England

[DazzeL]

Darkprinny how old are you? I'm guessing around 30? Please do correct me if I'm wrong! I'll give my views, they are going to differ somewhat :E

Pros:
Freedom of speech, NHS etc - all good, agreed!

Cons:
Government - Does it's best. We've just had one of the most stable governments (on the whole) for a generation. Labour haven't done as much as they should have but theres certainly no grounds for accusing them of hating everyone. They've tried there best and, overall, they've done "ok". They will be remembered as a missed opportunity though.

Cost of living - A problem for EVERYONE without a good job. Not just "foreigners".

Geo political forces - We're not torn. We're in bed with the Americans. We simply pay lip service to Europe as they are one of our traditional interest zones and we need the EU for trade. (To an extent..)

CHAV's and racism - It is kind of true that racism gets taken too far. For sure polticial correctness is a problem. It certainly does feel like SOME black people use racism in England as a defence when it's not justified. For example, recently on Big Brother that girls got evicted for racism. Despite the fact that whilst she used a racist term it was not said in a racist manner - i.e. to portray predjudice in a nasty way against people simply because of there race.

Nationalism - A very, very, very minor problem. In a few areas where the so called multi cultural society is in breakdown the BNP have limited success. Let's not kid ourselves though - it's extremely limited. In fact, the whole press charade against the BNP every time it rears it's head is hard evidence that nationalism is not a problem. The backlash is always quite severe. As for UKIP and Veritas they may have nationalist tendancies but they are not racist. Wanting to bail out of the EU and close the doors to immigrants is not racist, though it is often interpreted to the contrary.

Overall we're very lucky to live in England. We have one of the highest standard of livings and quality of lives in the world. Sometimes people need to step back and look at what they do have rather than just what they don't.

[Ads]

[Squall7]

Darkprinny how old are you? I'm guessing around 30? Please do correct me if I'm wrong! I'll give my views, they are going to differ somewhat :E

I think he's around early 20's...

Pros:
Freedom of speech, NHS etc - all good, agreed!

Well, they would be if they truely worked... But that's another story...

Cons:
Government - Does it's best. We've just had one of the most stable governments (on the whole) for a generation. Labour haven't done as much as they should have but theres certainly no grounds for accusing them of hating everyone. They've tried there best and, overall, they've done "ok". They will be remembered as a missed opportunity though.

Sorry, I know this is a long read, but please bare with me:

The Private Finance Initiative was begun under the Conservative government of John Major in 1992. It immediately proved controversial, as it was perceived by critics as a back-door form of privatisation. Nonetheless, the Treasury found the scheme advantageous and pushed Labour to adopt it after the 1997 general election. PFI has continued and, indeed, expanded under Labour. This has been strongly criticised by many trade unions and elements of "Old Labour". The 2002 Labour Party Conference passed a vote against PFI, though this did not change the government's policy.

According to Treasury and NAO reports, PFI deals are very much more likely to be delivered on time and on budget - a study by the Treasury in July 2003 [2] showed that the only deals in its sample which were over budget were those where the public sector changed their minds after deciding what they wanted and from whom they wanted to buy it. It is claimed there is a far greater visibility of long-term consequences of decisions made by politicians and civil servants through PFI deals than conventionally where most of the long-term consequences and obligations of decisions are obscured from public scrutiny. This is not agreed with by those who believe that the details of these deals are wilfully complex and buried in confidential documents and footnotes.

As against that, however, there have been a number of high-profile PFI failures, many of which have been exposed by Private Eye, a British satirical magazine. For example, a government report leaked on 17 June 2005 said that a new privately financed hospital in Leeds had "breached every section of the fire safety code".[3] The Skye Bridge PFI scheme infamously cost the public £93m (and required the closure of the existing ferry to prevent competition), although it should have cost only £15m to build. Equally, the fact that major risks can be effectively transferred has been demonstrated in a number of cases, most notably the National Physical Laboratory; this deal ultimately caused the collapse of the building contractor when the cost of building a complex scientific laboratory was very much larger than estimated. The laboratory was ultimately built, but the cost of doing so caused the winding up of Laser, a joint venture between Serco Group and John Laing [4].

