How did Andrew Leak kill himself?

[Graham.]

All I can find is that he was found dead in a car on a fuel forecourt.



--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%

[JNugent]

On 05/11/2022 02:19 pm, Graham. wrote:
>
> All I can find is that he was found dead in a car on a fuel forecourt.

It was reported that he used a noose around his neck, with the other end
of the rope (or whatever) tied to a fixed post, then drove off...

It all sounds a bit Isadora Duncan.

[Pamela]

On 14:19 5 Nov 2022, Graham. said:
>
> All I can find is that he was found dead in a car on a fuel
> forecourt.
>

It's interesting that the media, more or less, seem to think that he's
right-winger and is anti-immigration, so he got what he deserved.

On the other hand, if it has been a migrant living in the Manson Centre
who killed himself after throwing several petrol bombs the media
emphasis would most likely be: poor chap traumatised by his experience,
driven by events to extreme measures, insufficient supervision,
inadequate living conditions, lack of social support, neglected
suicidal moods, authorities at fault, etc.

I doubt Andrew Leak will get much sympathy for whatever drove him to
extreme actions but instead his character will probably be questioned
by the media, if not attacked.

[Roger Hayter]

Makes sense to me.

--
Roger Hayter

[billy bookcase]

"Pamela" <uk...@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote in message
news:XnsAF46B85...@88.198.57.247...

> On 14:19 5 Nov 2022, Graham. said:
>>
>> All I can find is that he was found dead in a car on a fuel
>> forecourt.
>>
>
> It's interesting that the media, more or less, seem to think that he's
> right-winger and is anti-immigration, so he got what he deserved.

Er no. Clearly he saw the problem of immigration as insuperable
and so decided to commit suicide as a result. As such he's really
no different from many of the 5,000 odd suicides annually in the
UK, who in their own eyes at least face insuperable difficulties.
I stand to be corrected as always, but the media are fairly ambivalent
about all suicides. AFAIAA none of then ever turn around and say "all
in all, he or she probably did the right thing".

Whether he was right wing or not, most readers would probably
accept he'd simply let a problem get on top of him, and left
it at that

>
> On the other hand, if it has been a migrant living in the Manson
> Centre who killed himself after throwing several petrol bombs the
> media emphasis would most likely be: poor chap traumatised by his
> experience, driven by events to extreme measures, insufficient
> supervision, inadequate living conditions, lack of social support,
> neglected suicidal moods, authorities at fault, etc.

Do you have any actual evidence for that claim ?

> I doubt Andrew Leak will get much sympathy for whatever drove him to
> extreme actions but instead his character will probably be questioned
> by the media, if not attacked.

Apparently he believed the UK was under threat from successive boat
loads of immigrants crossing the English Channel.

So what sort of "sympathy" would you personally have offered him ?
What sort of solution do you now see as being the answer to his
problem, which the authorities should have implemented before
he committed suicide ?

For instance how should the authorities have made themselves aware of
his problem in the first place ? Are you advocating surveillance and
monitoring of all UK citizens perhaps ? And once having been made
aware of his problem by whatever means, given its evident insolubility
should he have been locked up in secure mental accommodation along with
others who maybe shared his views ? On 24 hr suicide watch perhaps
either in a strait jacket or under full illumination ?


bb

[Roger Hayter]

But surely he didn't commit suicide because he was concerned about
immigration, but because he had just thrown several incendiary devices at a
building full of men, women and children and he didn't want to take the
personal consequences of his actions?


--
Roger Hayter

[billy bookcase]

"Roger Hayter" <ro...@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:jsntfi...@mid.individual.net...

>
> But surely he didn't commit suicide because he was concerned about
> immigration, but because he had just thrown several incendiary devices at a
> building full of men, women and children and he didn't want to take the
> personal consequences of his actions?

That's what suicide is. Not wanting to take the personal consequences of
one's actions.

The nature of those actions in irrelevant.

Robert Maxwell jumped off his boat because he didn't want to take the
personal consequnces of his having been found to have borrowed i,e.
"stolen" millions of pounds of Mirror Group pension funds to shore
up the falling price of MGN shares. Which he had hoped would recover
but didn't. Had they recovered then nobody would have been any the
wiser.

