Chat Thread

Rick Rosstrich wrote:

Uncle John from Jamaica wrote:On the train, 4 people around me on phones and not one is speaking English.

Try living in London.. I went to Mcdonalds the other day and only one member of staff spoke English.

That would be such a nightmare. I hate the ignorant staff in the McD's up here, they can just about mutter enough English words to qualify for the job but anything more is just impossible. Any problems with your meal/change etc and they just turn to shit.

I like multi-culturism.

When I used to live on Slough near London I used to love seeing different people, and going into London and experiencing different things, most people are really friendly too.

I went McDonalds in London a few weeks ago and the staff were as Mal decribed it, I probably got slight better service using my employee card.

Living where I do is shit though, they have racist views and apparently 'they' take all out 'jobs'

Slough is horrible now. Im sorry it used to be amazing. I don't feel safe going there at night anymore.

I think it's improved.

In 10 years there we got our house burgled twice, once 2 weeks before Christmas day They only took a video player and my Mum's Nan's jewellery

It's starting to improve now

Kuled wrote:I love telling people on PSN I reported them, I can tell they feel scared

He's mad

I don't mind other races, it's just that where I work there's a whole highstreet full of jobless, dirty, usually non-English speaking people. Seen a fair amount of knife crime around here...... so yeah.

Don't entirely buy into the "They took our jobs" stuff. If people wanted the job, made an effort and were as qualified, then they'd get it. I guess I am of the opinion of "Why give people we're not responsible for jobs when we need to focus on getting economy draining British people jobs". You'd assume that the priority would be to use the workforce we have before looking abroad.

I don't understand it

There is probably a tiny percentage to do with foreigners working massive hours, when British people wouldn't be prepared it, but the people who moan about them taking 'our jobs' are lazy cretins who are finding excuses to not work.

crump wrote:I don't understand it

There is probably a tiny percentage to do with foreigners working massive hours, when British people wouldn't be prepared it, but the people who moan about them taking 'our jobs' are lazy cretins who are finding excuses to not work.

That's absolute bullshit. My uncle worked 50 hour weeks in a car factory and 60% of the staff were made redundant so the company could bring in Polish workers. I don't think that has anything to do with these people being 'lazy cretins'.

Rick Rosstrich wrote:

crump wrote:I don't understand it

There is probably a tiny percentage to do with foreigners working massive hours, when British people wouldn't be prepared it, but the people who moan about them taking 'our jobs' are lazy cretins who are finding excuses to not work.

That's absolute bullshit. My uncle worked 50 hour weeks in a car factory and 60% of the staff were made redundant so the company could bring in Polish workers. I don't think that has anything to do with these people being 'lazy cretins'.

That doesn't happen everywhere does it?

There must be some reason why they brought them in, more hours less pay?

My nan has worked for TV liscensing since she was 16, but she is being made redundant, like everyone in the building, because they're moving it out to India. She is far from a "lazy cretin".

Anyone ever been ice skating?

Think you're missing the point or I didn't explain it very well.

The people who are unemployed and don't bother looking for work are 'lazy cretins' who use excuses just to slum around.

King Carlos wrote:Anyone ever been ice skating?

Been 5 or 6 times, not been for 3 years though.

Harrold wrote:My nan has worked for TV liscensing since she was 16, but she is being made redundant, like everyone in the building, because they're moving it out to India. She is far from a "lazy cretin".

TV Licensing is wholly unethical, and without people like your gran it couldn't function, I'm glad all those people are losing their jobs, I hope they suffer the same fear and financial trouble that the people they try to terrorise into buying TV licenses face every day. They don't deserve to keep their jobs anyway if people in India are willing to do it for less money.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Harrold wrote:My nan has worked for TV liscensing since she was 16, but she is being made redundant, like everyone in the building, because they're moving it out to India. She is far from a "lazy cretin".

TV Licensing is wholly unethical, and without people like your gran it couldn't function, I'm glad all those people are losing their jobs, I hope they suffer the same fear and financial trouble that the people they try to terrorise into buying TV licenses face every day. They don't deserve to keep their jobs anyway if people in India are willing to do it for less money.

She works in an entirely different department than the people who "terrorise" people. In fact the only department not being shut down, is the department which deals with people not paying.

Harrold wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

TV Licensing is wholly unethical, and without people like your gran it couldn't function, I'm glad all those people are losing their jobs, I hope they suffer the same fear and financial trouble that the people they try to terrorise into buying TV licenses face every day. They don't deserve to keep their jobs anyway if people in India are willing to do it for less money.

She works in an entirely different department than the people who "terrorise" people. In fact the only department not being shut down, is the department which deals with people not paying.

I don't give a fuck, she is supporting a highly unethical system by working for them at all.

