Re: BOFHs requiring license

[Elaine -HFB- Ashton]

Paul Makepeace [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] quoth:
*>``BOFHs will legally need licence to work''
*>
*>http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/7/18866.html
*>
*>Absurd, laughable and bizarre. What *is* wrong with the UK?

I interviewed for a firewall admin job at a big bank whereupon they took a
microscope to the last 10+ years of my life and stopped just short of the
anal probe. Had I taken the position I would have been bonded as well for
insurance. I don't know how well this would apply to the rest of the
rather rampantly variable systems security market but banks have already
been doing it for years...no big deal there.

As a wise Rabbi once said, "Trust is knowing exactly what someone will do"
and, with a 10+ year background check, you've got a pretty good idea or at
least better than a resume that could be all inflated or exaggerated
truths.

It boils down to insurance probably.

e.

Re: BOFHs requiring license

[Simon Cozens]

On Sat, May 12, 2001 at 03:30:31AM -0700, Paul Makepeace wrote:
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/7/18866.html
> Absurd, laughable and bizarre. What *is* wrong with the UK?

Don't ask me, you elected 'em. And it looks like you're all stupid enough
to do it *again*.

-- 
Pray to God, but keep rowing to shore.
 -- Russian Proverb

Re: BOFHs requiring license

[Dave Cross]

At 15:27 13/05/2001, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Sat, May 12, 2001 at 03:30:31AM -0700, Paul Makepeace wrote:
> > http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/7/18866.html
> > Absurd, laughable and bizarre. What *is* wrong with the UK?
>
>Don't ask me, you elected 'em. And it looks like you're all stupid enough
>to do it *again*.


I know, I know. Blair doesn't have a socialist bone in his body - it's been 
a _most_ disappointing four years, all i all.

But given that the Socialist Alliance are only standing in ~100 
constituencies, there doesn't seem to be any credible alternative.


Dave...

-- 
  SMS: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Data Munging with Perl 

Re: BOFHs requiring license

[Greg McCarroll]

* Dave Cross ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> At 15:27 13/05/2001, Simon Cozens wrote:
> >On Sat, May 12, 2001 at 03:30:31AM -0700, Paul Makepeace wrote:
> > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/7/18866.html
> > > Absurd, laughable and bizarre. What *is* wrong with the UK?
> >
> >Don't ask me, you elected 'em. And it looks like you're all stupid enough
> >to do it *again*.
> 
> 
> I know, I know. Blair doesn't have a socialist bone in his body - it's been 
> a _most_ disappointing four years, all i all.
> 
> But given that the Socialist Alliance are only standing in ~100 
> constituencies, there doesn't seem to be any credible alternative.
> 


if only the SNP covered the whole of the UK

-- 
Greg McCarroll  http://www.mccarroll.uklinux.net

Re: BOFHs requiring license

[David Cantrell]

On Sun, May 13, 2001 at 03:45:21PM +0100, Dave Cross wrote:

> But given that the Socialist Alliance are only standing in ~100 
> constituencies, there doesn't seem to be any credible alternative.

http://www.socialistalliance.net/constituencies/constitlist.htm for the
complete list.

-- 
David Cantrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/

  Rip, Mix, Burn, unless you're using our "most advanced operating system
   in the world" which we decided to release incomplete just for a laugh

Re: BOFHs requiring license

[Greg McCarroll]

* David Cantrell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Sun, May 13, 2001 at 03:45:21PM +0100, Dave Cross wrote:
> 
> > But given that the Socialist Alliance are only standing in ~100 
> > constituencies, there doesn't seem to be any credible alternative.
> 
> http://www.socialistalliance.net/constituencies/constitlist.htm for the
> complete list.
> 

ok i reserve the right to quit this thread at any time, however 

But hasn't `new' labour's example shown that there is no place for
socialism in modern government? Hasn't their move to capitalism been
really a well spun admission of defeat? How can any socialist not
feel that when it came to the crunch socialism was rejected by
intelligent people who understood its principals and benefits
intimitadly because they could see it would not work for modern
Britain?



-- 
Greg McCarroll  http://www.mccarroll.uklinux.net

Re: BOFHs requiring license

[David Cantrell]

On Sun, May 13, 2001 at 05:22:49PM +0100, Greg McCarroll wrote:

> ok i reserve the right to quit this thread at any time, however 
>
> But hasn't `new' labour's example shown that there is no place for
> socialism in modern government? Hasn't their move to capitalism been
> really a well spun admission of defeat? How can any socialist not
> feel that when it came to the crunch socialism was rejected by
> intelligent people who understood its principals and benefits
> intimitadly because they could see it would not work for modern
> Britain?

Alternatively ... the Labour Party is not and never has been socialist,
but they at least used to embrace some of the same policies as socialists
do.  Being in reality just another form of Social Democratic party, they
decided that it was in their best interests to pander to the dribbling
morons who believe what they read in the tabloid press, and so ditched
any remaining hints of socialism and became just another Tory party*.
Although without such a witless and ineffectual leader.

I have no intention of voting for Bliar or for Vague.  If there were a
party standing here on a platform of devolution/independence (such as an
alliance of the SNP, Plaid Cymru, and some (currently non-existent)
English equivalent, they'd get my vote.  Do the Lib Dems think along
these lines?  No-one knows cos the LDs have never seemed to have any
policies ever.

* - although clearly not quite as evil as the real thing.

-- 
David Cantrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/

  Rip, Mix, Burn, unless you're using our "most advanced operating system
   in the world" which we decided to release incomplete just for a laugh

Re: BOFHs requiring license

[Simon Cozens]

On Sun, May 13, 2001 at 05:22:49PM +0100, Greg McCarroll wrote:
> How can any socialist not feel that when it came to the crunch socialism was
> rejected by intelligent people who understood its principals and benefits
> intimitadly because they could see it would not work for modern Britain?

Which "intelligent people who understood it" would that be, then?

-- 
Hi, this is Ken. What's the root password?

Re: BOFHs requiring license

[Simon Cozens]

On Sun, May 13, 2001 at 05:35:24PM +0100, David Cantrell wrote:
> Do the Lib Dems think along these lines?  No-one knows cos the LDs have
> never seemed to have any policies ever.

Actually, I like the idea of parties which don't have any policies. They're
supposed to represent what we tell them to support, remember, not the other
way around.

-- 
Some people claim that the UNIX learning curve is steep, but at least you
only have to climb it once.

Re: BOFHs requiring license

[Dave Cross]

At 17:22 13/05/2001, Greg McCarroll wrote:
>* David Cantrell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > On Sun, May 13, 2001 at 03:45:21PM +0100, Dave Cross wrote:
> >
> > > But given that the Socialist Alliance are only standing in ~100
> > > constituencies, there doesn't seem to be any credible alternative.
> >
> > http://www.socialistalliance.net/constituencies/constitlist.htm for the
> > complete list.
> >
>
>ok i reserve the right to quit this thread at any time, however 
>
>But hasn't `new' labour's example shown that there is no place for
>socialism in modern government? Hasn't their move to capitalism been
>really a well spun admission of defeat? How can any socialist not
>feel that when it came to the crunch socialism was rejected by
>intelligent people who understood its principals and benefits
>intimitadly because they could see it would not work for modern
>Britain?

I'm sure you understand that New Labour has _nothing_ to so with socialism 
in any form. What happened is that after 18 years of Tory government the 
politics of the country _had_ moved to the right and therefore to stand any 
chance of winning the last election, the Labour party thought they had to 
do the same. What they failed to realise, however, was the size of the 
country's disillusionment with the Tories. There really was no need to 
throw out all of the Party's principles. A smaller move to the right would 
have been all that was needed. They'd still have won, albeit with a smaller 
majority.

The problem is, of course, that they are now tied to these 'mini-Tory' 
principles and will find it very hard to go back on them. My hope is that 
either this time or in four/five years' time, the Tories will be almost 
completely wiped out or forced to split into two smaller parties. This will 
leave the Lib Dems as the only credible opposition party and, as they're 
currently more left wing than the Labour Party, British politics will 
rejoin much of Europe on the left of the political spectrum.

I only hope it's not too late.

Dave...



-- 
  SMS: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Data Munging with Perl 

Re: BOFHs requiring license

[Greg McCarroll]

* Simon Cozens ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Sun, May 13, 2001 at 05:22:49PM +0100, Greg McCarroll wrote:
> > How can any socialist not feel that when it came to the crunch socialism was
> > rejected by intelligent people who understood its principals and benefits
> > intimitadly because they could see it would not work for modern Britain?
> 
> Which "intelligent people who understood it" would that be, then?
> 

its just a naive hope that the leaders of the Labour party understand
the principals of socialism - i accept that this may not be the case 

-- 
Greg McCarroll  http://www.mccarroll.uklinux.net

Re: BOFHs requiring license

[Dave Cross]

At 17:38 13/05/2001, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Sun, May 13, 2001 at 05:22:49PM +0100, Greg McCarroll wrote:
> > How can any socialist not feel that when it came to the crunch 
> socialism was
> > rejected by intelligent people who understood its principals and benefits
> > intimitadly because they could see it would not work for modern Britain?
>
>Which "intelligent people who understood it" would that be, then?

Take a look around you. This list, being representative of the Perl 
community, tends towards the intelligent end of the spectrum. And from what 
I've gathered from the conversations I've had with people here, the vast 
majority of us tend towards the left[1].

Dave...
[1] Cue indignant emails from the half-dozen of so right-wingers I know on 
the list :)


-- 
  SMS: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Data Munging with Perl 

Re: BOFHs requiring license

[Greg McCarroll]

* Dave Cross ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> 
> I've gathered from the conversations I've had with people here, the vast 
> majority of us tend towards the left[1].
>
 
I'm not sure i tend to either side, i don't really like the party system
of being a named outlook on the world. But i don't have another way the elections
could work effectively in the forseeable future. 