Quite possibly many people committ suicide as a result of not being
able to face the consequences of apparently marrying the wrong person.
And not doing what characters in Agatha Christie novels would do
and murder their spouses instead.

bb

[billy bookcase]

"Roger Hayter" <ro...@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:jsntfi...@mid.individual.net...

Meanwhile...to actually answer your question

Unless you're seriously suggesting that * he really* thought that by throwing
several incendiary devices at a building full of men, women and children he
would in any way solve what he saw as the problem of immigration. then that
was clearly a *futile gesture*; which he himself will have fully recognised
as such. However without having made his futile gesture, the actual reason
for his suicide may never have emerged.

bb

[Roger Hayter]

But I don't think terrorism is necessarily futile. There is no immediate
"surrender to terrorists" in most cases, but the existence of a terrorist
campaign may ocncentrate minds on placating the aggrieved party at some poin.


--
Roger Hayter

[Pamela]

Personally I doubt that Andrew Leak's suicide was specific to his
petrol bombs (which were a bit of a failure and didn't harm anyone). He
had no links to right-wing groups, prepared no manifesto for
publication, doesn't seem to have planned his death for maximum impact,
his petrol bombs were amateurish and ineffective, and were probably
improvised on the spurt of a moment of appalling mental health using
Guy Fawkes fireworks as their detonator, and so on. His actions are
unfocussed and don't seem highly planned.

There's sure to be more to emerge in coming days and the Sunday papers
may already be gearing up in-depth articles. From what I gather so far:
he had cancer, his son had committed suicide a year earlier, he
suffered from poor mental health, he was in debt after state benefits
had been cut forcing him to sell possessions to obtain income, etc.

He expressed some sympathies with Migration Watch UK and also Tommy
Robinson but that's no crime nor is it the mark of a dangerous
individual. He resented channel migrants obtaining assistance and
support from the state, but thousands of others feel the same.

I think he is more to be pitied than hated or demonised.

[billy bookcase]

"Roger Hayter" <ro...@hayter.org> wrote in message

news:jso1bc...@mid.individual.net...

By definition almost, terrorism used to be the province of organised groups.

Not as nowadays lone individuals who view extreme websites or who express
extreme views and possibly even act on them as individuals.

Whereas in fact Governments never respond to the acts of lone individuals or even
small enough groups such has Bader Meinhoff.

The latter individual categorisation is of course useful for those in authority as it
allows
them to suppress all or any views, they happen to find inconvenient at any time.

Quite why it would be useful for others to categorise Leak in that way I'm not really
sure.

> There is no immediate surrender to terrorists" in most cases, but the existence of a
> terrorist

> campaign may ocncentrate minds on placating the aggrieved party at some point

Usually only because this proved to be convenient for all concerned at the time - most
notably in the case of the foundation of the State of Israel, With replays under similar
rules
judged strictly out of the question, ever since.,


bb

[RJH]

On 5 Nov 2022 at 20:26:27 GMT, "billy bookcase" wrote:

>
> "Roger Hayter" <ro...@hayter.org> wrote in message
> news:jsntfi...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> But surely he didn't commit suicide because he was concerned about
>> immigration, but because he had just thrown several incendiary devices at a
>> building full of men, women and children and he didn't want to take the
>> personal consequences of his actions?
>
> That's what suicide is. Not wanting to take the personal consequences of
> one's actions.
>
> The nature of those actions in irrelevant.
>

Or, pretty much the opposite:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_(Durkheim_book)

(anomic suicide - north european countries in particular IIRC)


--
Cheers, Rob, Sheffield UK

[JNugent]

What did he say when you asked him that?

[JNugent]

On 05/11/2022 05:24 pm, Jethro_uk wrote:

> Did he used to work for Marconi :)

Telefunken?

[Brian]

It can also be a reaction to fear of something else feared ( perhaps not
the best word in all cases) more that death. People facing a painful death
may decide a quick end is preferable.

I’m not pretending I know this man’s motivations but it is feasible he
feared the future - regardless of his recent acts.

We may never know what motivated him. He could have lost someone in a
terrorist attack. Simply believed he’d ‘missed out’ to an immigrant- the
Nazis used that propaganda trick to great effect, the politics of envy is
very powerful. He could simply have suffered from some mental problems and
‘vented’ his spleen at immigrants. It happens- not always at immigrants.