Furthermore, the scale of PFI projects in the health & education sectors since 1997 is now having a serious impact on public service budgets. Because the projects are more expensive in the private sector (on average 30% more than if the Government borrowed the money and did the work in the public sector) the payments to the private owners of the PFI schemes are stretching already constricted budgets. Many Health Trusts are in serious difficulty already, and when the level of spending falls in 2007, some may become insolvent. The Government is already in negotiation with private healthcare providers to come in and run 'failing' Trusts.

Additional controversy is caused by the off-balance sheet nature of PFI contracts. Under UK accounting, the PFI company does not enjoy the risks and rewards of the building - the government carries demand risk, for example - so the building is not shown on its balance sheet. Instead its main asset is the finance debtor - the long term contractual obligation of the government to pay for the building. For the government accounting, the fact that it pays a single charge (the 'Unitary Charge') for both the building and its maintenance is sufficient for it to be classed as a revenue item, so neither the building or the long-term obligation to pay appear of the government's balance sheet. Were the total PFI liability shown on the UK balance sheet - as would be required under UK accounting standards - the government's finance would look somewhat different.

To be honest, I think the government should be doing a better job. Likewise, I think privatisation is very much a bad thing.

Cost of living - A problem for EVERYONE without a good job. Not just "foreigners".

Very much agreed.

Geo political forces - We're not torn. We're in bed with the Americans. We simply pay lip service to Europe as they are one of our traditional interest zones and we need the EU for trade. (To an extent..)

Well, no. We're not just paying lip service, (took me ages to find what I wanted), but we also pay 3 billion into Europe:

Last week's summit saw clashes over the UK refusal to give up its £3bn annual refund from the EU budget unless there were reforms to farm subsidies.

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4119472.stm

CHAV's and racism - It is kind of true that racism gets taken too far. For sure polticial correctness is a problem. It certainly does feel like SOME black people use racism in England as a defence when it's not justified. For example, recently on Big Brother that girls got evicted for racism. Despite the fact that whilst she used a racist term it was not said in a racist manner - i.e. to portray predjudice in a nasty way against people simply because of there race.

If you listen carefully, the person who would be supposedly be offended, quite frankly isn't. They realise that Big Brother is being hyper-sensitive towards the subject. However, it's not the black people that use it as a defense in this case. It's what happens when white people want to whitewash racism, without either looking at whether the damage is actually caused, and ignoring the people supposedly offended. It's where the true racism lies - taking a person's colour as a sure-way of how they would react.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gt3PqAB23aE[/media]
Heck, they were even saying that they hope she doesn't get into trouble, because it's not a big deal to them. Surprising how racist white people can be...

Nationalism - A very, very, very minor problem. In a few areas where the so called multi cultural society is in breakdown the BNP have limited success. Let's not kid ourselves though - it's extremely limited. In fact, the whole press charade against the BNP every time it rears it's head is hard evidence that nationalism is not a problem. The backlash is always quite severe. As for UKIP and Veritas they may have nationalist tendancies but they are not racist. Wanting to bail out of the EU and close the doors to immigrants is not racist, though it is often interpreted to the contrary.

Depends. Kilroy Silke got fired from his own show for using the term "Sand monkeys" (remember that was a quote, and doesn't reflect my own opinions). Therefore, Veritas' leader is certainly a racist. As for UKIP, when it comes down to it, they may or may not be racist. Heck, on their website, they state:

A policy of non-discrimination is enshrined in our constitution.

Although this bit made me laugh:

When Tony Blair was seeking election, he used the slogan: "Tough on Crime, tough on the causes of crime." What he deliberately failed to mention was that the cause of crime is criminals. Not unemployment. Not poverty. Not social injustice. For all three of these were present during the 20s and 30s, when crime levels were at record lows. It is criminals that cause crime.