-- 
Greg McCarroll  http://www.mccarroll.uklinux.net

Re: BOFHs requiring license

[Martin Ling]

On Sun, May 13, 2001 at 05:42:00PM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
> 
> On Sun, May 13, 2001 at 05:35:24PM +0100, David Cantrell wrote:
> > Do the Lib Dems think along these lines?  No-one knows cos the LDs have
> > never seemed to have any policies ever.
> 
> Actually, I like the idea of parties which don't have any policies. They're
> supposed to represent what we tell them to support, remember, not the other
> way around.

Hey, what if we had a system where we just elected a *candidate* we
liked, like one for each local area or something? Pretty crazy, huh?

Just as a system of elected representatives removes a level of public
control from a democracy, so the addition of party structures still
further destroys the individual's voice. It's a final and short step to
a single party and all the Orwell you can eat. But, since the two
parties (Yes.) are exactly the same now, it's already happened anyway.
I am Jack's total lack of surprise.


Martin

Re: BOFHs requiring license

[Simon Cozens]

On Sun, May 13, 2001 at 06:30:44PM +0100, Martin Ling wrote:
> Hey, what if we had a system where we just elected a *candidate* we
> liked, like one for each local area or something? Pretty crazy, huh?

Democracy? In this country? It wouldn't work.

Democracy is overrated. I think a meritocracy is needed. Perhaps measured by
Perl competence.

-- 
   User: In 1793 the french king was executed.
MegaHAL: HA HA HA! CORRECT. ALTHOUGH, EXECUTED HAS MULTIPLE MEANINGS. 

Re: BOFHs requiring license

[Greg McCarroll]

* Martin Ling ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Sun, May 13, 2001 at 05:42:00PM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
> > 
> > On Sun, May 13, 2001 at 05:35:24PM +0100, David Cantrell wrote:
> > > Do the Lib Dems think along these lines?  No-one knows cos the LDs have
> > > never seemed to have any policies ever.
> > 
> > Actually, I like the idea of parties which don't have any policies. They're
> > supposed to represent what we tell them to support, remember, not the other
> > way around.
> 
> Hey, what if we had a system where we just elected a *candidate* we
> liked, like one for each local area or something? Pretty crazy, huh?
> 

It'll never work remember the people outside the M25 get a vote as well,
and we don't want to have to suffer as a result of their irrelevant whims.

*thoughtful pause*[1]

No, there is only one thing left to do .. We, London.pm, must put
up a candidate in a local election! Yes we will start as one but soon
we shall be many.

Greg

[1] well really just enough time for a quick swig

-- 
Greg McCarroll  http://www.mccarroll.uklinux.net

Re: BOFHs requiring license

[Martin Ling]

On Sun, May 13, 2001 at 06:38:45PM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
> 
> Democracy is overrated. I think a meritocracy is needed. Perhaps measured by
> Perl competence.

It's a fairly well-arguable stance that *any* form of meritocracy is a
reasonable system - certainly an improvement on, for example, a
hereditary (mon|poly)archy. We have one already, of course - it just
happens to be based around PR. Programming prowess I'd probably agree
with you on as a more appropriately directioned metric.

Of course, I still call for a good game of Azad. In the US, the PR games
have already long since made way for Nomic, after all.


Martin

Re: BOFHs requiring license

[Martin Ling]

On Sun, May 13, 2001 at 06:44:07PM +0100, Greg McCarroll wrote:
> 
> > Hey, what if we had a system where we just elected a *candidate* we
> > liked, like one for each local area or something? Pretty crazy, huh?
> 
> It'll never work remember the people outside the M25 get a vote as well,
> and we don't want to have to suffer as a result of their irrelevant whims.

I said ages ago that London ought to declare independence. It's a
similarly sized population to Scotland, after all. In fact, this very
question got brought up beautifully prior to the mayoral elections; I
recall some breakfast news interviewer saying "But... but Scotland has a
very distinct cultural identity, and London's just a grey blob", in a
somewhat more verbose manner, and being told where to shove it.


Martin

Re: BOFHs requiring license

[Andy Williams]

> At 17:38 13/05/2001, Simon Cozens wrote:
> >On Sun, May 13, 2001 at 05:22:49PM +0100, Greg McCarroll wrote:
> > > How can any socialist not feel that when it came to the crunch
> > socialism was
> > > rejected by intelligent people who understood its principals and benefits
> > > intimitadly because they could see it would not work for modern Britain?
> >
> >Which "intelligent people who understood it" would that be, then?
>
> Take a look around you. This list, being representative of the Perl
> community, tends towards the intelligent end of the spectrum. And from what
> I've gathered from the conversations I've had with people here, the vast
> majority of us tend towards the left[1].
>
> Dave...
> [1] Cue indignant emails from the half-dozen of so right-wingers I know on
> the list :)

Yep... you can count me on that list...

Andy (preparing for all the insults under the sun for being a tory!)

Re: BOFHs requiring license

[Jonathan Peterson]

At 16:41 13/05/01 +0100, you wrote:
>* Dave Cross ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > At 15:27 13/05/2001, Simon Cozens wrote:
> >
>
>if only the SNP covered the whole of the UK

Err, they do.




>--
>Greg McCarroll  http://www.mccarroll.uklinux.net

-- 
Jonathan Peterson
Technical Manager, Unified Ltd, 020 7383 6092
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: BOFHs requiring license

[Jonathan Peterson]

At 17:58 13/05/01 +0100, you wrote:
>At 17:38 13/05/2001, Simon Cozens wrote:
>>
>>Which "intelligent people who understood it" would that be, then?
>
>Take a look around you. This list, being representative of the Perl 
>community, tends towards the intelligent end of the spectrum. And from 
>what I've gathered from the conversations I've had with people here, the 
>vast majority of us tend towards the left[1].

Plenty of merchant banks full of very intelligent people who aren't very 
socialist.




-- 
Jonathan Peterson
Technical Manager, Unified Ltd, 020 7383 6092
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: BOFHs requiring license

[Struan Donald]

* at 13/05 16:41 +0100 Greg McCarroll said:
> * Dave Cross ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > At 15:27 13/05/2001, Simon Cozens wrote:
> > >On Sat, May 12, 2001 at 03:30:31AM -0700, Paul Makepeace wrote:
> > > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/7/18866.html
> > > > Absurd, laughable and bizarre. What *is* wrong with the UK?
> > >
> > >Don't ask me, you elected 'em. And it looks like you're all stupid enough
> > >to do it *again*.
> > 
> > 
> > I know, I know. Blair doesn't have a socialist bone in his body - it's been 
> > a _most_ disappointing four years, all i all.
> > 
> > But given that the Socialist Alliance are only standing in ~100 
> > constituencies, there doesn't seem to be any credible alternative.
> > 
> 
> 
> if only the SNP covered the whole of the UK

my experience of the snp is that the average supporter is a lot more
interested in 'getting rid of the english' rather than any of their
more useful policies. of course that doesn't neccessarily go for those
withing the party but given that independance is their whole reason
for existing[1] there must be some element of that in there.

struan

[1] why does that sound so much more cumbersome than the french
equivalent?

RE: BOFHs requiring license

[Cross David - dcross]

From: Jonathan Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2001 9:41 AM

> At 17:58 13/05/01 +0100, you wrote:
> >At 17:38 13/05/2001, Simon Cozens wrote:
> >>
> >>Which "intelligent people who understood it" would that be, then?
> >
> >Take a look around you. This list, being representative of the Perl 
> >community, tends towards the intelligent end of the spectrum. And from 
> >what I've gathered from the conversations I've had with people here, the 
> >vast majority of us tend towards the left[1].
> 
> Plenty of merchant banks full of very intelligent people who aren't very 
> socialist.

Very true. But in my experience the IT groups of those hotbeds of capitalism
still contain _far_ higher percentages of left-wingers that you'd expect.

Dave...

-- 


The information contained in this communication is
confidential, is intended only for the use of the recipient
named above, and may be legally privileged. If the reader 
of this message is not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.  
If you have received this communication in error, please 
re-send this communication to the sender and delete the 
original message or any copy of it from your computer
system.

Re: BOFHs requiring license

[Jonathan Peterson]

At 18:50 13/05/01 +0100, you wrote:
>On Sun, May 13, 2001 at 06:38:45PM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
> >
> > Democracy is overrated. I think a meritocracy is needed. Perhaps 
> measured by
> > Perl competence.
>
>It's a fairly well-arguable stance that *any* form of meritocracy is a
>reasonable system - certainly an improvement on, for example, a
>hereditary (mon|poly)archy.

Nah. I think meritocracies degenerate rapidly into self perpetuating 
oligarchies. The current ruling set starts to define 'merit' such that the 
friends and co-conspirators and like mindeds of the ruling set remain in 
power. Wasn't ICANN meant to be a meritocracy?

Actually, a hereditary democratic chamber such as the (old) house of lords 
strikes me as being a pretty good system. Swapping 'randomly selected' for 
hereditary would be a small improvement, possibly. Swapping 'selected by 
Tony Blair after consultation with his own sycophantic smile' for 
hereditary strikes me as pretty  stupid, corrupt and evil. Cough.



-- 
Jonathan Peterson
Technical Manager, Unified Ltd, 020 7383 6092
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: BOFHs requiring license

[Jonathan Stowe]

On Sun, 13 May 2001, Greg McCarroll wrote:

> * Dave Cross ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > At 15:27 13/05/2001, Simon Cozens wrote:
> > >On Sat, May 12, 2001 at 03:30:31AM -0700, Paul Makepeace wrote:
> > > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/7/18866.html
> > > > Absurd, laughable and bizarre. What *is* wrong with the UK?
> > >
> > >Don't ask me, you elected 'em. And it looks like you're all stupid enough
> > >to do it *again*.
> >
> > 
> > I know, I know. Blair doesn't have a socialist bone in his body - it's been
> > a _most_ disappointing four years, all i all.
> >
> > But given that the Socialist Alliance are only standing in ~100
> > constituencies, there doesn't seem to be any credible alternative.
> > 
>
>
> if only the SNP covered the whole of the UK
>
>

What the Sussex Nationalist Party - I dont think it will work somehow :)

/J\

Re: BOFHs requiring license

[David Cantrell]

On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 09:51:37AM +0100, Jonathan Peterson wrote:

> Actually, a hereditary democratic

hereditary democratic - an oxymoron, surely.

