Today I'm angry about.....

[bobo the clown]

So, Pru.

About this donkey to which you aspire. I could get you one on the knock if you like. Where would you park it ?

Have we finally found Pru's level? 1/3 of a donkey farmer?

Are you suggesting he's a bit of an ass ?

[Worthy4England]

So, Pru.

About this donkey to which you aspire. I could get you one on the knock if you like. Where would you park it ?

Have we finally found Pru's level? 1/3 of a donkey farmer?

Are you suggesting he's a bit of an ass ?

Nay.

[Harry Genshaw]

Nothing to do with Empire either. As I said earlier, Masai warriors, Canadian Inuits, Australian Aborigines, Papuan head hunters, Belizian Mesquito Indians... nope, no problem integrating there ( if they're here), and not much on the (ongoing) war front out there against us either.

I think your first 3 groups particularly had some trouble with integration.

I think the Inuit differ significantly from these other ethnic groups (although I'm not sure of all of them) in that they occupied land than no one had the least economic interest in (at least until the recent discovery of oil in the Arctic). Their culture was to a large extent destroyed by giving them the benefits of civilization and ruling them under Acts of Parliament and a civil service that they did not understand to the same extent they were not understood.

Agreed but I was mainly thinking of the poor beggars that were shoved further into the arctic to develop colonies and left to fend for themselves by well meaning Westerners.

Any poor beggars (i.e indigenous peoples) shoved into the Arctic areas would be native Americans not Inuit. These were mostly given reservations well below the Arctic. We Westerners would not and did not colonize anywhere near the Arctic circle. We're not completely mad. 90+% of us live within 100 miles of the American border. It is actually 6,217 kms from Montreal to the Arctic circle (and that is too close). Bolton is less than 1500 kms away from the circle.

Eee Monty, you might be an ex pat over there but I'd expect you to know yiur adopted country's history a little better

In a hare brained scheme that ran from the 1950s the Canadian Govt, who felt many Inuit were overly dependent on welfare in the reservations chosen for them, decided to resettle them in the uninhabited polar Arctic and leave them to their own devices. Many died of starvation. They most definitely were Inuit and poor beggars!

[Montreal Wanderer]

Eee Monty, you might be an ex pat over there but I'd expect you to know yiur adopted country's history a little better

In a hare brained scheme that ran from the 1950s the Canadian Govt, who felt many Inuit were overly dependent on welfare in the reservations chosen for them, decided to resettle them in the uninhabited polar Arctic and leave them to their own devices. Many died of starvation. They most definitely were Inuit and poor beggars!

Sorry, I misunderstood what you said. I thought you meant native peoples were pushed up there because the Westerners wanted the land they were in. To tell the truth I was not aware that the Inuit had reserves of the type given to First Nations under the Indian Act. The High Arctic Relocation plan of the 1950s probably had as much to do with establishing Canadian sovereignty that getting people off welfare (although the latter was the rationale offered). To put it in perspective 17 families (a total of some 87 individuals) were relocated. They were not adequately supported with supplies and certainly suffered privation. I was not aware than "many died of starvation" - I'll have to try and check on the number. of deaths.

Edit: I cannot find any figure concerning starvation. Inuit accounts say they were brought to the brink of starvation. Where did you get a figure of the number starved, Harry?

[BWFC_Insane]

Chill.....

Those "the richest X are richer than the poorest Y" stats. They come around every year and they're balls. They use net wealth to work it out. Sounds reasonable until you consider somebody like me, earning an OK wage, paying rent in London, but with no actual assets and a student loan and credit cards (and so negative net wealth) is considered poorer than an African farmer who owns naught but a donkey. In fact, I don't just skew the stat by being included in the poorest Y, but my negative net wealth skews it further by meaning you need several African farmers, with several donkeys, just to cancel out my net contribution, never mind start catching up the richest X.

Also, the Independent headlined an article based on that stat this morning with, "You could fit the richest 62 people on earth in a single coach" which made me smile!

I'm not sure how these stats are calculated but I'd have though (taking away the student loan) the rest is fair enough is it not?

An African farmer may well have a higher net worth than you. Their earning potential may be less, but then so is their expenditure.

I mean I take your point that "net worth" doesn't equate to how much money you necessarily have in your bank account ready to spend, but how else would you like them to calculate it?

[Bruce Rioja]

Chill.....

Those "the richest X are richer than the poorest Y" stats. They come around every year and they're balls. They use net wealth to work it out. Sounds reasonable until you consider somebody like me, earning an OK wage, paying rent in London, but with no actual assets and a student loan and credit cards (and so negative net wealth) is considered poorer than an African farmer who owns naught but a donkey. In fact, I don't just skew the stat by being included in the poorest Y, but my negative net wealth skews it further by meaning you need several African farmers, with several donkeys, just to cancel out my net contribution, never mind start catching up the richest X.

