Government is so powerful
06 September 2005, 03:00 PM
#31
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Vegescoob
To imagine that anything resembling a true democracy could be established is wishfull thinking.
There will always be individuals and organisations with greater influence than the individual voter.
How about if everyone entitled to vote was given access to a computer such that, instead of MPs voting in Parliament every voter did so by computer. Parliament would then be the means by which "the will of the people" was enacted.
That would mean a move towards democracy instead of the so called representative democracy we are supposed to have.
Now that would be a use of digital technology I would approve of.
Ah, but we can't trust the population to make the right decisions. Can we?
There will always be individuals and organisations with greater influence than the individual voter.
How about if everyone entitled to vote was given access to a computer such that, instead of MPs voting in Parliament every voter did so by computer. Parliament would then be the means by which "the will of the people" was enacted.
That would mean a move towards democracy instead of the so called representative democracy we are supposed to have.
Now that would be a use of digital technology I would approve of.
Ah, but we can't trust the population to make the right decisions. Can we?
06 September 2005, 04:17 PM
#32
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The Terry Crews of moderation. P P P P P P POWER!!
Posts: 18,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Big Den
Haven't you seen terminator then? That would be the first step to machines ruling the world 
NS04
06 September 2005, 06:11 PM
#33
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Bradford
Posts: 13,720
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And I ain't never going to agree with or get an ID card.
The point of this thread was not to debate the examples I gave as such. Yes fuel at the moment is a result of economics rather than politics but nevertheless the Government does have the power to ease the strain. They would bail out just about every other group in society except the motorist!
The point of this thread is to discuss the governments ability to change general feeling and opinion in society on certain issues. I turn 27 this month so have really only been properly (ok vaugly) aware of the workings of the country around me for 10 years or so. In that time I've seen attitude dramatically change on many things. Its frightening to think that a few people at the top can actually over time turn the majority of 60 Million to their way of thinking. Taking drink driving (and lets NOT debate the dangers of it, etc) the fact remains that anyone of my generation drink driving is viewed by his peers as an absolute idiot. In my parents generation anyone drink driving was viewed as the least drunk in the car with a valid UK license and held in good regard by his peers for offering to get them home! Thats a full swing in opinion in a fairly short period of time.
06 September 2005, 06:38 PM
#34
Haven't you seen/read all the news items about the Brits in Spain being mugged/robbed/burgled - and it's on the increase apparently!!
06 September 2005, 08:07 PM
#35
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The point being that the Government can afford to pay very clever people a lot of money to present their views in the best way possible e.g. spin doctors saying Speed camera's save lives whilst ignoring that that they don’t deal with 92% of the causes of crashes! Mean while the objectors like ABD have to rely on donations.
It is all about presentation frequently added by the media. The BBC coverage of the American hurricane disaster has been extremely biased. It frequently now just presents one side of the story where it is should show both.
The UK isn’t this free democracy we all think, they just suppress dissent all ways have and always will therefore you don’t know about it and each person feels isolated and doesn’t bother.
The petrol protests are a classic example of the Government showing double standards. They tax fuel by 75% because it isn’t an essential like food or clothing. But when fuel is blockaded in the depot Blair then goes on TV and says the UK will grind to a halt with out fuel? So that must make it an essential? If so how can you tax it by 75%?
Why not remove all fuel taxation and all public transport subsidies and see which system is the more economic? We are supposed live in a capitalist society driven by market forces. Then use road tax to build roads! But no the spin doctors say that this will mean all the green fields becoming Tarmac which in fact is a total lie. But nobody how knows this is a lie gets the funding to publicises this and the media just ignores that side of the debate.
It is all about presentation frequently added by the media. The BBC coverage of the American hurricane disaster has been extremely biased. It frequently now just presents one side of the story where it is should show both.
The UK isn’t this free democracy we all think, they just suppress dissent all ways have and always will therefore you don’t know about it and each person feels isolated and doesn’t bother.