That's a bit like saying "guns don't kill people, people kill people". It avoids the question. Why do people turn to crime?
Interesting:

2.3 The Party will be guided in its activities by the principle of non-discrimination, including non-racism and non-sectarianism, and will be guided by the principle that all people are equal before the law.

Well, UKIP seems like a relatively okay party. I won't vote for them though. Too right wing for my tastes...

Overall we're very lucky to live in England. We have one of the highest standard of livings and quality of lives in the world. Sometimes people need to step back and look at what they do have rather than just what they don't.

Glass half-empty for me. Whilst we can stand back and look at all the luxury, I feel this sort of luxury shouldn't just be afforded to us. It should be afforded to everyone. I feel people need to stop seeing themselves in terms of nationality. It's only one part of the concept of identity.

[Axtlar]

hello, can anyone tell me please how to view all the reputation you have received?

[adf3424sdff]

hello, can anyone tell me please how to view all the reputation you have received?

Wrong thread buddy but just click 'user cp' at the top.
lee

[Haz]

This is totally unacceptable! Why have two pages of posts been removed! This is the worst case on censorship I have ever experienced!

There were some really interesting discussion points raised and were being talked about. It was a nice debate as their were so many different points of view.

If people can not be mature enough to take part in debates then we live in unhappy times.

The thread was not racist (bar a few comments from Thomas).

May I suggest that we have a politics area that we may discuss future topics such as this or could the moderators not delete posts that they either do not understand or feel may offend a minority of members.

The great thing about forums is that you don't need to read everything, only topics of interest - so I really do not see why the posts were removed.

I'm not happy and I'm sure many other people aren't.

This is not the first time this has happened either - how about giving an explanation in the future? Sure, we are just members, but if we get pissed off, we can simply leave and then the forums will die (I've seen it before).

It's just not fair, when people have spent time to write a post and argue their point to have it removed without thought. It's rude more than anything.

[miiguy]

Haz, I couldn't have put it better myself.
I've asked Loose Cannon for an explanation.

We may have disagreed on a couple of things but nothing nasty enough to be deleted in my view.

Even for all of Tommys faults, he may be proof of how some of the youth are thinking today, bearing in mind in 3 years, kids of tommy's age get to vote.

[captainff]

Symptomatic of ENGLAND and how it is at the moment...... We have free speech, provided that we say exactly what we are told to say.

[Scream]

I agree with the above posts. What we had going was a very civil debate, if you could call it that, and I don't think any ill feelings were passed towards anyone, with the exception of maybe Tommy.

As long as there are no personal attacks, vulgar language, or threats, then just let it roll baby, that is what the off topic forums are there for.

Just my opinion.

[Squall7]

Err did it cross anyone's mind that perhaps Tommy was being so unreasonable that the posts had to go? Half of what he was saying was verging on illegal.

And Haz, I don't think the deletion had anything to do with you, if it did, then you would have been banned.

Fact of the matter is, is that it's when Tommy came into the discussion when things went sour. Sure, we all came up wth arguements, but at the end of it all, it didn't really matter. You can continue on with your arguements, but Tommy (IMO) had to be dealt with.

[miiguy]

Err did it cross anyone's mind that perhaps Tommy was being so unreasonable that the posts had to go? Half of what he was saying was verging on illegal.

And Haz, I don't think the deletion had anything to do with you, if it did, then you would have been banned.

Fact of the matter is, is that it's when Tommy came into the discussion when things went sour. Sure, we all came up wth arguements, but at the end of it all, it didn't really matter. You can continue on with your arguements, but Tommy (IMO) had to be dealt with.

Fair point Squall7. But there is nothing wrong with an explanation post is there? Not asking much as I was actually typing a response when it got deleted, confused me was (for a little while)
Did Tommy get banned then?