GrahamS – Member
Good to have you back SfB

……. no it isn’t 😯

With rare exceptions conflicts get resolved around a table, its just a sahme that in the thousands of years of human history that we haven’t got round to doing the table bit first.

Hurrah for common sense 😯

I’m still bummed the world is ending again this year….on my 30 th birthday

Our local priest reckons everyone gets bummed on their birthday….

with the Far East’s approach to drug dealers that are sentenced to death.

Unfortunately the “dealers” are also users, just using that form of criminality to fund their addicition instead of theft or prostitution. All along the line its just not that simple.

In truth we’d be a whole heap better off with consensus politics rather than the pendulum swing back and forth between two opposing doctrines. A term of 5 years is simply not sufficient to do anything of real note which will give long term benefits.

Until we get that we are doomed to a situaion where one shower gets in and tries to undo what the previous shower did, then the other gets in and only to reverse it all again.

A massive shame that the last election and the events prior to it did not manage to shoulder charge the established status quo off the ball and give us all an opportunity to rewrite the rule book and have a go at scoring.

I live in hope of a middle of the road politico developing gonads and actually grasping the will of the vast majority of British people who are surprisingly moderate and turning that will into some common sense policies.

or stop supporting addicts and let them die out before they can reproduce.

Tory by any chance?

I suppose its just the rabid, stupid tory electorate that are against that is it?

No idea Zulu Old chum, but then I didn’t suggest that it was. Out of interest I so see precisely where the legalise argument is coming from, however I’m not sure it is actually the solution, and although I think it might be one step in a positive direction I would still say that proper programs to assist addicts with their behaviours is more likely to be a success in the long term.

You don’t rise to the top of anything by being stupid and lazy

Ronald Reagan, George Bush ….

However, moving on swiftly, the point is that idiotically simplistic Tory knee jerk solutions to complex problems cost you and me fortunes. To actually come out and start wittering on about benefits as the root of all financial evil is not only inaccurate, it is also a VERY expensive dogmatic mistake along similar lines to the cuts they always make to the NHS during their terms in office, which subsequently then cost fortunes to rectify. Note today they are talking about declaring an NHS trust Bankrupt….. that may or may not be right regarding the finances, but it kind of skims over the impact that that has on those people whose lives depend on that clinically very successful hospital.

The actual fact of what they are doing is that in times of cuts the bills actually go up and not down. Its not like domestic home management. Tax revenues reduce and outgoings in things like unemployment benefits rise, as does pressure on Health services and pretty much all other social provision of any description. So their antidote to that is to cynically attack those benefits and health services before that happens, which is what they have been doing since they came in. That does not make those problems go away, they are just transfered to someone else….. i.e. you and me, and whoever comes behind them as the next Government.

A simple example: Lets cut benefits to people who are drug dependant. Seems sensible, stop funding their habit right? In actual fact their habit will be funded by crime of one sort or another, if you cut their benefits they will just do more crime, which actually costs huge amounts more than either their benfits or their habit. The obvious sensible thing to do is to actually invest in realistic programs to deal with the underlying problems. This is proven fact…… but of course that won’t go down with the rabid and frankly stupid Tory electorate, so we won’t do that now will we!!

grum – Member
So when he talks about the culture of entitlement is he referring to him and his rich tax-avoiding chums or people on benefits?

Cut taxes for the rich, let the banks/finance industry get off scot-free, then blame everything on the poor. Classic.

POSTED 13 HOURS AGO #
binners – Member
Am I the only one who thinks its a bit rich (no pun intended) listening to one of a group of multimillionaires, who inherited all their wealth from mummy and daddy, telling us they’re stamping out a ‘culture of entitlement’?

Its incredible that their collective eye-wateringly expensive educations allow them to make statements like this without a hint of irony. If it wasn’t so serious, it’d be laughable

Totally agree with these two comments from page one of this thread.