>   chamber such as the (old) house of lords 
> strikes me as being a pretty good system. Swapping 'randomly selected' for 
> hereditary would be a small improvement, possibly. Swapping 'selected by 
> Tony Blair after consultation with his own sycophantic smile' for 
> hereditary strikes me as pretty  stupid, corrupt and evil. Cough.

swapping "any politician" for "Tony Blair" likewise.  Random selection for
the upper house seems reasonable.  Of course, just like with jury service,
people would desperately try to get out of it.

-- 
David Cantrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/

  Rip, Mix, Burn, unless you're using our "most advanced operating system
   in the world" which we decided to release incomplete just for a laugh

RE: BOFHs requiring license

[Robert Thompson]

>  Swapping 'selected by 
> Tony Blair after consultation with his own sycophantic smile' for 
> hereditary strikes me as pretty  stupid, corrupt and 
> evil. Cough.

It's called confirming and strengthening your own powerbase while
undermining that of your opponent.

If we're not careful we'll end up in the situation where the TB has such a
strong powerbase that he'll be able to push through pretty much anything he
wants, riding roughshod over the the views/opinions etc of those who elected
him in the first place. Once it gets to that stage it's effectively a
dictatorship.

Rob
(preparing to be chargrilled as a democratic heretic)

---
New Labour!
We're the friend of business!!
We wont raise taxes!!
We will reduce bureaucracy!!
---


---
Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender,
except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of IBNet
Plc. 

This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the
individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not
disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.  Please notify the sender
immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete
this e-mail from your system. 

E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as
information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or
incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept
liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message which
arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please
request a hard-copy version. 

RE: BOFHs requiring license

[Matthew Byng-Maddick]

On Mon, 14 May 2001, Robert Thompson wrote:
> If we're not careful we'll end up in the situation where the TB has such a
> strong powerbase that he'll be able to push through pretty much anything he
> wants, riding roughshod over the the views/opinions etc of those who elected
> him in the first place. Once it gets to that stage it's effectively a
> dictatorship.

Umm.. why the implication that this *hasn't* happened yet?

MBM

-- 
Matthew Byng-Maddick  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> +44 20  8980 5714  (Home)
http://colondot.net/ +44 7956 613942  (Mobile)
All language designers are arrogant. Goes with the territory...
 -- Larry Wall

Re: BOFHs requiring license

[Robert Shiels]

From: "Dave Cross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> At 17:38 13/05/2001, Simon Cozens wrote:
> >On Sun, May 13, 2001 at 05:22:49PM +0100, Greg McCarroll wrote:
> > > How can any socialist not feel that when it came to the crunch
> > socialism was
> > > rejected by intelligent people who understood its principals and
benefits
> > > intimitadly because they could see it would not work for modern
Britain?
> >
> >Which "intelligent people who understood it" would that be, then?
>
> Take a look around you. This list, being representative of the Perl
> community, tends towards the intelligent end of the spectrum. And from
what
> I've gathered from the conversations I've had with people here, the vast
> majority of us tend towards the left[1].
>
> Dave...
> [1] Cue indignant emails from the half-dozen of so right-wingers I know on
> the list :)

I've always been pretty right wing, and as I get older I'm getting worse :-)
My prediction is that Labour will win again (a no-brainer I know), and that
the Conservatives will elect a new leader. Over the next 4 years, Labour
will fail to deliver their promises yet again, and the country will swing
back to the party of low taxes, who will be re-elected in 2006. I've been on
an NHS waiting list since before Christmas actually, Labour isn't working
for me.

Thinking about it though, most of LondonPM seem left-wing to me too, but
I've put that down to the fact that most are quite young. I am reminded of:

"If a man is not a socialist by the time he is twenty, he has no heart.
If he is not a conservative by the time he is 40, he has no brain."
-Winston Churchill

discuss :-)

/Robert

Re: BOFHs requiring license

[James Powell]

On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 10:23:50AM +0100, Robert Shiels wrote:
> 
> "If a man is not a socialist by the time he is twenty, he has no heart.
> If he is not a conservative by the time he is 40, he has no brain."
> -Winston Churchill
> 
> discuss:-)
> 

How does that explain Garry Bushell and Jim Davidson ;)


jp

Re: BOFHs requiring license

[Robert Shiels]

From: "James Powell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 10:23:50AM +0100, Robert Shiels wrote:
> > 
> > "If a man is not a socialist by the time he is twenty, he has no heart.
> > If he is not a conservative by the time he is 40, he has no brain."
> > -Winston Churchill
> > 
> > discuss:-)
> > 
> 
> How does that explain Garry Bushell and Jim Davidson ;)
> 
point taken :-)

/Robert

Re: BOFHs requiring license

[Simon Wistow]

Andy Williams wrote:

> Andy (preparing for all the insults under the sun for being a tory!)

Solidarity brother!

RE: BOFHs requiring license

[Cross David - dcross]

From: Robert Shiels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2001 10:24 AM

> I've always been pretty right wing, and as I get older I'm getting worse
:-)
> My prediction is that Labour will win again (a no-brainer I know), and
that
> the Conservatives will elect a new leader. Over the next 4 years, Labour
> will fail to deliver their promises yet again, and the country will swing
> back to the party of low taxes, who will be re-elected in 2006. I've been
on
> an NHS waiting list since before Christmas actually, Labour isn't working
> for me.

Here's a pretty fundamental issue. Why do so many people seem to think that
low taxes are good? Isn't it obvious to people that in order for the country
to have a reasonable level of services and infrastructure, then it needs to
be paid for?

And when they talk about taxes, they only ever mean Income Tax. As long as
that goes down, everyone's happy. Both parties over the last 20 years have
made it a priority to lower income tax, but they can only do so by raising
other taxes. It's just a question of juggling a) which sectors of society
get to may more or less tax and b) whether you pay it on money you earn or
money you spend.

The money has to be raised somehow.

> Thinking about it though, most of LondonPM seem left-wing to me too, but
> I've put that down to the fact that most are quite young. I am reminded
of:
> 
> "If a man is not a socialist by the time he is twenty, he has no heart.
> If he is not a conservative by the time he is 40, he has no brain."
> -Winston Churchill
> 
> discuss :-)

I'm one of the oldest members of london.pm and (I hope) I'm one of the most
left-wing. I became pretty apolitical in my late 20s, but now I find myself
getting more and more left-wing again.

Oh, and Churchill was an arsehole. As the population worked out in the 1945
General Election. Anyone responding with nonsense about him winning the
second world war will be given a history lesson :)

Dave...

-- 


The information contained in this communication is
confidential, is intended only for the use of the recipient
named above, and may be legally privileged. If the reader 
of this message is not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.  
If you have received this communication in error, please 
re-send this communication to the sender and delete the 
original message or any copy of it from your computer
system.

RE: BOFHs requiring license

[duncan]

>The money has to be raised somehow.

selling 3rd generation mobile phone licences for extortionate figures, 
thereby taxing the population once again?



duncan

Re: BOFHs requiring license

[Simon Cozens]

On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 10:37:23AM +0100, Cross David - dcross wrote:
> Here's a pretty fundamental issue. Why do so many people seem to think that
> low taxes are good? 

Rule one, man, rule one.

-- 
 EFNet is like one big advertisement for lobotomies.

Re: BOFHs requiring license

[Struan Donald]

* at 14/05 12:13 +0100 duncan said:
> 
> >The money has to be raised somehow.
> 
> selling 3rd generation mobile phone licences for extortionate figures, 
> thereby taxing the population once again?

wasn't it an auction? i like to look on this as some sort of crack
induced madness on the side of tha various telcos involved in which
thet actually belived the hype aboug 3G comming out of their marketing
departments.

struan

Re: BOFHs requiring license

[David Cantrell]

On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 10:37:23AM +0100, Cross David - dcross wrote:

> Oh, and Churchill was an arsehole. As the population worked out in the 1945
> General Election. Anyone responding with nonsense about him winning the
> second world war will be given a history lesson :)

Isn't it interesting that Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, de Gaulle and
Churchill were all 'charismatic' leaders.

-- 
David Cantrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/

  Rip, Mix, Burn, unless you're using our "most advanced operating system
   in the world" which we decided to release incomplete just for a laugh

Re: BOFHs requiring license

[Simon Wistow]

Struan Donald wrote:

> wasn't it an auction? i like to look on this as some sort of crack
> induced madness on the side of tha various telcos involved in which
> thet actually belived the hype aboug 3G comming out of their marketing
> departments.

Basically it went like this:

As a telco you ahve to bid for this because if you don't get a 3G
licence then you're fucked. So everyone who bids as high as they can. So
whoever gets it is fucked anyway because they've got no money.

3G is all bollocks anyway. Just like everything else in the Mobile Phone
industry.

Re: BOFHs requiring license

[Andy Williams]

> Struan Donald wrote:
>
> Basically it went like this:
>
> As a telco you ahve to bid for this because if you don't get a 3G
> licence then you're fucked. So everyone who bids as high as they can. So
> whoever gets it is fucked anyway because they've got no money.
>
> 3G is all bollocks anyway. Just like everything else in the Mobile Phone
> industry.
>
> 
>
And didn't the sell off screw the police over a bit as the replacement
system they got can only handle voice communication and not data??
(Something like that anyway)

Andy
(Still a tory :)

Re: BOFHs requiring license

[Jonathan Peterson]

David Cantrell wrote:
> 
> On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 10:37:23AM +0100, Cross David - dcross wrote:
> 
> > Oh, and Churchill was an arsehole. As the population worked out in the 1945
> > General Election. Anyone responding with nonsense about him winning the
> > second world war will be given a history lesson :)
> 
> Isn't it interesting that Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, de Gaulle and
> Churchill were all 'charismatic' leaders.
> 

Hmmm... As were Svein Forkbeard, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar,
Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse, Alfred the Great, Tokugawa, ...