Also, the Independent headlined an article based on that stat this morning with, "You could fit the richest 62 people on earth in a single coach" which made me smile!

I'm not sure how these stats are calculated but I'd have though (taking away the student loan) the rest is fair enough is it not?

An African farmer may well have a higher net worth than you. Their earning potential may be less, but then so is their expenditure.

I mean I take your point that "net worth" doesn't equate to how much money you necessarily have in your bank account ready to spend, but how else would you like them to calculate it?

They may as well not bother by the looks of it - an exercise in futility. I mean, what is the point of it?

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Here's a thing then, I've been told plenty of times who the richest person on the planet is. Currently a three way race between Bill Gates, Carlos Slim Helu and Warren Buffett. But who's the poorest person on the planet? and where do they live? and how can they afford to live there? and why isn't there a Forbes 500 Poor list?

[Prufrock]

Chill.....

Those "the richest X are richer than the poorest Y" stats. They come around every year and they're balls. They use net wealth to work it out. Sounds reasonable until you consider somebody like me, earning an OK wage, paying rent in London, but with no actual assets and a student loan and credit cards (and so negative net wealth) is considered poorer than an African farmer who owns naught but a donkey. In fact, I don't just skew the stat by being included in the poorest Y, but my negative net wealth skews it further by meaning you need several African farmers, with several donkeys, just to cancel out my net contribution, never mind start catching up the richest X.

Also, the Independent headlined an article based on that stat this morning with, "You could fit the richest 62 people on earth in a single coach" which made me smile!

I'm not sure how these stats are calculated but I'd have though (taking away the student loan) the rest is fair enough is it not?

An African farmer may well have a higher net worth than you. Their earning potential may be less, but then so is their expenditure.

I mean I take your point that "net worth" doesn't equate to how much money you necessarily have in your bank account ready to spend, but how else would you like them to calculate it?

Any set of data that includes me, a privately educated, privately renting mid-20s professional in the poorest half of the world's population is clearly fecking useless when it comes to deciding how rich the global rich are compared to the global poor. And I'm not just in it, but I make the starting point negative. It's ridiculous.

[Prufrock]

So, Pru.

About this donkey to which you aspire. I could get you one on the knock if you like. Where would you park it ?

Have we finally found Pru's level? 1/3 of a donkey farmer?

Are you suggesting he's a bit of an ass ?

I'm either the front or the back. You, sir, are neither, being no end of an ass.

[BWFC_Insane]

Any set of data that includes me, a privately educated, privately renting mid-20s professional in the poorest half of the world's population is clearly fecking useless when it comes to deciding how rich the global rich are compared to the global poor. And I'm not just in it, but I make the starting point negative. It's ridiculous.

It very much depends what you are measuring, what you define as "poor" or poverty.

I'm entirely in agreement with you that any comparison using this data between you and an African farmer is entirely meaningless. Because the context of "poverty" or being "poor" for an African famrer is entirely different to a London dwelling working young man.

It is a nonsense. BUT in terms of measuring relative debt, wealth and the like it is a measurement. Where it might be more relevant would be to compare you to say the equivalent folk in Birmingham, Edinburgh, Manchester etc, those who operate under the same broadly speaking economic conditions and rules. Then the measure suddenly becomes relevant.

It is more how the data is used, than the data itself being without merit.

[Prufrock]

Any set of data that includes me, a privately educated, privately renting mid-20s professional in the poorest half of the world's population is clearly fecking useless when it comes to deciding how rich the global rich are compared to the global poor. And I'm not just in it, but I make the starting point negative. It's ridiculous.

It very much depends what you are measuring, what you define as "poor" or poverty.

I'm entirely in agreement with you that any comparison using this data between you and an African farmer is entirely meaningless. Because the context of "poverty" or being "poor" for an African famrer is entirely different to a London dwelling working young man.

It is a nonsense. BUT in terms of measuring relative debt, wealth and the like it is a measurement. Where it might be more relevant would be to compare you to say the equivalent folk in Birmingham, Edinburgh, Manchester etc, those who operate under the same broadly speaking economic conditions and rules. Then the measure suddenly becomes relevant.

It is more how the data is used, than the data itself being without merit.

So you agree then, that the stat "the 62 richest people in the world own as much as the poorest 50% combined" is balls then?!

Of course there are numbers you can compile to try to attempt to make that sort of comparison, but they're not them!

Net wealth seems a pretty poor marker to me anyway: any time there's a house market crash suddenly thousands of home owners are "poorer" than the homeless.