So how about a completely radical approach instead? For example, one where we actively encourage the creation of wealth, one where we seek out the best of our young people and give them the best possible education and fast track them, as opposed to pissing that opportunity up against the wall by squandering it on thick twunts like Cameron/Gove/Duncan-Smith and Osborne who have no idea what a days work is and whose only solution to any problem is to attack those who are already disadvantaged and who did not create it, and then wonder why we have increasingly levels of social problems, which in turns costs us fortunes.

(Same principle applies to pretty much all of their polices just insert the appropriate wording as suits).

I’d be much more impressed if Call-Me-Dave had named and shamed this Monaco dwelling tax evasion expert.

But hang on …… Oops sorry apparently he works for Dave

How does any of this generate income?

Ah well thats goes right to the root of economic debate. It depends whether you believe that money flows in an economy, i.e. spending it one place will generate purchases in another, which will then lead to spending in another etc etc ad nauseum or cutting spending, avoiding paying tax and never buying anything expect for cash is the way forward doesn’t it?

I think we’ve already spotted the flaw in the latter as unemployment rises, services get cut, unemployment rises further, tax revenue goes down, (we’ve already figured out that it’s the lower end who are more vulnerable to redundacny who pay the highest proportion of taxes) and outgoings go up as the unemployed start claiming benefits……. Which incidentally is why this delightful bunch started out on their pleasure trip with a huge assault on those benefits. Cyncially knowing that what they were about to do would put more people onto them.

Personally, I think the regeneration of East London and for that matter Manchester makes the running of an event like the Olympics or Commonwealth Games cheap at twice the price.

Ah, opening ceremonies generally are a waste of time money and energy as opposed to lets slate our one that we’ve not even seen yet as being crap. Now theres a whine I can buy into.

Cynicism and pitiless scorn are two of our nation’s finest and proudest characteristics

Really? Personally I think it just makes us sound like a cross between Victor Meldrew and the Waldorf/Stadler combo, but without the wit or humour.

Up to him what he does, as it is me. So for me I don’t want the responsibility of the helmetless hero so please go ride with someone else. Simple really

Any chance that it might be an idea to see it before writing it off as a pile of crap?

Personally, everything I’ve seen to date of the Olympics has been absolutely amazing and really well done…..and before anyone asks, what I’ve seen close up is the Basketball arena, the Velodrome, Hadleigh MTB circuit, and the various plaza around the Stratford Olympic park.

Hahahaha – please. This made me laugh out loud. If you think the media in this country is ‘free’ in any meaningful sense you are either deluded or ignorant. I suspect the later.

I think you may be mistaking commercial companies as “the media” per se. Commercial “news” organisations are in the business of selling advertising. Therefore they publish things which they believe will sell advertising to their clients. i.e. they publish what people want to buy as opposed to news. The BBC on the other hand do not have that imperative, and therefore do tend to be more intelligent in the news and current affairs that they present (no not footbalers misdemeanours!). The real freedom of media is the abilty to publish to a massive audience wordlwide through vehicles such as this forum and blogs. I think you will find there is little or no censorship or control taken over that in this country.

Regarding racism generally, it is entirely wrong to run away from it. It needs confronting actively, so to that extent its right and proper to do so where we can. Don’t forget Eastern Europe is not much different to the UK 50 years ago. Things can and will change. They will change that much faster if it is demonstrated that much of the rest of the world strongly disapproves and that there are real costs for behaving this way.

You can try sueing a landowner if you wish but there has never been a successful case as far as I am aware.

this is a myth put around – gawd knows why. Stop perpetuating it

I’m afraid its not a myth TJ. A lot of the angst within the FC emanates from a case at Delamare where they were sued for £12 million admittedly unsuccessfully. The problem they have is that they carry no insurance as a crown organisation, and any successful cases will be settled straight out of operational budgets after the contingency fund of £2million for all eventualities is used up. In essence they could if they lose such a case literally be forced to sell off forest estate to pay the bill.
For this reason they operate under a guidance schemed called OGB37, which dictates what they can and can’t do. One item of which is that where they are aware of trails in use in the forest they have responsibility and a duty of care to the users. If they are unable to fulfil the duty of care stipulations in OGB 37 they are obliged to permanently close those trails. In FC-land that means driving a harvester along the length of them, which is pretty much what seems to have happened at Lordswood.