Hey - I know this is a bit wild, but maybe there's some kind of
connection between 'charisma' and 'leadership'...



-- 
Jonathan Peterson
Technical Manager, Unified Ltd, 020 7383 6092
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: BOFHs requiring license

[Greg McCarroll]

* Jonathan Peterson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> David Cantrell wrote:
> > On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 10:37:23AM +0100, Cross David - dcross wrote:
> > > General Election. Anyone responding with nonsense about him winning the
> > > second world war will be given a history lesson :)

No one won the 2nd world war, Germany just managed to lose it by attacking
too many people.

> > Isn't it interesting that Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, de Gaulle and
> > Churchill were all 'charismatic' leaders.
> 
> Hmmm... As were Svein Forkbeard, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar,
> Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse, Alfred the Great, Tokugawa, ...
> 
> Hey - I know this is a bit wild, but maybe there's some kind of
> connection between 'charisma' and 'leadership'...

roflmao

-- 
Greg McCarroll  http://www.mccarroll.uklinux.net

Re: BOFHs requiring license

[David Cantrell]

On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 01:11:30PM +0100, Jonathan Peterson wrote:

> David Cantrell wrote:
> 
> > Isn't it interesting that Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, de Gaulle and
> > Churchill were all 'charismatic' leaders.
> 
> Hmmm... As were Svein Forkbeard, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar,
> Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse, Alfred the Great, Tokugawa, ...
> 
> Hey - I know this is a bit wild, but maybe there's some kind of
> connection between 'charisma' and 'leadership'...

As I think you realised, I didn't meant the usual sort of charisma.  I
mean more along the lines of those 'charismatic' evangelist churches and
other religious cults.

Judged by those standards, Alexander, Julius Caesar and Alfred the Great
don't count.  I don't know enough about the others to be able to form an
opinion.

-- 
David Cantrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/

  Rip, Mix, Burn, unless you're using our "most advanced operating system
   in the world" which we decided to release incomplete just for a laugh

Re: BOFHs requiring license

[Dave Hodgkinson]

Cross David - dcross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Oh, and Churchill was an arsehole. As the population worked out in the 1945
> General Election. Anyone responding with nonsense about him winning the
> second world war will be given a history lesson :)

And the following "Socialist" government managed to keep the country
on rations until well after Germany was back on its feet again.

Don't forget also, Britiain was in black and white until well into the
Sixties, while German was experimenting with red and the US was fully
technicolour by the late fifties.


-- 
Dave Hodgkinson, http://www.hodgkinson.org
Editor-in-chief, The Highway Star   http://www.deep-purple.com
  Interim CTO, web server farms, technical strategy
   

Re: BOFHs requiring license

[Chris Ball]

On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 01:11:30PM +0100, Jonathan Peterson wrote:
> Hey - I know this is a bit wild, but maybe there's some kind of
> connection between 'charisma' and 'leadership'...

That's genius! I know, I'll call it.. Charismatic Leadership Theory.

Wait. Someone already did, rather a long time ago now.. :)

~~C.

-- 
Chris Ball.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] || http://printf.net/
finger: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"The world is complex; sendmail.cf reflects this."

Re: BOFHs requiring license

[Jonathan Peterson]

At 15:05 14/05/01 +0100, you wrote:
>On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 01:11:30PM +0100, Jonathan Peterson wrote:
>
> > David Cantrell wrote:
> >
> > > Isn't it interesting that Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, de Gaulle and
> > > Churchill were all 'charismatic' leaders.
> >
> > Hmmm... As were Svein Forkbeard, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar,
> > Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse, Alfred the Great, Tokugawa, ...
> >
> > Hey - I know this is a bit wild, but maybe there's some kind of
> > connection between 'charisma' and 'leadership'...
>
>As I think you realised, I didn't meant the usual sort of charisma.  I
>mean more along the lines of those 'charismatic' evangelist churches and
>other religious cults.

:-) Too good an opportunity to miss. Perhaps the difference between your 
set of leaders and mine, is that the ones you mentioned all had personality 
cults to a degree, although in the case of Churchill I wouldn't have said 
so.

However, in the case of Alexander the Great, certainly, I would say they 
had a personality cult similar to or greater than Hitler's (or to a sect 
leader, or whatever). Alexander inspired God like devotion in his men, and 
was as insanely ambitious as Hitler. And a much much much better general. 
Military leaders have quite often had significant personality cults within 
their own armies (right up to Montgomery and McArthur).

We tend to condemn personality cults outright these days. However, I think 
for much of history they were the basis of social organisation to a greater 
or lesser degree. Certainly northern Europe before (and to some extend 
after (vikings, saxons etc)) the Romans was based around small king's whose 
leadership was determined mainly by personal loyalty. In some ways quite 
democratic, in other ways deeply unstable. Probably the single greatest 
reason the Vikings didn't conquer Europe.




-- 
Jonathan Peterson
Technical Manager, Unified Ltd, 020 7383 6092
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: BOFHs requiring license

[Martin Ling]

On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 01:30:42PM +0100, Chris Ball wrote:
> 
> That's genius! I know, I'll call it.. Charismatic Leadership Theory.
> 
> Wait. Someone already did, rather a long time ago now.. :)

Don't start me on all the stating-the-obviousness in psychology.


Martin

Re: BOFHs requiring license

[Greg McCarroll]

* Martin Ling ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 01:30:42PM +0100, Chris Ball wrote:
> > 
> > That's genius! I know, I'll call it.. Charismatic Leadership Theory.
> > 
> > Wait. Someone already did, rather a long time ago now.. :)
> 
> Don't start me on all the stating-the-obviousness in psychology.
> 

I have some obvious theories about psychology - such as why psychologists
never get invited to parties.

-- 
Greg McCarroll  http://www.mccarroll.uklinux.net

Re: BOFHs requiring license

[Martin Ling]

On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 05:09:32PM +0100, Greg McCarroll wrote:
> 
> I have some obvious theories about psychology - such as why psychologists
> never get invited to parties.

You know, I think there might actually have been a study on those lines.

Some of the metapsychology stuff is great though. " 'An investigation of
the power of the psychology experiment' : 80 students are given one
hundred pages each of random numbers. They are instructed to add up
any ten pairs of numbers on each sheet, then tear it up in thirty-two
pieces before continuing onto the next one. After three hours, some of
the participants are still going and have to be stopped by the
experimenter...".

Also the paper (a couple of years ago?) which investigated every single
paper in several journals for the last twenty years or so, and concluded
that modern psychology is based on a sample of the population in which
70% are American psychology students aged 18-22. Predictable, yes, but
the actual figure((s) - there were some more) were very amusing.


Martin

Re: BOFHs requiring license

[Robert Shiels]

From: "Greg McCarroll" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> * Martin Ling ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 01:30:42PM +0100, Chris Ball wrote:
> > > That's genius! I know, I'll call it.. Charismatic Leadership Theory.
> > > Wait. Someone already did, rather a long time ago now.. :)
> > Don't start me on all the stating-the-obviousness in psychology.

> I have some obvious theories about psychology - such as why psychologists
> never get invited to parties.
> 


The principle of generating small amounts of finite improbability
by  simply  hooking  the  logic circuits of a Bambleweeny 57 Sub-
Meson Brain to an atomic vector plotter  suspended  in  a  strong
Brownian  Motion  producer  (say  a  nice hot cup of tea) were of
course well understood - and such generators were often  used  to
break  the  ice  at  parties  by  making all the molecules in the
hostess's undergarments leap simultaneously one foot to the left,
in accordance with the Theory of Indeterminacy.

Many respectable physicists said that they weren't going to stand
for  this  -  partly  because it was a debasement of science, but
mostly because they didn't get invited to those sort of parties.


/Robert

Re: BOFHs requiring license

[Piers Cawley]

"Robert Shiels" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "If a man is not a socialist by the time he is twenty, he has no heart.
> If he is not a conservative by the time he is 40, he has no brain."
> -Winston Churchill
> 
> discuss :-)

Fine, but please discuss it anywhere but here.

-- 
Piers Cawley
www.iterative-software.com

Re: BOFHs requiring license

[Piers Cawley]

"Jonathan Peterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> At 16:41 13/05/01 +0100, you wrote:
> >* Dave Cross ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > At 15:27 13/05/2001, Simon Cozens wrote:
> > >
> >
> >if only the SNP covered the whole of the UK
> 
> Err, they do.
> 
>  the affairs of England and Westminster but not vice versa>

I thought the Scots Nats were vaguely good about not voting on stuff
that didn't affect Scotland.

-- 
Piers Cawley
www.iterative-software.com

Re: BOFHs requiring license

[Piers Cawley]

Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 10:37:23AM +0100, Cross David - dcross wrote:
> > Here's a pretty fundamental issue. Why do so many people seem to think that
> > low taxes are good? 
> 
> Rule one, man, rule one.

What? Always be wary of smiling old men?

-- 
Piers Cawley
www.iterative-software.com

Re: BOFHs requiring license

[Piers Cawley]

Greg McCarroll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> * Jonathan Peterson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > David Cantrell wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 10:37:23AM +0100, Cross David - dcross wrote:
> > > > General Election. Anyone responding with nonsense about him winning the
> > > > second world war will be given a history lesson :)
> 
> No one won the 2nd world war, Germany just managed to lose it by attacking
> too many people.

Alan Turing and the blokes at Bletchley who cracked the German
submarine codes did a pretty damn good job of making sure that Britain
didn't lose it though...

The graphs of tonnage of shipping lost against tonnage of shipping
being built look pretty bloody scary.