The petrol protests are a classic example of the Government showing double standards. They tax fuel by 75% because it isn’t an essential like food or clothing. But when fuel is blockaded in the depot Blair then goes on TV and says the UK will grind to a halt with out fuel? So that must make it an essential? If so how can you tax it by 75%?
Why not remove all fuel taxation and all public transport subsidies and see which system is the more economic? We are supposed live in a capitalist society driven by market forces. Then use road tax to build roads! But no the spin doctors say that this will mean all the green fields becoming Tarmac which in fact is a total lie. But nobody how knows this is a lie gets the funding to publicises this and the media just ignores that side of the debate.
07 September 2005, 08:30 AM
#36
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: A powerslide near you
Posts: 10,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Adrian F
It is all about presentation frequently added by the media. The BBC coverage of the American hurricane disaster has been extremely biased. It frequently now just presents one side of the story where it is should show both.
07 September 2005, 12:56 PM
#38
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 12,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find it very hard to believe that 5 refinerys go down and the global price for oil goes through the roof,,,
lets not kid ourselves, there are some very shrewd people manipulating things to endeavour there own longevity..
re hmg,,, if they dropped the vat and duty, you could guarnatee that the oil co,s would ramp up prices to fill the void,
what should happen is the government should use some of its reserves to ease the burdern, whilst telling some of the oil companys, to use some of the obscene profits they made by lowering the prices....
I dont object to the oil giants making a profit, it called business, but its a few people getting very rich whilst others suffer,,,,, thats greed..
Mart
lets not kid ourselves, there are some very shrewd people manipulating things to endeavour there own longevity..
re hmg,,, if they dropped the vat and duty, you could guarnatee that the oil co,s would ramp up prices to fill the void,
what should happen is the government should use some of its reserves to ease the burdern, whilst telling some of the oil companys, to use some of the obscene profits they made by lowering the prices....
I dont object to the oil giants making a profit, it called business, but its a few people getting very rich whilst others suffer,,,,, thats greed..
Mart
07 September 2005, 08:48 PM
#39
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The other side of the story is to put the problem in perspective. Every body seems to be basing their comments on our experience of villages experiencing flash floods.
If you look back at the big Floods in England in the early 50's our response to those on a fraction of the area was nothing like the Americans have achieved. Nobody is saying this has been a success but if put in perspective the area effected is larger than the whole UK and yet they now have as many troops on the streets of just New Orleans as pretty much the complete UK army. Disasters of this size are just not prepared for by any country and are so in frequent that the population will not fund a massive reserve of people,equipment and material sitting their just in case 24/7 365 days a year every year.
All the media keep doing is finding another photogenic face crying or the same dead body showing by all the networks.
maybe the critics should actual explain how they would have done it differently whilst acknowledging that in America they have different laws e.g. the president has to wait for the State governor to make it a federal problem he cant just send troops in. And why the State officials didn’t have their own National Guard troops on the streets sooner? As I said so many other questions rather than just the same pictures trotted out by the networks. If you look at the UK preparations for flooding of just London you will find we are not better prepared yet this is just as likely with in 10 years as New Orleans and we don’t have the resources to send our Army is so over stretched yet is still being cut.
If you look back at the big Floods in England in the early 50's our response to those on a fraction of the area was nothing like the Americans have achieved. Nobody is saying this has been a success but if put in perspective the area effected is larger than the whole UK and yet they now have as many troops on the streets of just New Orleans as pretty much the complete UK army. Disasters of this size are just not prepared for by any country and are so in frequent that the population will not fund a massive reserve of people,equipment and material sitting their just in case 24/7 365 days a year every year.
All the media keep doing is finding another photogenic face crying or the same dead body showing by all the networks.
maybe the critics should actual explain how they would have done it differently whilst acknowledging that in America they have different laws e.g. the president has to wait for the State governor to make it a federal problem he cant just send troops in. And why the State officials didn’t have their own National Guard troops on the streets sooner? As I said so many other questions rather than just the same pictures trotted out by the networks. If you look at the UK preparations for flooding of just London you will find we are not better prepared yet this is just as likely with in 10 years as New Orleans and we don’t have the resources to send our Army is so over stretched yet is still being cut.