I don't understand TV licensing really, can you enlighten me RR? Isn't it just for the BBC because they don't have adverts? I dunno

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Harrold wrote:My nan has worked for TV liscensing since she was 16, but she is being made redundant, like everyone in the building, because they're moving it out to India. She is far from a "lazy cretin".

TV Licensing is wholly unethical, and without people like your gran it couldn't function, I'm glad all those people are losing their jobs, I hope they suffer the same fear and financial trouble that the people they try to terrorise into buying TV licenses face every day. They don't deserve to keep their jobs anyway if people in India are willing to do it for less money.

Everyone in India is willing to do all our jobs for less money, so none of us deserve our jobs?

Get real.....I understand why companies move jobs abroad but end of the day we're paying the price for the higher standard of living we have, which means higher costs of living. You can't expect us to compete with Indians for wages, it's impossible.

Obviously you're not for it, but protectionism to an extent is good and perhaps morally right.

crump wrote:I don't understand TV licensing really, can you enlighten me RR? Isn't it just for the BBC because they don't have adverts? I dunno

If you own a television and use it to receive broadcast signals in the United Kingdom you are required, by law, to purchase a Television License, at equal cost for every private residence. The money received from TV Licensing is the chief source of funding for the BBC.

Lux wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

TV Licensing is wholly unethical, and without people like your gran it couldn't function, I'm glad all those people are losing their jobs, I hope they suffer the same fear and financial trouble that the people they try to terrorise into buying TV licenses face every day. They don't deserve to keep their jobs anyway if people in India are willing to do it for less money.

Everyone in India is willing to do all our jobs for less money, so none of us deserve our jobs?

Get real.....I understand why companies move jobs abroad but end of the day we're paying the price for the higher standard of living we have, which means higher costs of living. You can't expect us to compete with Indians for wages, it's impossible.

Obviously you're not for it, but protectionism to an extent is good and perhaps morally right.

If someone else is willing to do your job for less money then it is ethical for them to have those jobs, capitalism is based around competition. How can it be morally right that we have a higher standard of living than they do simply by virtue of the rock we happened to be born on?

And by the way, most Indians couldn't do the jobs I've done in my life, because they aren't educated or intelligent enough. If an Indian can do your job better than you can, or is willing to do it for less money, why on earth should you get the job?

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

crump wrote:I don't understand TV licensing really, can you enlighten me RR? Isn't it just for the BBC because they don't have adverts? I dunno

If you own a television and use it to receive broadcast signals in the United Kingdom you are required, by law, to purchase a Television License, at equal cost for every private residence. The money received from TV Licensing is the chief source of funding for the BBC.

I understand, so I was on the right lines then?

So it essentially just goes to the BBC? Obviously they aren't going to scrap it and have adverts because they make much more money or whatever doing this?

Not very equal, 95% of stations have adverts but the BBC don't. (Am I still on the right lines?)

Got access to the Luton FIFA ratings Lux.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Lux wrote:

Everyone in India is willing to do all our jobs for less money, so none of us deserve our jobs?

Get real.....I understand why companies move jobs abroad but end of the day we're paying the price for the higher standard of living we have, which means higher costs of living. You can't expect us to compete with Indians for wages, it's impossible.

Obviously you're not for it, but protectionism to an extent is good and perhaps morally right.

If someone else is willing to do your job for less money then it is ethical for them to have those jobs, capitalism is based around competition. How can it be morally right that we have a higher standard of living than they do simply by virtue of the rock we happened to be born on?

And by the way, most Indians couldn't do the jobs I've done in my life, because they aren't educated or intelligent enough. If an Indian can do your job better than you can, or is willing to do it for less money, why on earth should you get the job?

Capitalism is based around a market economy, without a market it can not exist. It needs people to pay money for goods and services, that money then needs to be circulated back to the consumer to continue the market economy cycle, the preferred way of doing this is through the job market.

Now, certain goods and services are considered luxury in less developed countries and are therefore only viable in developed countries. In order for these to sell, which also tend to be highly expensive and create a myriad of jobs, the people in the target economy need to have relatively high paying jobs. If the normal job market is weak the intellectual job market will suffer as a result of weakened infrastructure, a weakened economy and a weakened capability of supporting a thriving intellectual job market.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:If someone else is willing to do your job for less money then it is ethical for them to have those jobs, capitalism is based around competition. How can it be morally right that we have a higher standard of living than they do simply by virtue of the rock we happened to be born on?

And by the way, most Indians couldn't do the jobs I've done in my life, because they aren't educated or intelligent enough. If an Indian can do your job better than you can, or is willing to do it for less money, why on earth should you get the job?

My opinion is that the British government is our representatives in the world. We as their citizens pay them tax and contribute to the economy. We are born into their care and it's their responsibility to look after us, not Indians....that is the Indian government's responsibility.