-- 
Piers Cawley
www.iterative-software.com

Re: BOFHs requiring license

[Simon Cozens]

On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 01:58:41PM -0400, Piers Cawley wrote:
> Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Rule one, man, rule one.
> What? Always be wary of smiling old men?

 purl, rule one?
 it has been said that rule one is "People Are Stupid"

-- 
  "They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the
   Wright brothers.  But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
 -- Carl Sagan

Politics (was Re: BOFHs requiring license)

[Jonathan Stowe]

I just thought I'd remind you all that the last time talk here turned to
politics it nearly ended in tears before bedtime.  Please think before you
post anything potentially inflamable as I think there are a wider variety
of more strongly held views represented here than is apparent from the
usual content of the messages :)

/J\

Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)

[Matthew Jones]

Robert Shiels:
> Over the next 4 years, Labour
> will fail to deliver their promises yet again, and the 
> country will swing back to the party of low taxes, who will
> be re-elected in 2006.

Part of the reason why they haven't delivered the promises that I think are
important (decent public services) is because they've hamstrung themselves
with this clueless tory low-tax approach. I genuinely believe that the
public are sick of watching the NHS, education system etc wasting away on a
starvation diet and would be willing to pay a bit of extra tax to make sure
that their kids can get schooled and that their sick can be healed.

As mentioned earlier in the thread by someone far more articulate than me, I
think the Labour Party lurched to the right just when the country was moving
back left again.

Let's face it, it's possible to say "Labour isn't working", but after the
systematic dismantling of manufacturing industry, the fragmentation and
decay of our rail infrastructure at the hands of private companies who sack
thousands of track maintenance staff to increase profit margins, boom and
bust economics leading to the worst recession in decades, deregulation of
the cattle-feed industry leading directly to the BSE crisis that made
British meat an international laughing-stock/pariah ... I could go on ...
I'd say that conservative ideas worked a lot worse.

You can't expect public services that have seen two decades of alternating
neglect and red-tape frenzy, with a workforce that is completely demoralised
after being scapegoated for twenty years ("What do you mean we've screwed
the education system - it's the fault of those loony-left teachers and their
'progressive' ideas!") to be turned round in four years, especially if the
government doesn't have the guts to make a hard decision and actually raise
the cash to do it.

You want to reduce waiting lists and class sizes? It all costs, people. This
election should be fought on exactly those lines:  low taxes and
ever-shittier public services versus increased tax and a national
infrastructure that actually works. And do you know what? I think that
people would choose the latter. I think that's what they chose in 1997 (not
so much "I'm sick of the tories" as "I'm sick of the state in which the
tories have left the bnationspublic services") but Blair and chums thought
it was down to their economic bandwaggoning. 

I have deeply unfashionable political views, though. I think tax and spend
is a *good idea*.

-- 
matt | I mean to make you move with my planet infallible 

Re: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)

[Roger Burton West]

On or about Mon, May 14, 2001 at 10:45:45AM +0100, Matthew Jones typed:

>I genuinely believe that the
>public are sick of watching the NHS, education system etc wasting away on a
>starvation diet and would be willing to pay a bit of extra tax to make sure
>that their kids can get schooled and that their sick can be healed.

When have they ever been asked?

>You want to reduce waiting lists and class sizes? It all costs, people.

Money isn't enough. America spends more on education per pupil than anywhere
else in the world - think that works?

Government-run projects don't work, even when they're heavily funded.

Roger

Re: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)

[David Cantrell]

On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 10:45:45AM +0100, Matthew Jones wrote:

> Part of the reason why they haven't delivered the promises that I think are
> important (decent public services) is because they've hamstrung themselves
> with this clueless tory low-tax approach. I genuinely believe that the
> public are sick of watching the NHS, education system etc wasting away on a
> starvation diet and would be willing to pay a bit of extra tax to make sure
> that their kids can get schooled and that their sick can be healed.

Unfortunately, you have to remember that most people are idiots.  They want
all these services and they might even be willing to have taxes put up to
pay for them *but* they don't want to pay those higher taxes themselves.

This is why we should abolish democracy.

We need a benevolent dictator.  Obviously we can't vote for our dictator
(not only is democracy too flawed, but then it wouldn't be a dictator
either) so I hereby appoint myself.

I appoint Greg as my Culture Adviser and as head of the church.  Any
volunteers for my other minions?  Even if you don't want a cabinet
post, please feel free to volunteer as a Henchman.  You'll get 25 days
holiday a year, a nice uniform and a free Hench.

-- 
David Cantrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/

  Rip, Mix, Burn, unless you're using our "most advanced operating system
   in the world" which we decided to release incomplete just for a laugh

Re: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)

[will]

- Original Message -
From: Matthew Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2001 4:45 AM
Subject: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)


> Robert Shiels:
> > Over the next 4 years, Labour
> > will fail to deliver their promises yet again, and the
> > country will swing back to the party of low taxes, who will
> > be re-elected in 2006.
>
> Part of the reason why they haven't delivered the promises that I think
are
> important (decent public services) is because they've hamstrung themselves
> with this clueless tory low-tax approach. I genuinely believe that the
> public are sick of watching the NHS, education system etc wasting away on
a
> starvation diet and would be willing to pay a bit of extra tax to make
sure
> that their kids can get schooled and that their sick can be healed.



> I have deeply unfashionable political views, though. I think tax and spend
> is a *good idea*.

Quite, It does irritate me when you do the calculations and it turns out
people are objecting to an extra £100 tax a year which could go towards
things like recruiting more nurses, teachers and more resources for the
public sector including areas like public transport.  For a start, if you
have more teachers and resources for schools then you have a better educated
workforce which means more industrys wanting to use your contry and
therefore less unemployment.  This means less burden on the government in
terms of welfare and more people to spread the tax over so you don't *need*
higher tax.

How do you suggest we train our workforce when schools (which are funded by
tax) can't afford more than a couple of rooms full of archimedes?

RE: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)

[Matthew Jones]

> >I genuinely believe that the
> >public are sick of watching the NHS, education system etc 
> >wasting away on a starvation diet and would be willing to pay
> >a bit of extra tax to make sure that their kids can get schooled
> >and that their sick can be healed.
> 
> When have they ever been asked?

During elections. Like I say, in 1997, the UK voted in a party that was (I
reckon) seen as the guardian of the public services, the party that is
traditionally associated

> Money isn't enough. America spends more on education per 
> pupil than anywhere else in the world - think that works?

Yeah, but doesn't most of that go on flak jackets for the teachers? Heh,
seriously, though, money may not be enough, but that doesn't translate to
"the education system doesn't need any more money". What's needed is proper
funding, a modicum of professional respect to be handed back to the teaching
profession (there's a *reason* why there's a huge recruitment crisis in
teaching and nursing at the moment), and for successive governments to stop
meddling the system around with pet vanity initiatives designed more to
score political points than improve the system. The amount of work your
average teacher has to do has shot up because of this sort of scheme, but
the amount of time they spend in the classroom actually teaching *has gone
down*.

> Government-run projects don't work, even when they're heavily funded.

That's an awfully sweeping statement to make.

-- 
matt | I mean to make you move with my planet infallible 

RE: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)

[Matthew Jones]

> I appoint Greg as my Culture Adviser and as head of the church.  Any
> volunteers for my other minions?  Even if you don't want a cabinet
> post, please feel free to volunteer as a Henchman.  You'll get 25 days
> holiday a year, a nice uniform and a free Hench.

Minister for Perilous Boogiedowns, please.

-- 
matt | I mean to make you move with my planet infallible 

RE: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)

[Robert Thompson]

> This is why we should abolish democracy.
> 
> We need a benevolent dictator.  Obviously we can't vote for 
> our dictator
> (not only is democracy too flawed, but then it wouldn't be a dictator
> either) so I hereby appoint myself.

Why not? The Romans did. The title of Imperator and Dictator were bestowed
by the Senate.

> 
> I appoint Greg as my Culture Adviser and as head of the church.  Any
> volunteers for my other minions?  Even if you don't want a cabinet
> post, please feel free to volunteer as a Henchman.  You'll get 25 days
> holiday a year, a nice uniform and a free Hench.


Hmm, seen this somewhere before...

http://www.ruthless-world-domination.com


Rob
-
Pinky - So what are we doing today Brain?
Brain - We're going to take over the world Pinky
Pinky - Oh not again...
-


---
Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender,
except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of IBNet
Plc. 

This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the
individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not
disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.  Please notify the sender
immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete
this e-mail from your system. 

E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as
information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or
incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept
liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message which
arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please
request a hard-copy version. 

Re: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)

[will]

- Original Message -
From: Matthew Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2001 5:05 AM
Subject: RE: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)


> > I appoint Greg as my Culture Adviser and as head of the church.  Any
> > volunteers for my other minions?  Even if you don't want a cabinet
> > post, please feel free to volunteer as a Henchman.  You'll get 25 days
> > holiday a year, a nice uniform and a free Hench.
>
> Minister for Perilous Boogiedowns, please.


Can I be an overlord?  Or at least something prefixed by Arch- would be
good.

Re: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)

[Roger Burton West]

On or about Mon, May 14, 2001 at 11:04:52AM +0100, Matthew Jones typed:

>> When have they ever been asked?
>During elections. Like I say, in 1997, the UK voted in a party that was (I
>reckon) seen as the guardian of the public services, the party that is
>traditionally associated

In 1997 the UK voted against the Conservatives. The policies being offered
by the parties were close to identical.

>> Money isn't enough. America spends more on education per 
>> pupil than anywhere else in the world - think that works?
>Yeah, but doesn't most of that go on flak jackets for the teachers? Heh,
>seriously, though, money may not be enough, but that doesn't translate to
>"the education system doesn't need any more money".

How about stopping and thinking about it _before_ throwing money at it
just for a change, then?

>> Government-run projects don't work, even when they're heavily funded.
>That's an awfully sweeping statement to make.

Yes.

Governments never get value for money on anything they do. Discuss.

R

Re: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)

[Jonathan Peterson]

At 10:45 14/05/01 +0100, you wrote:

>Part of the reason why they haven't delivered the promises that I think 
>are
>important (decent public services) is because they've hamstrung themselves
>with this clueless tory low-tax approach.

Yup.

>I genuinely believe that the
>public are sick of watching the NHS, education system etc wasting away on 
>a
>starvation diet and would be willing to pay a bit of extra tax to make 
>sure
>that their kids can get schooled and that their sick can be healed.

