polite types", I've tried to cut right down on the personal insult stakes.

Haven't you noticed ?..........it seems like [i]ages[/i] since I last called someone a **** 8)

Don't you know anything? There are two subtle but important points to the Ownership of the Means of Production. The first being that owning the Means of Production is not the same thing as owning physical property, nor is it equal to owning money. Rather OMP refers to a cultural practice in which a few individuals within a larger corporation (or company) control and decide what is done with the entire profit created by that corporation.

You big bum poo.

You big bum poo.

If that was directed at me, I'd rather be called a **** thanks.

And as for me referring to whatshisname as a "right little commie", that was in regard to wanting Brown to interfere and to not allow the market to operate freely.

Nobody, er.... you know.

For those who don't like [url=

correctness[/url]

@ grumm

I come back here to remind myself how good I have it 😉

I spend about 2/3 of the year in California but I come back to see Family & friends.
ps the UK is sh1t, I used to think it was ok but after a yr of living in the States Ive started to see it for what it is. An over priced, over crowded, dark, unfriendly place where the rich get richer, the political system is bankrupt, the people have NO effective say in the way in which they are governed, a country where the past time seems to be focused on how p1ssed you can get on a Friday night. The US isnt perfect thats for sure but its immeasurably preferable to here.

The trouble with California is that it doesn't have a resiliant water supply, is becoming increasingly prone to wildfires, due to drought, and lies on the San Andreas fault. Lots of the major population zones aren't too high above sea level either. And when catastrophy does strike all the bad people have guns.

Other than that it's probably OK though.

And what exactly do you mean by "the political system is bankrupt"?

Easy to say, but empty words.

Agree with you re' the alcohol culture though, but that is a symptom of underlying problems that are common throughout the western world.

😆

California, the bankrupt state where they are running out of water - I also seem to remember George Bush stealing a recent election.

where the rich get richer

Definitely not like California then.

I agree about it being dark and unfriendly here and everyone being obsessed with getting pissed on a friday night though. I swear if we had California's weather everyone here would stop being such whiny bastards.

Oh, forgot to add that it is probably the region of the world that is most going to suffer in the post oil economy. Just how will California continue when it becomes expensive to drive?

San Andreas fault - not if. When. 😈

You know the weather is probably the single biggest contributing factor in everything - the UK probably would be a lot happier if the Sun shone just a little more..

Im in Norcal (Northern CA) so we dont get the wildfire problems & yes drought is an issue but it has yet to affect me - thats not saying it wont though. Drought controls orders are in effect in some parts of Marin for a lot of the year (I live in Marin).
What does the height of someones house above sea-level have to do with anything? If you cant swim I understand but otherwise..As for the earthquake risk, well most folk out here dont worry about it. You just be a good boy scout & "be prepared". That took me about 6 months before I could accept that...& yes its gonna go - no doubt (but it wont be the San Andreas fault but the Hayward which would trash Oakland but hey Oaklands a dump anyway 😉 )

What will drives CA's economy? Bio-med is pretty strong, Silicon Valley will remerge under another guise. They say something like 70% of the Worlds Venture capital is located within 15 miles of Berkely & trust me there is a lot of very bright people here - they wont have a problem thinking up a way to make money..I just hope they dont find me out! As for petrol well - it costs me £55 odd to fill my car here & in the US its about £25 so I would worry about your wheels before you worry about mine..

As for bankrupt - I mean morally bankrupt. MP expenses? Latest I heard is Ann Keen is refusing to explain what the £12k she claimed for a home office was used for! If Ma Keen tried that on in the US they would simply de-select her, cant do that here can we? Perhaps if MP's were more accountable & knew if they ****ed up they would be out of job perhaps they would behave a little better..You trying keeping your job after a stunt like that..

Oh & Mandy (unelected & unloved) is aiming for the post of Foreign Secretary..

crikey final edit: I never sad that CA wasnt corrupt or broke - I just said I prefer it a hell of lot more than the UK.

Well, I'm one of the apparently few people on here who actually LIKE the good ol' US of A, but after your infantile generalisations about what it's like to live in the UK all I can say is:

Here's 10p for the fare, now p1ss off.

@ Woppit

You talking to me?

Ah woppit saw yr edit - I guess you were talking to me..

Infantile huh? Well my thoughts are based on 35 odd yrs of living in the UK & Ill take your 10p & leave you here in the damp & the dark & the overcrowding, enjoy!
8)

USA better than briton?

2 weeks holiday a year the norm, no employment protection. Expensive healthcare that does not reach a large % of the population. 5% of the worlds population 25% of the worlds pollution. Look at the murder rate

TJ never said it was better - just said I preferred it. Ive just made a choice that not all like - similar to you & helmets really 😉

ps I wonder how the UK would look if I choose to take a similar dim view? Not that I can be bothered..

Still here, then... 😐

Ernie,

found a link for you [url= http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5361869.ece ]here[/url]

I'm intrigued on what basis 'consumer confidence' could be increasing. Mind you the average punter probably thinks as long as they can afford to watch the footy on SKY at their local boozer then things are going well!!