What is best for British citizens should be the utmost priority of the British government, otherwise we are being short-changed for the support we show them and the money we contribute to keep the country going. Outsourcing anything takes it out of our economy. If you pay wages or buy goods from outside Britain, that is money leaking out of our economy. If we do not have jobs then that's the failure of our government and ultimately it will cost all of us.

As long as the job can be done better by a foreign person, I am not entirely against them being employed locally, not from abroad. If they pay the same taxes that we do then that's a fine short term solution to our need's. But in the long term we need to make sure that our population have jobs.

Jordi wrote:Got access to the Luton FIFA ratings Lux.

I'm so jealous!

crump wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

crump wrote:I don't understand TV licensing really, can you enlighten me RR? Isn't it just for the BBC because they don't have adverts? I dunno

If you own a television and use it to receive broadcast signals in the United Kingdom you are required, by law, to purchase a Television License, at equal cost for every private residence. The money received from TV Licensing is the chief source of funding for the BBC.

I understand, so I was on the right lines then?

So it essentially just goes to the BBC? Obviously they aren't going to scrap it and have adverts because they make much more money or whatever doing this?

Not very equal, 95% of stations have adverts but the BBC don't. (Am I still on the right lines?)

No. You are way off. A TV license isn't just for the BBC to have no adverts..

Jordi wrote:Got access to the Luton FIFA ratings Lux.

I still haven't done any reviews . Don't really have time..maybe on Sunday I'll log in and try and contribute something.... get some information too .

I have 22 closed feedbacks and 2 waiting to be done.

crump wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

If you own a television and use it to receive broadcast signals in the United Kingdom you are required, by law, to purchase a Television License, at equal cost for every private residence. The money received from TV Licensing is the chief source of funding for the BBC.

I understand, so I was on the right lines then?

So it essentially just goes to the BBC? Obviously they aren't going to scrap it and have adverts because they make much more money or whatever doing this?

Not very equal, 95% of stations have adverts but the BBC don't. (Am I still on the right lines?)

Yes, it doesn't all go to the BBC and the BBC does make money from other areas, eg. Merchandise, BBC America but most of the TV License money does go to the BBC and it certainly couldn't survive without the funding it currently gets from the license fee.

The BBC is a non-profit organisation, making money is not it's concern, it's a public broadcaster working in the public interest. All the money from the license fee goes into the BBC's productions.

Laurencio wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

If someone else is willing to do your job for less money then it is ethical for them to have those jobs, capitalism is based around competition. How can it be morally right that we have a higher standard of living than they do simply by virtue of the rock we happened to be born on?

And by the way, most Indians couldn't do the jobs I've done in my life, because they aren't educated or intelligent enough. If an Indian can do your job better than you can, or is willing to do it for less money, why on earth should you get the job?

Capitalism is based around a market economy, without a market it can not exist. It needs people to pay money for goods and services, that money then needs to be circulated back to the consumer to continue the market economy cycle, the preferred way of doing this is through the job market.

Now, certain goods and services are considered luxury in less developed countries and are therefore only viable in developed countries. In order for these to sell, which also tend to be highly expensive and create a myriad of jobs, the people in the target economy need to have relatively high paying jobs. If the normal job market is weak the intellectual job market will suffer as a result of weakened infrastructure, a weakened economy and a weakened capability of supporting a thriving intellectual job market.

I agree with you, but the Indian economy would benefit tremendously, leading to greater equality.

Lux wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:If someone else is willing to do your job for less money then it is ethical for them to have those jobs, capitalism is based around competition. How can it be morally right that we have a higher standard of living than they do simply by virtue of the rock we happened to be born on?

And by the way, most Indians couldn't do the jobs I've done in my life, because they aren't educated or intelligent enough. If an Indian can do your job better than you can, or is willing to do it for less money, why on earth should you get the job?

My opinion is that the British government is our representatives in the world. We as their citizens pay them tax and contribute to the economy. We are born into their care and it's their responsibility to look after us, not Indians....that is the Indian government's responsibility.

What is best for British citizens should be the utmost priority of the British government, otherwise we are being short-changed for the support we show them and the money we contribute to keep the country going. Outsourcing anything takes it out of our economy. If you pay wages or buy goods from outside Britain, that is money leaking out of our economy. If we do not have jobs then that's the failure of our government and ultimately it will cost all of us.

As long as the job can be done better by a foreign person, I am not entirely against them being employed locally, not from abroad. If they pay the same taxes that we do then that's a fine short term solution to our need's. But in the long term we need to make sure that our population have jobs.

I agree that there are some areas where protectionism is in the UK's best interests, but that doesn't make it morally right. It might be in my interest to mug someone in a dark alley and steal their wallet, I might argue that my responsibility is to look after myself, not John Smith who I just brained.

I believe that as human beings we have a responsibility to each other, a global community. It is ridiculous to divide our loyalties by virtue of chance, we should follow more enlightened ideals such as utilitarianism.