For a very very unusual definition of 'bit'. Also, money is NOT the 
solution to schools (and prob. NHS). They don't suffer simply from under 
funding. Schools suffer from under funding, insane overegulation and 
bureaucracy, low public approval of teachers, increasingly stupid parents, 
and so on. These are deep problems with society that "A penny on income 
tax" will do nothing against on its own. For your amusement, here are some 
regulations that teachers have fun complying with, in addition to working 
long hours (standing up, mind) for bugger all money.

1. There is a law that specifies the minimum distance apart towel hooks 
must be in children's changing rooms.
2. A teacher can't be alone in a room with a pupil unless the door is open.
3. Teachers are responsible for children taking their medicine. If a child 
has a critical allergy to (bee stings, etc, etc) the teachers are 
responsible for administering intra-venous beta blockers etc. They don't 
get paid more for being nurses too.

>Let's face it, it's possible to say "Labour isn't working", but after the
>systematic dismantling of manufacturing industry, the fragmentation and
>decay of our rail infrastructure at the hands of private companies who 
>sack
>thousands of track maintenance staff to increase profit margins, boom and
>bust economics leading to the worst recession in decades, deregulation of
>the cattle-feed industry leading directly to the BSE crisis that made
>British meat an international laughing-stock/pariah ... I could go on ...
>I'd say that conservative ideas worked a lot worse.

Yes, in these instances. As regards agriculture, EU legislation has done 
far more harm than anything ever passed by any UK government, mainly 
because there's 10 times as much of it. In other areas (education, foreign 
policy) I'd say the right had better ideas and a better track record.

>You can't expect public services that have seen two decades of alternating
>neglect and red-tape frenzy, with a workforce that is completely 
>demoralised
>after being scapegoated for twenty years ("What do you mean we've screwed
>the education system - it's the fault of those loony-left teachers and 
>their
>'progressive' ideas!")

No, it's the fault of loony left legislators and their 'progressive' ideas 
:-)

>I have deeply unfashionable political views, though. I think tax and spend
>is a *good idea*.

Tax and spend isn't an idea. It's _how_ you tax and _how_ you spend. I 
don't mind the left wing notion of high tax and high spending. I mind the 
dumb way in which they spend it and (to a lesser extend) the dumb way in 
which they tax.



-- 
Jonathan Peterson
Technical Manager, Unified Ltd, 020 7383 6092
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)

[Matthew Byng-Maddick]

On Mon, 14 May 2001, Roger Burton West wrote:
> On or about Mon, May 14, 2001 at 11:04:52AM +0100, Matthew Jones typed:
> >> When have they ever been asked?
> >During elections. Like I say, in 1997, the UK voted in a party that was (I
> >reckon) seen as the guardian of the public services, the party that is
> >traditionally associated
> In 1997 the UK voted against the Conservatives. The policies being offered
> by the parties were close to identical.

This isn't true. The policies being offered were different. However, the
Labour government then decided - having been elected with quite such a
large victory - that it could do what it wanted, so it changed all the
policies to the tory ones...

MBM

-- 
Matthew Byng-Maddick  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> +44 20  8980 5714  (Home)
http://colondot.net/ +44 7956 613942  (Mobile)
All language designers are arrogant. Goes with the territory...
 -- Larry Wall

RE: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)

[Matthew Jones]

> In 1997 the UK voted against the Conservatives. The policies 
> being offered by the parties were close to identical.

For values of conservative that are "low-tax/shitty services", IMHO. The
policies may have been close, but the perception of the two parties still
pointed at Labour as the party of decent public services

> How about stopping and thinking about it _before_ throwing money at it
> just for a change, then?

There's an old saw "you can't solve a problem just by throwing money at it".
Well, sorry, but you can if it's a problem of underfunding. Try telling the
headteacher whose school roof is collapsing that you have to go and have a
good think about his problem before you throw money at it[0]. Perhaps he
could sack another couple of his teaching staff or get them to take a
further pay cut? There's the Conservative answer as I perceive it.

The fact of the matter is that many state schools are dreadfully short on
the following:

a) textbooks
b) computers
c) teaching staff

I don't think you have to spend an awfully long time thinking hard before
you see where the money needs to be thrown.

-- 
matt | I mean to make you move with my planet infallible 

[0] Of course, back in the day, his friendly neighbourhood Local Authority
would have just fixed it, but now he's "grant maintained" he has to pay for
everything himself.

Re: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)

[James Powell]

On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 11:17:51AM +0100, Roger Burton West wrote:
> On or about Mon, May 14, 2001 at 11:04:52AM +0100, Matthew Jones typed:
> 
> >> When have they ever been asked?
> >During elections. Like I say, in 1997, the UK voted in a party that was (I
> >reckon) seen as the guardian of the public services, the party that is
> >traditionally associated
> 
> In 1997 the UK voted against the Conservatives. The policies being offered
> by the parties were close to identical.
> 
> >> Money isn't enough. America spends more on education per 
> >> pupil than anywhere else in the world - think that works?
> >Yeah, but doesn't most of that go on flak jackets for the teachers? Heh,
> >seriously, though, money may not be enough, but that doesn't translate to
> >"the education system doesn't need any more money".
> 
> How about stopping and thinking about it _before_ throwing money at it
> just for a change, then?
> 
> >> Government-run projects don't work, even when they're heavily funded.
> >That's an awfully sweeping statement to make.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Governments never get value for money on anything they do. Discuss.
> 
> R

They certainly didn't get good value for money on the Immigration cock up,
handed out to EDS (or was it Perot) and then Siemens (with an army of 
contractors in tow).

Failures all down the line there, from the very juicy insider gossip I was
told.

jp

Re: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)

[Robert Shiels]

From: "Matthew Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I have deeply unfashionable political views, though. I think tax and spend
> is a *good idea*.
>
I'm neither completely left, or completely right. I would be happy to pay
more income tax to improve health and education. I actually voted LibDem
last time as that is what they were pledging. I think eye tests and
essential dental work should be on the NHS. I think every school should have
a full-time IT expert instead of getting an already overworked teacher to do
it in their non-existent spare time. On the other hand, I have very
unfashionable views on some other subjects which I'll keep quiet about...

/Robert

Re: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)

[Robin Szemeti]

On Mon, 14 May 2001, you wrote:
> Robert Shiels:
> > Over the next 4 years, Labour
> > will fail to deliver their promises yet again, and the 
> > country will swing back to the party of low taxes, who will
> > be re-elected in 2006.
> 
> Part of the reason why they haven't delivered the promises that I think are
> important (decent public services) is because they've hamstrung themselves
> with this clueless tory low-tax approach. 

Just because they can't deliver those promises for those costs doesn't
mean no one else can. If they knew they couldn't deliver within those
cost constraints why did they lie and say they could? .. and if they
didn't reallise they couldn't deliver at those prices, then it doesn;t
say much for their grasp of economics.

and what about the various promises that didn't cost money? .. like fox
hunting, proportional representation etc ... ??

does anyone happen to have one of those little plastic credit card things
they were giving out before the last election with 10 things 'let us be
judged on these:' .. 

-- 
Robin Szemeti

The box said "requires windows 95 or better"
So I installed Linux!

Re: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)

[Jonathan Peterson]

At 11:17 14/05/01 +0100, you wrote:

>Governments never get value for money on anything they do. Discuss.

The Louisiana purchase was a pretty good deal. So was Alaska. So was the 
Suez canal. Government subsidy of scientific research has possibly been a 
very good deal, it's hard to quantify. Government funded defence research 
seems to work reasonably well.

>R

-- 
Jonathan Peterson
Technical Manager, Unified Ltd, 020 7383 6092
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)

[Matthew Jones]

> Just because they can't deliver those promises for those costs doesn't
> mean no one else can. If they knew they couldn't deliver within those
> cost constraints why did they lie and say they could?

Because they are (right-wing) politicians. Just look at the absurd
promisises Hague's lot are making now and they're also talking about doing
it with even *less* money (UKP 8 billion, isn't it?) Besides, they have
(more or less) kept most of the promises they made. I was talking about my
disappointment that they didn't go further by raising tax revenue.

The tories are going to have low tax and pay for improved public services
through "cracking down on benefit fraud", apparently. Gah, if only someone
had thought of that before. 'Cos you can solve a long-term underfunding
problem by skinting out a few dodgy crusties.

> .. and if they
> didn't reallise they couldn't deliver at those prices, then it doesn;t
> say much for their grasp of economics.

See my point about Hague's promises above. What does that manifesto say
about the conservative grasp of economics? For all their faults, New Labour
do seem to be far better at running the economy than the Conservaticve
party.

> does anyone happen to have one of those little plastic credit 
> card things they were giving out before the last election with
> 10 things 'let us be judged on these:' .. 

Yeah, and I saw a breakdown along those very lines on Channel 4 news, which
conluded that although some of it has slipped, the vast majority was
achieved. However, later they ran a piece that I thought was familiar
because it had been a Guardian editorial, so perhaps C4 news may have a
certain slant going.

-- 
matt | I mean to make you move with my planet infallible 

Re: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)

[Dave Hodgkinson]

Robin Szemeti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> does anyone happen to have one of those little plastic credit card things
> they were giving out before the last election with 10 things 'let us be
> judged on these:' .. 

That was a Mark Thomas episode wasn't it?

-- 
Dave Hodgkinson, http://www.hodgkinson.org
Editor-in-chief, The Highway Star   http://www.deep-purple.com
  Interim CTO, web server farms, technical strategy
   

Re: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)

[David Cantrell]

On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 11:23:19AM +0100, Robin Szemeti wrote:

> Just because they can't deliver those promises for those costs doesn't
> mean no one else can. If they knew they couldn't deliver within those
> cost constraints why did they lie and say they could?

I recall the previous government being impressively dishonest about a great
many things.

>  and if they
> didn't reallise they couldn't deliver at those prices, then it doesn;t
> say much for their grasp of economics.

The previous government didn't appear to have much grasp of economics
either.