08 September 2005, 07:56 AM
#40
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think anyone is complaining about the present efforts in New Orleans, more at the amount of time it seemed to take before anyone seemed to think they had better start taking notice of the problem. Surely the presidential administration could have been asking questions of the State Governor anyway if no request had been coming!
It was the impression that it did not seem to be important at the time.
I bet you are right about the readiness should the Thames barrage fail. Goverments do it all on a risk basis now unless it actually happens and then they have to think of something.
Les
It was the impression that it did not seem to be important at the time.
I bet you are right about the readiness should the Thames barrage fail. Goverments do it all on a risk basis now unless it actually happens and then they have to think of something.
Les
08 September 2005, 08:14 AM
#41
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 5,786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mart360
I find it very hard to believe that 5 refinerys go down and the global price for oil goes through the roof,,,
Before Katrina, oil was hovering around the $65/barrel range. For one or two days, we saw prices spike to $70 post-hurricane. They are now back down to $64 last night. The point being, this time last year, we were hovering around $30-35/barrel (yes, post-Iraq!), and it's been world events of the last year that has made prices rise.
So, Katrina had a momentary <10% impact on spot crude prices and it's settled back down now due to release of US reserves, some removal of fear factor, better understanding of damage to rigs/refiniries etc. Not really "through the roof".
08 September 2005, 08:53 PM
#42
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leslie as you said the Governments all do it on a risk factor and this time the people of America have suffered and I am not saying it isn’t a total screw up but I am saying be realistic about why and of the size of the problem. just supporting 60,000 plus troops deployed is a massive effort and there is no point deploying them so that they then become a burden as no support is in place. Just think how much clean water they need and then food and some where safe to sleep etc.
From another rumour I am hearing it is the local Government Official plan for a hurricane hitting New Orleans to evacuate people in advance by private vehicles and municipal vehicles like school buses etc but according to the rumour the Mayor of New Orleans didn’t use the buses in fact it isn’t clear if any local government vehicles were used to shift the population out of town before the hurricane stuck!
I am sure more will come to light as days pass.
From another rumour I am hearing it is the local Government Official plan for a hurricane hitting New Orleans to evacuate people in advance by private vehicles and municipal vehicles like school buses etc but according to the rumour the Mayor of New Orleans didn’t use the buses in fact it isn’t clear if any local government vehicles were used to shift the population out of town before the hurricane stuck!
I am sure more will come to light as days pass.
22 April 2016, 07:40 AM
#43
As if we didn't know it already, all diesels cars that manufactured after 2009 on British roads fail real word test emissions!
That is shocking behaviour from manufacturers and more so government, for not enforcing health safety limits
The Department of transport said they working with manufacturers to make sure they would comply with these new tests coming in next year. So another year of polluting/poisoning the public!
That is shocking behaviour from manufacturers and more so government, for not enforcing health safety limits
The Department of transport said they working with manufacturers to make sure they would comply with these new tests coming in next year. So another year of polluting/poisoning the public!
22 April 2016, 07:54 AM
#44
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: riding the crest of a wave ...
Posts: 46,493
Likes: 0
Received 13 Likes
on
12 Posts
I feel quite smug my 15 y/o twin cam 2l petrol Sailed through emissions ( after correct new lamda) . Would been zero with new cat.
It's no laughing matter though.
Do you wear one those paper masks Andy when you're out on the bike ?
It's no laughing matter though.
Do you wear one those paper masks Andy when you're out on the bike ?
Last edited by dpb; 22 April 2016 at 08:05 AM.
22 April 2016, 09:11 AM
#45
No Masks, but you can taste the soot from older diesels when riding or even driving behind a car/truck/ tractor
Fortunately I live in the countryside, but have to put up with old diesel vehicles spewing out loads of soot. I do most of my riding indoors (Bkool convert) and only venture out for dry time trials and warm Sunday club runs.
Fortunately I live in the countryside, but have to put up with old diesel vehicles spewing out loads of soot. I do most of my riding indoors (Bkool convert) and only venture out for dry time trials and warm Sunday club runs.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post