However, there is a chink of light, in that also in the same document there is a direction to try to engage with trail users rather than destroy trails, as they are aware that rebuild is the likely outcome. From the sound of it and reading the sign at Lordswood, you seem to have a situation where they are planting on leased land. They still have the same responsibilities, but not necessarily control. We have had similar issues at Thetford. Unfortunately, ignorance on the part of people riding into an area used for shooting in shooting season has caused that whole area of forest to be lost to MTB, not to mention other huge tracts of land owned by the same landowner

Work with them, and if they say no try to find alternatives, but whatever happens work with. If you need any help contact me.

The real problems is that the waymarked trails are just wild trails that have been adopted and then ridden to death with zero maintainance. All of the way marked trails bar the Red are knackered beyond recognition and need substantial investment in them. The red is the exception, becuase it was originally “created” out of wild trails and then destroyed in under a year. TIMBER formed as a reaction to that, and it has been their objective since then to get the red into a long term sustainable condition as a first priority. It is just about there now. They have currently moved on to the Green to try to get that in shape before everyone who visits the Forest diverts onto the Red which is the only thing that isn’t a quagmire or sand trap depending on the weather.

Everyone keeps going on about the wild trails, but they are diminshing in number and quality year by year. Its in the nature of the beast in a commercial forest that there will be harvesting and thinning, and when that happens unadopted trails will get trashed. This year there has been substantial harvesting at BCP. That pales into insignificance when you see the thinning map for the next 18 months or so. There is hardly a block at High Lodge that remains untouched by it.

The timber boys are on it and trying to achieve positive outcomes, but the reallity is that they are few and the issues are many, so any support would be welcome. they have a meeting on Thursday this week, so if you can roll up and give your support.

I don’t know what your problem is….. its the Big Society in action, just like Dave promised.

Or not fix something that is….

people are easily deceived

Actually the evidence doesn’t support that statement.

If you can remeber this, you might also remember that Bernie Grant, Ken Livingstone and Paul Boetang were all absolutely villified by the press throughout the campaign. They were all elected, so its harder to deceive the electorate than you might think.

If it were put to a vote, then we would in all likely hood have a democratically elected queen

Thats far from certain, especially if there were to be an informed debate about the pros and cons. Remember in her lifetime most of her subjects have kicked her, (and us for that matter) into touch, and continue to do so. In case thats not clear 80% of people to whom she was monarch at her coronation no longer recognise her as such.

Don’t pretend that it can’t happen because it clearly can.

Well no actually, it can’t, at least not in the way you describe. The situation with Edward VIII was that he made himself ineligible, in respect of the role of leader of the Church of Engalnd, in much the same way as Charles would have done had he divorced and subsequently married Camilla. That is not the same as being fired for some misdemeanour or other.

History is littered with cases of deranged royals being maintained in situ, George III and Henry VIIIth to name but two. There is also some evidence to suggest that Edward VIIth wasn’t playing with a full hand either. Whatever, he was certainly an embaressment for a good bit of his life and definatly was a bit of a knob.

Finally, in answer to this

Why would you need legislation

The reason is self evident, in that it is necessary so that there is a clear route to follow which is inexorable, as opposed to some fantasy in your mind, which may or may not be played out depending on whose self interest is being served at the time.

Now, I’ve given a clear case to support my assertion. Wheres yours?

It’s not any sort of interpretation. It was a clear fact which contradicts your false claim

Go on then provide the evidence that the Monarch can be sacked for behaving like a knob. I would love to see the bit of legislation that states that. Don’t bother, looking because as you well know there isn’t any.