> and what about the various promises that didn't cost money? .. like fox
> hunting, proportional representation etc ... ??

On fox hunting they promised to allow MPs a free vote on the issue.  They
did.  It then got torpedoed in the Lords, who also had a free vote.

IIRC they did *not* promise to introduce PR, but to look in to it.  Which
they have. [google] Ah yes, there was an "Independent Commission on the
Voting System" chaired by Mr. Jenkins.  They have introduced PR for (eg)
the Scottish and Welsh parliaments, and the London assembly, and I think
it's used for elections to the European Parliament.

Oh, and that silly Tory claim that there have been nnn 'stealth' taxes is
easily debunked when you notice that most of them were either announced
in previous *TORY* budgets or are the usual tax escalators which, again,
the previous government was happy to use.  If you ignore all of those, I
wonder how many of those 'stealth' taxes would really exist.

-- 
David Cantrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/

  Rip, Mix, Burn, unless you're using our "most advanced operating system
   in the world" which we decided to release incomplete just for a laugh

Re: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)

[Simon Cozens]

On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 11:58:42AM +0100, David Cantrell wrote:
> I recall the previous government being impressively dishonest about a great
> many things.

When was the last government that was *not* impressively dishonest?
I think there might have been one around 1868, but I'm not sure.

> The previous government didn't appear to have much grasp of economics
> either.

Similar remarks apply.

> IIRC they did *not* promise to introduce PR, but to look in to it.

Ah, yes. That's like "we're listening", isn't it, in response to the
fuel crisis? We're not going to do anything, but we're happy to listen.

> Oh, and that silly Tory claim that there have been nnn 'stealth' taxes is
> easily debunked when you notice that most of them were either announced
> in previous *TORY* budgets or are the usual tax escalators which, again,
> the previous government was happy to use.  If you ignore all of those, I
> wonder how many of those 'stealth' taxes would really exist.

There are some contractors here, I understand, who might have something
to say about government policy on taxation.

-- 
The FSF is not overly concerned about security.  - FSF

More politics (was Re: BOFHs requiring license)

[Roger Burton West]

On or about Mon, May 14, 2001 at 10:37:23AM +0100, Cross David - dcross typed:

>Here's a pretty fundamental issue. Why do so many people seem to think that
>low taxes are good?

Because many people think that they are better judges of how their own
money should be spent than the government (of whatever flavour) is.

I suspect that if they were allowed to choose _how_ money was spent (and
yes, I do know the arguments against this) they would be a lot more willing
to pay it.

Roger

Re: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)

[Jonathan Peterson]

At 11:58 14/05/01 +0100, you wrote:
>If you ignore all of those, I
>wonder how many of those 'stealth' taxes would really exist.

IR35, for a start ?

On the subject of idiocy and legislation, here's a good one

A dairy farmer has some cows (might not anymore, actually, but anyway...), 
and he has slightly more cows than he has pasture. So, he rents a field 
from the neighbouring farmer. So far, so sensible. But this field is the 
other side of a road. And it's not his, he just rents it. And the milking 
parlour is on his land. Cows get milked twice a day. So, twice a day, the 
farmer takes his cows over the road to munch grass, and twice a day he 
takes them back to be milked.

The EU (may they burn in hell) require this to be documented. It has to be 
documented because the cows are leaving his land. It has to be documented 
because the cows are crossing a road. No, I've no idea why, either.

Each cow has a small book, like a large cheque book. Every day, the farmer 
takes four slips out of the cheque book, for each crossing of the road. He 
fills in when the cow crossed the road, and why, and some other details. He 
sends the slips to some office in the EU somewhere, where they will be 
pointlessly processed at our expense. He does this for each of the twenty 
odd cows involved. So, that's like writing 80 cheques. He does this EVERY 
DAY OF HIS LIFE (you have to milk cows on weekends, you know).

And then people wonder why people hate the European integration so much. 
It's odd, isn't it?



-- 
Jonathan Peterson
Technical Manager, Unified Ltd, 020 7383 6092
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)

[Steve Mynott]

"Robert Shiels" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I'm neither completely left, or completely right. I would be happy to pay
> more income tax to improve health and education. I actually voted LibDem

Why don't you simply pay more tax then?

I am sure if you send a voluntary donation off to the Inland Revenue
they will accept it.

Just don't ask me to as well...

-- 
1024/D9C69DF9 steve mynott [EMAIL PROTECTED]

if a equals success, then the formula is _ a = _ x + _ y + _ z. _ x is
work. _ y is play. _ z is keep your mouth shut. -- albert einstein

Re: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)

[David Cantrell]

On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 11:44:11AM +0100, Matthew Jones wrote:

> The tories are going to have low tax and pay for improved public services
> through "cracking down on benefit fraud", apparently. Gah, if only someone
> had thought of that before. 'Cos you can solve a long-term underfunding
> problem by skinting out a few dodgy crusties.

You're forgetting that the Tories tried (and failed) to crack down on
benefit fraud for ten years.  That therefore makes them ideally suited
to trying again.  They learnt from their mistakes, right?

Surely they're not s stupid as to *not* learn from their mistakes?
And they do have proof that there really is that much 'benefit fraud'
out there?  There must be a good reason for them to have never shown
this proof to anyone else, right?

-- 
David Cantrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/

  Rip, Mix, Burn, unless you're using our "most advanced operating system
   in the world" which we decided to release incomplete just for a laugh

RE: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)

[Matthew Jones]

> Ah, yes. That's like "we're listening", isn't it, in response to the
> fuel crisis? We're not going to do anything, but we're happy 
> to listen.

That narked me about the fuel protestors. They claimed "the government
aren't listening". "Listen" ne "cave in to the selfish demands of a few
protestors who happen to be holding the nation to ransom" (unwittingly in
cahoots, some say, with the oil companies).

You can listen and still say "no". 

It also irtritates me when the oil companies hike fuel prices and the "dump
the pump" lobby respond by suggesting that the government drop tax. Why
don't they ever have a go at BP or Shell?

-- 
matt | I mean to make you move with my planet infallible 

RE: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)

[Robin Szemeti]

On Mon, 14 May 2001, you wrote:
> > Just because they can't deliver those promises for those costs doesn't
> > mean no one else can. If they knew they couldn't deliver within those
> > cost constraints why did they lie and say they could?
> 
> Because they are (right-wing) politicians. Just look at the absurd
> promisises Hague's lot are making now and they're also talking about doing
> it with even *less* money (UKP 8 billion, isn't it?) Besides, they have
> (more or less) kept most of the promises they made. I was talking about my
> disappointment that they didn't go further by raising tax revenue.

umm .. I wasn't saying that Hagues lot would be any better. I was saying
that this lot had failed to deliver what they said they would. Hospital
waiting lists are up, so are class sizes in schools. My taxes have gone
up. I didn't expect them to succeed, but I object to them telling me that
they have.

> The tories are going to have low tax and pay for improved public services
> through "cracking down on benefit fraud", apparently. Gah, if only someone
> had thought of that before. 'Cos you can solve a long-term underfunding
> problem by skinting out a few dodgy crusties.

The problem isn't particularly underfunding. The teachers I know tell me
how classes run riot and they are powerless to stop them. the
teachers eventually leave for schools where you can actully teach
without being assaulted. Parents simply don't care. The few that do care 
and manage to get their kids into the local grammar school are no doubt
thrilled at the prospect of the pirates-charter introduced by this
government which allows a bunch of 'activists' to cook up a petition of
phoney names and get a grammar school turned into a comprehensive.  Its
simple jealousy 'we've wrecked our school and now we're going to wreck
yours' .. its social decline.

Hospitals are much the same. Theres enough cash, but it seldom ends up in
the right place.

Basically .. what we need is a change in government, not just a change in
the people implementing (or failing to implement) the same policies.

-- 
Robin Szemeti

The box said "requires windows 95 or better"
So I installed Linux!

RE: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)

[Cross David - dcross]

From: Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]?
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2001 12:08 PM

> There are some contractors here, I understand, who might have something
> to say about government policy on taxation.

Heh. Can you be a contractor and hold on to your left-wing principles? Let's
see...

Whilst I'd seem to be happier (or, rather, 'richer') without IR35, I am very
sympathetic to the point of view that most contractors have been abusing an
obvious loophole for a very long time. I believe that people with more money
should pay more tax and therefore am happy to pay my way.

I am in the process of invesigating converting all of my income to PAYE. A
preliminary report from my IFA shows that it's feasible for my company to
increase my salary to a level whereby I get the same amount from salary
alone as I do currently from a combination of salary and dividends.

Unfortunately for the government. This means that my company will _never_
show a profit. And, therefore, that they will get no corporation tax from
me. It looks like the increase in Income Tax/NIC will be almost exactly the
same size as the decrease in Corp Tax. Therefore IR35 has almost zero effect
on the money that either I or the government take from my company.

Mind you, I've never been one of those contractors who pay themselves £2,500
pa so YMMV.

Dave...

-- 


The information contained in this communication is
confidential, is intended only for the use of the recipient
named above, and may be legally privileged. If the reader 
of this message is not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.  
If you have received this communication in error, please 
re-send this communication to the sender and delete the 
original message or any copy of it from your computer
system.

Re: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)

[Robert Shiels]

From: "Jonathan Peterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 3. Teachers are responsible for children taking their medicine. If a child
> has a critical allergy to (bee stings, etc, etc) the teachers are
> responsible for administering intra-venous beta blockers etc. They don't
> get paid more for being nurses too.
>
I'm not trying to negate your point, which I agree with, but I'm not sure if
this one is true. Teachers at my daughters school have refused to give
medicine to her, and to other children, some of whom are on constant
medication; their mother comes into the school to administer it.

You seem to know a lot about teachers though...

/Robert

Re: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)

[Martin Ling]

On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 10:57:59AM +0100, David Cantrell wrote:
> 
> I appoint Greg as my Culture Adviser and as head of the church.  Any
> volunteers for my other minions?  Even if you don't want a cabinet
> post, please feel free to volunteer as a Henchman.  You'll get 25 days
> holiday a year, a nice uniform and a free Hench.