Labelling him ‘right wing’ is too convenient but suits the leftie agenda of
demonising anyone who dares to even question immigration policy in the
mildest terms.

[Brian]

We are constantly being told that there are countless, especially young,
people who are suffering serious mental issues due to concerns over so
called climate change, others due to financial concerns ( often in
interviews as they sit by their huge TV, smoking etc), ….. yet you claim
this man, after events like the Manchester bombing, Rotherham, etc, can’t
suffer serious mental issues even if they are out of proportion.

[billy bookcase]

"RJH" <patch...@gmx.com> wrote in message news:tk7o2l$30klr$1...@dont-email.me...

Indeed. I was totally wrong-footed in countering Roger Hayter's specific suggestion
as to why Leak killed himself, with a fatuous generalisation all of my own

bb

[Roger Hayter]

Mine wasn't an unreasonable suggestion; it seems very frequent for people who
commit mass shootings or other murders to kill themselves if they are not
caught or killed immediately.

--
Roger Hayter

[Colin Bignell]

On 06/11/2022 08:32, Brian wrote:
....

> Labelling him ‘right wing’ is too convenient but suits the leftie agenda of
> demonising anyone who dares to even question immigration policy in the
> mildest terms.
>

It is, however, a reasonable assumption, given the number of extreme
right wing groups he followed.

--
Colin Bignell

[Roger Hayter]

I'm not sure I'd characterise throwing petrol bombs at a croweded building
full of immigrants as "questioning immigration policy in the mildest terms".
YMMV

--
Roger Hayter

[Roger Hayter]

And I'd have no difficulty agreeing with you if he'd committed suicide
*before* throwing petrol bombs at a building full of people.


--
Roger Hayter

[billy bookcase]

"Brian" <no...@lid.org> wrote in message news:tk7reo$31cik$1...@dont-email.me...

> billy bookcase <bi...@anon.com> wrote:
>>
>> "Roger Hayter" <ro...@hayter.org> wrote in message
>> news:jsntfi...@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>> But surely he didn't commit suicide because he was concerned about
>>> immigration, but because he had just thrown several incendiary devices at a
>>> building full of men, women and children and he didn't want to take the
>>> personal consequences of his actions?
>>
>> That's what suicide is. Not wanting to take the personal consequences of
>> one's actions.
>>
>> The nature of those actions in irrelevant.
>>
>> Robert Maxwell jumped off his boat because he didn't want to take the
>> personal consequnces of his having been found to have borrowed i,e.
>> "stolen" millions of pounds of Mirror Group pension funds to shore
>> up the falling price of MGN shares. Which he had hoped would recover
>> but didn't. Had they recovered then nobody would have been any the
>> wiser.
>>
>> Quite possibly many people committ suicide as a result of not being
>> able to face the consequences of apparently marrying the wrong person.
>> And not doing what characters in Agatha Christie novels would do
>> and murder their spouses instead.
>>
>> bb
>>
>>
>>
>
> It can also be a reaction to fear of something else feared ( perhaps not
> the best word in all cases) more that death. People facing a painful death
> may decide a quick end is preferable.

As has be pointed out elsewhere with reference to Durkheim, basically people
may commit suicide as a result of a feeling of alienation, of not belonging, Or
a sense of the meaningless of life in general. That's the general theory anyway.
elaborated in various ways to cover different types of society.

Or as a result of a lack of sunshine, or more controversially a seratonin imbalance

Or as you say fear, The prospect of war has possibly prompted many to commit
suicide; one of whom being the admittedly mentally fragile, Virginia Woolf.


bb

[billy bookcase]

"Roger Hayter" <ro...@hayter.org> wrote in message

news:jspbtl...@mid.individual.net...

>
> Mine wasn't an unreasonable suggestion; it seems very frequent for people who
> commit mass shootings or other murders to kill themselves if they are not
> caught or killed immediately.

But surely people who commit mass shootings or other murders are mentally
unbalanced and thus potentially suicidal to start with ?

They're certainly not as you seem to be implying perfectly rational if somewhat
misguided individuals who commit a mass shooting or a murder and then in a
sudden fit of conscience or remorse decide to committ suicide.