As I said all there is, is the wispy and mysterious unwritten constitution which is made up by those in power as they go along and perpetuates the status quo.

What happens if she refuses?

Apparently according to Ernie she gets fired and sent off to live in splendour in France and/or the Bahamas……. that’ll teach her!

The King just two monarchs ago was given the sack, or forced to abdicate as it is more politely referred to, precisely because too many people thought he was a knob

A very subjective interpretation which doesn’t detract from the fact that its still a case of the clear fact that there is no sensible argument in favour of retaining this archaic institution. At best it highlights the fallacy that the Royals are in some way “special”, and at worst it is yet another case of the old boy network sweeping things under the table so as to maintain the status quo, the very status quo that very coincidentally benefits them.

There is a very strong argument that as a nation we are severely hampered by class structure and the lack of social mobility that it creates. In my world, I have no problem with people being successful, or wealthy, as long as its through their own efforts. We need more of them as role models IMHO. What I object to really strongly, is this ridiculous notion that an accident of birth by and large determines all of our futures. That notion is perpetuated by the institution of the Royal Family, and for that reason they are the weakest link and we need to say goodbye.

….but thats the point, Murdoch may well get offed by his shareholders, his son already has been to some extent. Regardless of how big a knob a royal is the only way they get offed is via the great expense of a state funeral.

great many people in the world with high levels of privilege who inherited it rather than worked for it.

Nail hit firmly on the head moley, but not in the way you intended. So what proprotion of the 7 billion odd on this planet do you reckon are enjoying a high level of privilige because they inherited it exactly?
The fact is that if you think about it the answer is a miniscule infinitesimally small proportion. No problem with enjoying high levels of worth, but personally I’d prefer them to earn it, and frankly I reckon it sets a really bad example of our nation to have the pinnicle of our society represented in this way.

argue hysterically with that anyway.

Occasional, pretentious and pontifciating probably, alongside overweight, sweaty and bored, but definitely not hysterical

I work on a farm site in rural Essex. Fly tipping is a routine feature of life for the farmer. It isn’t all travellers, but there is a noticable increase in incidents when they are in the area. However, the bigger issue here is the stupidity of the way in which refuse sites are run. Bascially, its a case of lets make it really difficult and awkward for people to dispose of their rubbish legitimately, then when we’ve done that we can concentrate on the inexplicable rise in flytipping. Madness!!

I’d rather not read what you’ve said anymore. You’re one of those infuriating people who use a lot of words but say nothing.

LOL finding it difficult to make your point stick by any chance?

may I suggest that if you don’t want other people’s opinions, don’t spend your time looking on chat forums.

Read what I said. All consistent no change of tack or argument, and not at all incompatible with Fugazi or anyone else other than the occasional pretentious pontificator. That apart may I suggest that in respect of posting on forum, people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. I’m perfectly comfortable with your right to state whatever view you wish, (albeit that its completely wrong), what I read or write is likewise my right, and not one for you to lecture me on. In fact I’d go as far as to say thats exactly the patronising attitude that leads me to my view on pretentiousness in art.

Success/principles aren’t mutually exclusive, Fugazi for example

I don’t think I said they were. I’m pretty sure that what I said was that if you ask me to pay you for something I have the right to an opinion on the item and the right not to buy it. That in no way effects the artists principles, or necessarily success. What I did say is if the artists principles in essence preclude success thats also fine, but don’t flounce about moaning about either principles and/or lack of success.

I think its pretty clear to be honest, but as you are struggling with it here it is again.

If you are a principled artist that’s fine with me. Entirely your call, however, what that actually means is either a) art for arts sake and not for public consumption, or b) offering your art up for public consumption and accepting the outcome and genuinely not giving a flying stuff what anyone has to say about it, or more significantly whether they deem it worthy of giving you money or not. Both of those outlooks are absolutely fine by me, and have my full respect for those principles.