{Link mended for you - Mod}

Certainly the term 'dead cat's bounce' is being used to describe the housing situation.

and all of this because tv's jeremy-fat-ar45-clarkson said;

(in a round about fashion)

"Britain isn't perfect, but it's still a lot better than most of the alternatives"

which, i can't disagree with...

WTF? Do I not get some STW style vitriol about being a racist daily hate reader or suchlike?
I must have offended someones sensitivities?
(I don't read the mail BTW, I hate it in an equal measure to the guardian).

Yes woppit, still here..So come on then - tell me why Im wrong about the US/UK question..

'kin hell ! What a load of cobblers!

anyway a burning question has arisen in my mind as a result of said cobblers.......

Is "backhander" a euphemism??

Sorry Backhander I got bored and went about my sunday, did you manage to explain how you support equal opportunities that arent equal?

Is "backhander" a euphemism??

The student stuff is just revolting. Most universities had to lower the number of A level because otherwise no-one would get in. People could get onto a math course without knowing what a logarithm is.

As for the johnny foreigner being barely able to speak english, well I must admit my grammar isn't quite to the level of a native but I think I am understandable, specially when I post on here with two different egos and no-one managed to see my other me wasn't english...

I'm not reading all that. Summary?

Is berm bandit?
Down south it'd be pronounced "bum bandit".

Amazed you had the wit to spot the play on words old son...absolutely amazed 😯

mikertroid - Member

Ernie,

found a link for you here

Thanks, that is very revealing. First of all it shows that the article you quoted from was published on 18 December 2008. So it's almost one year old then ....... obviously the official figures for unemployment are now completely different.

Secondly, it shows that the article was heavily culled. One bit which you completely left out said, quote :

[i]"The best estimate of unemployment is calculated by the Office for National Statistics. It uses a definition set by a United Nations agency, the International Labour Organisation. This rate counts people who want to work, are available to work, and are actively seeking employment – based on survey data."[/i]

This is [i]precisely[/i] what I have been telling you along, and what you have been denying. Just to repeat : the best estimate of unemployment is calculated by the ONS using the definition set by the completely neutral United Nations agency the ILO. I hope we can both agree on that now.

So the latest 'official' unemployment figures is 2.47 million or 7.9%. As reported here by the BBC :

[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8258405.stm ]UK unemployment climbs to 2.47m[/url]

Quote :

[i]"Unemployment increased by 210,000 to 2.47m in the three months to July, taking the jobless rate to 7.9%, the Office for National Statistics said."[/i]

However what Tom Whipple [i]does[/i] say in his article, is that if you were to include all the housewives who don't work as "unemployed" then that would push the figure higher. If you included all those who care for sick or elderly relatives as "unemployed" that would also push the figure higher. If you included all those 'gentlemen of some means' such as CaptainFlashheart, who don't "need" to work, then that again, that would push the figure higher.

But that isn't exactly surprising is it ? And you can hardly accuse the Labour government of "massaging the unemployment figures" for not including them - no other country does. And [i]certainly[/i] no Tory government has.

And btw, even if you included all those people as "unemployed", it still wouldn't push up it up to 6 million which is what you claimed was the "true" figure :

mikertroid - Member

Ernie, sorry to burst your bubble but that figure is wrong.

Clearly the figure differs depending on which criteria one uses, but "unemployed" in the true sense is approx 6mill.

Posted 2 days ago

Ernie,

Precisely! the fact that it is a year old is worrying; those figures will be higher. His claim was 7.9. I'll settle for 6.0!

But whatever Ernie, nothing that anyone mentions here will have any credence over your opinion because you must be right: Arrogance you see.

mikertroid

Unfortunatly Ernie is right and you are wrong. Its as simple as that.

Ernie,

You're demonstrating your inability for independant thought and low effective intelligence here; the fact that the article is 12 months old means that those figures will be higher. That was a simple demonstration of the fact that the ons don't include the artificially high number of Students (who would never have gone to higher education in the past) and those legions of fake incapacity claimants.

But you just keep taking those pills, Ernie! Go take a hike. Thanks.

But whatever Ernie, nothing that anyone mentions here will have any credence over your opinion because you must be right: Arrogance you see.

😀 He he says the man who thinks he knows better than the United Nations how to define unemployment ! 😀

Did you take up Junkyard's offer and inform the UN agency in Geneva that their method of calculation is all completely wrong ?

I am unlike you however, perfectly prepared to accept the ILO/ONS figures. As I said myself on this thread :

ernie_lynch - Member

I'm hardly in a position to make my own independent analysis of the state of the UK economy. I will wait until the ONS releases it figures.

Posted 1 day ago #

I am also prepared to accept that a member of the Bank of England rate-setting committee is better informed than I am - you on the other hand, think you know better.

As far as the article you quoted from being almost a year old, yes it is very relevant. Because when you falsely claimed "According to official statistics, the unemployment rate is just 6 per cent – 1,864,000 people."