Appears I'm out of a job too from the end of the month, so count me in.

The mighty army of unemployed Perlers takes over the world...


Martin

Re: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)

[Simon Cozens]

On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 12:16:27PM +0100, Matthew Jones wrote:
> It also irtritates me when the oil companies hike fuel prices and the "dump
> the pump" lobby respond by suggesting that the government drop tax. Why
> don't they ever have a go at BP or Shell?

You don't elect BP or Shell.

-- 
"He was a modest, good-humored boy.  It was Oxford that made him insufferable."

RE: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)

[Matthew Jones]

> Hospital waiting lists are up, 

No, hospital waiting lists are down. The time spent waiting to get on the
wiating list is up. :)

> so are class sizes in schools.

No, class sizes are down in primary schools (were primaries specified on the
pledge card?). Secondary school classes are level or *slightly* up, IIRC.

-- 
matt | I mean to make you move with my planet infallible 

Re: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)

[Struan Donald]

* at 14/05 12:16 +0100 Matthew Jones said:
> > Ah, yes. That's like "we're listening", isn't it, in response to the
> > fuel crisis? We're not going to do anything, but we're happy 
> > to listen.
> 
> That narked me about the fuel protestors. They claimed "the government
> aren't listening". "Listen" ne "cave in to the selfish demands of a few
> protestors who happen to be holding the nation to ransom" (unwittingly in
> cahoots, some say, with the oil companies).

mmm, some of it was selfishness although for the rural (and when i say
rural i don't mean the home counties) types the cose of fuel really is
a big issue. if you live 30 miles from the nearest major shopping
centre then the cost of fuel really is an issue.

it's a tricky one as there are clearly any number of idiots who
persist in driving to work in london who should be taxed to the hilts
but you have to do it in a way that targets them and not people who
_have_ to use a car. which more or less means congestion charges.
 
> You can listen and still say "no". 

aka the first rule of dealing with marketing departments :)

struan

RE: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)

[Matthew Jones]

> > the pump" lobby respond by suggesting that the government 
> >drop tax. Why don't they ever have a go at BP or Shell?
> 
> You don't elect BP or Shell.

Well, precisely, they're companies, so you boycott them. Which is what I
thought that dump the pump was originally about; boycotting oil companies in
prrotest at their big markups (apparently). Somewhere along the way it
seemed (to me) to be hijacked by a large chunk of the countryside alliance.

The thing is, the petrol companies seem to be able to hike prices with
impunity. It's not just a matter of the protestors not boycotting them,
they're not even *criticised*. Shit, to hear some of these fuel protestors,
you'd not think that the oil companies play any part at all in setting the
price of fuel.

I have an irrational and unconfirmed theory that the right wing have decided
that they want a piece of this single-issue politics lark thankyou very
much, and now have a group who can whine and bitch about the government for
effects that are caused by someone else entirely.

-- 
matt | I mean to make you move with my planet infallible 

RE: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)

[Robert Price]

At 12:27 PM 5/14/01 +0100, you wrote:
>> Hospital waiting lists are up, 
>> so are class sizes in schools.
>
>No, class sizes are down in primary schools (were primaries specified on the
>pledge card?). Secondary school classes are level or *slightly* up, IIRC.

Are they in reality, or is it due to the current lot being in lower birth
years than the lot 4 years ago, and hence the secondary school numbers
being up now?

Rob

RE: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)

[Matthew Jones]

> Are they in reality, or is it due to the current lot being in 
> lower birth years than the lot 4 years ago, and hence the secondary
> school numbers being up now?

Heh, it's pre-election statistics, so god knows what possible conne4ction to
reality they may have! :)

-- 
matt | I mean to make you move with my planet infallible 

Re: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)

[Steve Mynott]

Matthew Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> It also irtritates me when the oil companies hike fuel prices and the "dump
> the pump" lobby respond by suggesting that the government drop tax. Why
> don't they ever have a go at BP or Shell?

Because the vast majority of the petrol pump price (something like
70-80%) is tax.

UK has the _cheapest_ petrol in Europe before tax and the _most_
expensive afterwards.

-- 
1024/D9C69DF9 steve mynott [EMAIL PROTECTED]

reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.
-- philip k. dick

Re: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)

[Robert Shiels]

From: "Steve Mynott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: 14 May 2001 12:12
Subject: Re: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)


> "Robert Shiels" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I'm neither completely left, or completely right. I would be happy to
pay
> > more income tax to improve health and education. I actually voted LibDem
>
> Why don't you simply pay more tax then?
>
> I am sure if you send a voluntary donation off to the Inland Revenue
> they will accept it.

I somehow doubt they have procedures for dealing with voluntary tax
payments, it's probably never happened...

/Robert

Re: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)

[Lucy McWilliam]

On Mon, 14 May 2001, Martin Ling wrote:

> Appears I'm out of a job too from the end of the month, so count me in.
> The mighty army of unemployed Perlers takes over the world...

Is this the point where I can try and recruit some of you compscis to the
bioinformatics revolution?  Hack around and cure cancer at the same time ;-)


L.
"Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution."

Re: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)

[Philip Newton]

Jonathan Peterson wrote:
> 2. A teacher can't be alone in a room with a pupil unless the 
> door is open.

Things were obviously different back when I spent the occasional lunch break
(or after school) in detention :)

Cheers,
Philip
-- 
Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
All opinions are my own, not my employer's.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

Re: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)

[Andy Williams]

On Mon, 14 May 2001, Lucy McWilliam wrote:
> Is this the point where I can try and recruit some of you compscis to the
> bioinformatics revolution?  Hack around and cure cancer at the same time ;-)
>
>
> L.

Been there, done that at the Sanger Centre hacking around with genes
though...

Andy

Re: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)

[Steve Mynott]

Matthew Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> > > the pump" lobby respond by suggesting that the government 
> > >drop tax. Why don't they ever have a go at BP or Shell?
> > 
> > You don't elect BP or Shell.
> 
> Well, precisely, they're companies, so you boycott them. Which is what I
> thought that dump the pump was originally about; boycotting oil companies in
> prrotest at their big markups (apparently). Somewhere along the way it
> seemed (to me) to be hijacked by a large chunk of the countryside alliance.

Well one advantage of BP or Shell is if you don't like either company
then you can simply choose not to purchase their products.

Unfortunately you can't "opt out" of a government you don't like in
the same way.

The American media recognised what happened as a "tax revolt".  People
aren't stupid they know the high petrol prices are the fault of UK
taxation rather than BP or Shell.

We have high petrol prices, high alchohol prices and high cigarette
prices due to the greed of the current UK government (following in the
footsteps of the Tories before).

This is not to say BP or Shell don't try and make as money as
possible.

Sure they do this is how the market works.

-- 
1024/D9C69DF9 steve mynott [EMAIL PROTECTED]
the basic fact about human existence is not that it is a tragedy,
but that it is a bore.  it is not so much a war as an endless standing
in line.  -- h. l. mencken

Re: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)

[Robin Houston]

On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 01:06:42PM +0100, Lucy McWilliam wrote:
> Is this the point where I can try and recruit some of you compscis to the
> bioinformatics revolution?

I've always thought it sounded like fun.

How does one go about joining the bioinformatics revolution, then?

 .robin.

-- 
"It really depends on the architraves." --Harl

Re: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)

[Chris Ball]

On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 01:06:42PM +0100, Lucy McWilliam wrote:
>> Appears I'm out of a job too from the end of the month, so count me in.
>> The mighty army of unemployed Perlers takes over the world...

> Is this the point where I can try and recruit some of you compscis to the
> bioinformatics revolution?  Hack around and cure cancer at the same time ;-)

I'd *love* some sort of job working on distributed computing applications
that'd eventually be running massively parallel and testing interactions
between proteins and molecules or somesuch. That's one of the jobs I can
definitely imagine as harbouring the mythical `job satisfaction'. :o) 

But then, I'd love most jobs right now, given that I've only got two more
days at work before most of us leave to go our redundant ways, and I'm
still searching. Sigh.

~C.
-- 
Chris Ball.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] || http://printf.net/
finger: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 trj: I'm fat, bloated and lazy. //  I am a living mozilla.

Re: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)

[Jonathan Peterson]

> I'm not trying to negate your point, which I agree with, but I'm not sure if
> this one is true. Teachers at my daughters school have refused to give
> medicine to her, and to other children, some of whom are on constant
> medication; their mother comes into the school to administer it.
> 
> You seem to know a lot about teachers though...

Good for them. It is actually, I think, the school's discretion, but if
the parent insists that they can't do it, the only option is for the
school to do it or to exclude the child. The sensible solution is to
make the child responsible for taking their medicine, which a) they'll
have to do sooner or later and b) they are in most cases well able to
do. The problem is legal responsibilty. My mother has no problem telling
some child to eat their pill. She has a big problem with being sued, if
she forgets to remind the child, and the child forgets, too, and shit
happens.

But of course modern society can't cope with the idea that it's just
plain old bad luck some kid has a condition like that, so they demand
that teachers are responsible, or else they'll demand that all schools
have a school nurse who's responsible. It's all crap, and it's all in
the last 10 years.

My mother is a primary school teacher, as was my aunt, as is my cousin
and his wife etc etc. I also help out at my old scout troop, which
brings me into contact with some of the more insane child-related
legislation. 


> /Robert

-- 
Jonathan Peterson
Technical Manager, Unified Ltd, 020 7383 6092
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Politics (was RE: BOFHs requiring license)

[Simon Wistow]

Robin Houston wrote:
> 
> On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 01:06:42PM +0100, Lucy McWilliam wrote:
> > Is this the point where I can try and recruit some of you compscis to the
> > bioinformatics revolution?
> 
> I've always thought it sounded like fun.
> 
> How does one go about joining the bioinformatics revolution, then?

Ditto. How's the jobs board coming along Jo? I have a friend recently
departed from the exciting world of software development in Reading and
looking for a move to London.