Off the top of my head, income (broadly construed to include capital gains/ returns on investments etc...) or assets owned would be better rough and ready measures.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Any set of data that includes me, a privately educated, privately renting mid-20s professional in the poorest half of the world's population is clearly fecking useless when it comes to deciding how rich the global rich are compared to the global poor. And I'm not just in it, but I make the starting point negative. It's ridiculous.

It very much depends what you are measuring, what you define as "poor" or poverty.

I'm entirely in agreement with you that any comparison using this data between you and an African farmer is entirely meaningless. Because the context of "poverty" or being "poor" for an African famrer is entirely different to a London dwelling working young man.

It is a nonsense. BUT in terms of measuring relative debt, wealth and the like it is a measurement. Where it might be more relevant would be to compare you to say the equivalent folk in Birmingham, Edinburgh, Manchester etc, those who operate under the same broadly speaking economic conditions and rules. Then the measure suddenly becomes relevant.

It is more how the data is used, than the data itself being without merit.

So you agree then, that the stat "the 62 richest people in the world own as much as the poorest 50% combined" is balls then?!

Of course there are numbers you can compile to try to attempt to make that sort of comparison, but they're not them!

Net wealth seems a pretty poor marker to me anyway: any time there's a house market crash suddenly thousands of home owners are "poorer" than the homeless.

Off the top of my head, income (broadly construed to include capital gains/ returns on investments etc...) or assets owned would be better rough and ready measures.

So let us say that the measure is cash/gold/assets in bank accounts/vaults/markets (and totally ignoring debts like credit cards/mortgages etc) I think you'd still find that an x amount of individuals ( where x is less than 1,000) would own more than the bottom 50th percentile combined. Or are you saying that's bollox too?

[Prufrock]

I have no idea how many it would be, but yeah, I don't doubt it's small. All it takes for me to consider is that we live in a world where a man with no discernible qualities beyond obnoxiousness can afford to pay for his own presidential campaign, and yet children die on a daily basis for want of mosquito nets costing a couple of quid.

Clearly there is HUGE inequality of wealth across the world. Surely no-one disputes that. I don't think it helps to start trying to illustrate that point by using an example that is at best mathematically illiterate.

[Bijou Bob]

Great to see Cameron highlight the abuse of legal aid yet again. How is it that Iraqi's can claim legal aid to sue the British government? I couldn't get legal aid, neither I suspect, would most on this forum, yet it's been available for largely spurious claims dug up by law firms with the attitude that it's fine to make money off the back of the state whilst subjecting soldiers to years of uncertainty. Thankfully, it's being stopped, but how on earth did we get into a situation where it ever started??

[TANGODANCER]

Great to see Cameron highlight the abuse of legal aid yet again. How is it that Iraqi's can claim legal aid to sue the British government? I couldn't get legal aid, neither I suspect, would most on this forum, yet it's been available for largely spurious claims dug up by law firms with the attitude that it's fine to make money off the back of the state whilst subjecting soldiers to years of uncertainty. Thankfully, it's being stopped, but how on earth did we get into a situation where it ever started??

Lawyers unscrupulous and using the law to their own ends and to line their pockets? What the Dickens? Wash your mouth out sir...

[Harry Genshaw]

I think it's right that services personnel are held to account and given that a few stories of torture and murder have surfaced I'm not sure 'spurious' is entirely accurate. The legal aid is an interesting dilemma. They couldn't pursue the matter through the Iraqi courts with the alleged perps being British so would have to take the case here. As non English speakers they'd qualify for Legal Aid like Dioufy did in the Middlesboro case. Not sure what the answer is but so long as the hard working legal professionals don't lose out

[Prufrock]

Their case as I understand it is that they have been wronged by the British Govt. Why shouldn't they get Legal Aid? It should be means and merits tested, but should be there.

The comment that BB or others on the forum wouldn't get Legal Aid is hugely disingenuous implying as it does they were only getting LA because they are foreign. Whether or not you get it depends hugely on the type of case. There are different rules on who gets LA depending on if the state is playing a part (so everybody gets LA if the Local Authority want to put their kids into care - regardless of their wealth) through to private divorce cases where there is no LA (other than in v limited circumstances). If your case was that the British Govt had tortured you, you'd get Legal Aid.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

If my case is that Bolton Wanderers has tortured me, will I get Legal Aid.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

If my case is that Bolton Wanderers has tortured me, will I get Legal Aid.

Surely there is such a weight of evidence that it's an open and shut case

[Enoch]

If my case is that Bolton Wanderers has tortured me, will I get Legal Aid.

No, Bolton Wanderers FC is in a state, it is not, the state.