I thought to myself, that's not true - those aren't the official figures.......why didn't you mention that your "official figures" were a year old, eh ?

And you accuse the government of 'playing around' with figures !!!

Getting back to your central point. Yes of course if you include all the students at universities, all the housewives, all the people lying sick in hospital beds, etc, then the unemployed figure would be much higher - clever you for pointing that out. And naughty Labour government and United Nations for not including them. I look forward to the next Tory government including them all in [i]their[/i] unemployment figures 8)

BTW, just a couple of final points. Your claims that, quote :

"[i]nothing that anyone mentions here will have any credence over your opinion because you must be right"[/i] and "[i]You're demonstrating your inability for independant thought and low effective intelligence here[/i]"

Contains a serious contradiction...... ie, is it my own opinion ? Or do I have no ability for independent thought ?

You're probably right about "low effective intelligence" though - I couldn't have thought of anything as clever as,

[i] "But you just keep taking those pills, Ernie! Go take a hike."[/i]

absolutely amazed

Erniel - you missed a bit of Mikert's "central point" I've put it in for you though out of fairness.

"Getting back to your central point. Yes of course if you include all the students at universities, all the housewives, all the people lying sick in hospital beds, and those legions of fake incapacity claimants, etc, then the unemployed figure would be much higher - clever you for pointing that out. And naughty Labour government and United Nations for not including them. I look forward to the next Tory government including them all in their unemployment figures"

This post takes me back to the 80's arguments, the names have changed, the paries have changed sides but it's the very same argument. I can remember being in heated conversations about the 7-8 million unemployed under the tories. Same party tricks applied by the same type of people they just call themselves a different name. Call me a cynic but it's just history repeating, nothing learned.

MT - apart for Labour have taken steps to make the unemployment figures more accurate - whereas the tories took steps to make the figures lower.

Did you take up Junkyard's offer and inform the UN agency in Geneva that their method of calculation is all completely wrong ?

The fact that we've offloaded thousands of unemployed as students and 'incapacity' claimants is hardly the UN's fault!

And you accuse me of quoting 'official figures'? I quoted an article demonstrating that the way we feed those figures to the agencies is wrong. Date is irrelevant.

But you clearly lack the ability to figure that out yourself. You are the weakest link. Goodbye 🙂

So, back on topic - what about that Clarkson, eh? Isn't he a card!

Still a funny article though if not taken toooo seriously!

you accuse me of quoting 'official figures'? I quoted an article demonstrating that the way we feed those figures to the agencies is wrong. Date is irrelevant.

The date is irrelevant ? 😀

You provided figures which you claimed were the "official" unemployment figures. These figures were very clearly wrong. But it wasn't until I discovered they were 12 months old, that I realised why they were so wrong - it had nothing at all to do with the government releasing false figures !

So why didn't you make it clear that they were 12 months old ? Would you have been happy to use 20 year old "official" figures because date is "irrelevant" ? And you accuse the government of "massaging" the figures ! 😀

.

The fact that we've offloaded thousands of unemployed as students and 'incapacity' claimants is hardly the UN's fault!

Well don't you think you should approach the UN agency in Geneva the ILO, armed with your evidence that the UK government is falsifying the unemployment figures - I'm sure they would be very interested as I believe they have quite a hefty legal department and the figures are being published as "ILO figures" :

[url= http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20091111/ilo-unemployment-in-the-uk-remains-unchanged.htm ]ILO Unemployment in the UK remains unchanged[/url]

And if you don't fancy emailing the ILO as Junkyard suggested, you can phone them direct, do it - that's why after all, they give contact details :

http://www.ilo.org/employment/SupplementalNavigation/Contactus/lang--en/index.htm

Of course if [i]anyone[/i] should protesting about "false" ILO unemployment figures for the UK, you would expect it to be the Tory Party, wouldn't you ?

Unfortunately mikertroid, the Tories don't agree with you. They fully accept the ILO defined figures as being perfectly correct. They even quote them on the official Conservative Party website. From July 15 2009 :

[url= http://www.conservatives.com/News/News_stories/2009/07/May_warns_unemployment_is_ruining_the_lives_of_millions.aspx ]Unemployment rose by 281,000 in the past three months, bringing the total number of jobless to 2.38 million.[/url]

And even though in the article they say that Theresa May the Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, "[i]accused Labour of being “in denial” about the true scale of the problem[/i]" nowhere on their site do they claim that unemployment is really 6 million - as you do.

I accept figures because there are sufficient reasons to believe them to be true - not because they fit my own political agenda. Shame you appear unwilling to do the same mikertroid.

Still never mind.

BTW : [i]"You are the weakest link. Goodbye"[/i]

That's from an amusing TV quiz show isn't it ? I'm not sure point you were trying to make - but yes [i]very[/i] funny 😀 *thumbs up*

so, to conclude:

1) unemployment goes up in recession.

2) Clarkson winds up a lot of people.

3) you can prove anything by google.