Where my view diverges is at the point where art is a business proposition and the principled artist is excepting to be paid for their work whilst flouncing about going on about their principles. Flock off! If you expect me to pay, then you have to accept that I have some choice in the matter, and some right to an opinion. That opinion might include not paying for or liking what you do so live with it. If that happens, at that point as an artist you have the same choice as the rest of us. Which is basically a real job and art as a hobby, or go hungry. So welcome to the real world.

There are plenty of principled artists who wouldn’t

I love the principled artist crap.

Reminds me of a very old story about an old gent in a first class train carriage offering a pretty young thing a seat in his carriage. After a while the conversation gets round to what each would do for a million pounds, slightly embarrassed she admits she would sleep with someone for that kind of money. With that the gent whips out JT, and slaps £10 on the table. Shes screams and shouts what do you think I am…..A Tart! to which he replies, madam we have already established that, now we are just haggling over the price. Says it all really, and frankly the truth of it is there is nothing quite so pretentious “as an artist being principled to his art”. So good luck to JR milk it son, milk it.

If you are one, may I suggest you shut the **** up and keep it to yourself. Failing that if you want others to look at/engage with your art accept comment good or bad. That’s what you have invited.

……and yes I have previous on the subject, and yes it boils my piss royally.

Neither you me nor anyone else has any right to tell people what to do in circumstances that we don’t and won’t understand until confronted by them. Personally I wouldn’t chose to put myself into a position whereby I have to decide whether I or someone else lives or dies. If however,I ever am I hope I make a decision I can live (or maybe die) with.

For Blatter : Anytime you draw with an English team the opponent wins

For Real : Whats wrong with a competition being drawn?

Snakebites are not a major issue in rural East Anglia, which takes me back to the original post, like I said I get tubeless for rock where you realy do need a tyre to deform and grip a surface, and under inflation with a tube is a proper hazard, but round here its either Sand or Clay. In the dry its like riding on a dusty road, and in the wet its mud so if the lower pressure thing is right in those conditions, why don’t road riders do it??

Clearly given the first post, responding to this is a waste of time, berm bandit has already made up his mind and isn’t interested in changing it.

I think you might need to get those GCSE English books out again Nick, a sentence that ends in one of these “?” is a question, not a statement.

I really am interested, because as you can see from above the responses are far from consistent as to what the advantages are. In fact I find that almost as many people reckon its not worth it as reckon it is. Generally with new concepts the benefits are pretty obvious, like external BB’s and disc brakes and so forth. Tubeless seems less so, and so far no one has been able with any degree of certainty to turn to any aspect and say “if you do this you will without fear of contradiction gain X”. Generally its very anecdotal and almost always contradicted by another tubeless user as soon as its said.

I well remember discs coming in, and it was a no brainer. Better more efficent braking, still pretty effective in crappy conditions and no rims splitting after being worn to nothing by grit.

A good example of what I’m saying being these two statements

it’s definately lighter. My tape and valve came to 40g, 60g of stans fluid, normal (maxxis SPC and specialized normal and 2bliss) tyres. So that’s 100g saved form the wheels over normal 150g tubes.

unless you are a racer/idiot you always carry a spare inner tube so you can ignore that weight

&

But always had a tube, gas can and tire boot,taped to the stem just in case

So actually far from being a weight benefit as claimed by thisisnota spoon, its would appear by his own numbers to be a 50g penalty when the idiots tube is taken into account, and I hasten to add that peretty much everyone I speak to admits to an idiots tube, not just the two examples given here.

See what I mean?

You can’t compare the lack of punctures you get with tubeless to slime in an inner tube. Come on now.
I’ve gone 3,4 years between punctures on tubeless at some points in time. What does a slime inner tube look like after 4 years use?

Looks like something cheap and easy to replace that doesn’t mean loads of wheels in the garage to facilitate tyre changes and which works about as well as tubeless in preventing puncture faffage and weighs approximately the same, but if you want to be picky lets call it a tube filled with Stans for the sake of argument.