The shootings and the subsequent suicide are both part and parcel of the
same mindset - the same feeling of utter hopelessness

bb

[Max Demian]

On 05/11/2022 21:57, billy bookcase wrote:
> "Roger Hayter" <ro...@hayter.org> wrote in message

> news:jso1bc...@mid.individual.net...

>> But I don't think terrorism is necessarily futile.
>
> By definition almost, terrorism used to be the province of organised groups.
>
> Not as nowadays lone individuals who view extreme websites or who express
> extreme views and possibly even act on them as individuals.
>
> Whereas in fact Governments never respond to the acts of lone individuals or even
> small enough groups such has Bader Meinhoff.
>
> The latter individual categorisation is of course useful for those in authority as it
> allows
> them to suppress all or any views, they happen to find inconvenient at any time.
>
> Quite why it would be useful for others to categorise Leak in that way I'm not really
> sure.
>
>
>> There is no immediate surrender to terrorists" in most cases, but the existence of a
>> terrorist
>> campaign may ocncentrate minds on placating the aggrieved party at some point
>
> Usually only because this proved to be convenient for all concerned at the time - most
> notably in the case of the foundation of the State of Israel, With replays under similar
> rules
> judged strictly out of the question, ever since.,

Not sure how that would relate to the IRA.

And Israel may come unstuck over the extreme religious groups.

--
Max Demian

[Max Demian]

On 06/11/2022 09:16, billy bookcase wrote:
> "Brian" <no...@lid.org> wrote in message news:tk7reo$31cik$1...@dont-email.me...

>> It can also be a reaction to fear of something else feared ( perhaps not
>> the best word in all cases) more that death. People facing a painful death
>> may decide a quick end is preferable.
>
> As has be pointed out elsewhere with reference to Durkheim, basically people
> may commit suicide as a result of a feeling of alienation, of not belonging, Or
> a sense of the meaningless of life in general. That's the general theory anyway.
> elaborated in various ways to cover different types of society.

Often in that case people kill their whole family as they can't
countenance their children living in such an evil world. Joseph Goebbels
comes to mind. How could he inflict a world without the Third Reich on
his six beloved children?

--
Max Demian

[notya...@gmail.com]

Leak lived nowhere near the coast and does not seem to have even been inconvenienced.

One could understand genuine asylum seekers resorting to damage - e.g. pulling down the fence to escape if they thought they were going to be deported back to the dangerous country that had fled from (e.g. Iraq) or somewhere nearly as bad - e.g. Rwanda
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwanda#Human_rights

They really ought ot be triaged: -

Migrants - people who choose to come here for economic reasons.
There is a process for legal migration. If you haven't got a visa or it runs out you go home.

Refugees - people force to emigrate by war, famine or similar.
Who might be granted temporary refuge, but expected to return home once conditions improved.

Asylum seekers - people force to flee due to [wffo] persecution, with no realistic hope of returning home short of regime change - Iran, Syria, China etc.

[Les. Hayward]

On 06/11/2022 10:15, Jethro_uk wrote:

> ?
>
> I was referring to a spate of "suicides" in the 80s of scientists working
> on secret defence contracts with Marconi (GEC). At least one tied a rope
> around their neck to decapitate themselves. They were reporting (with
> increasing scepticism) in Computing and Computer Weekly.

I was working for them at the time. It made me wonder...

[billy bookcase]

"Max Demian" <max_d...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:tk84fv$33aiq$1...@dont-email.me...

The Ulster Workers Strike of 1974 which brought down the Sunningdale Agreement
had far more influence on NI affairs than did 30 years of the troubles.

The IRA have always proved singularly unsuccessful as they always failed to take
account of the determination of the Protestants latterly of Northermn Ireland.

Its the "Prods" who have always been their biggest obstacle, not the "Brits".
Although NI did provide a good training ground for BA general counter-insurgency
operations. With live ammo as a bonus

Home Rule for Ireland had been on the cards since the 1886; but had always met
with Scottish/Irish/Ulster/Unionist opposition in Parliament In 1922 Lloyd George
would have happily granted Home Rule to the whole of Ireland had not Craig
objected., Northern Ireland has always remained British simply by virtue of
Westminsters unwillingned to potentially provoke civil war on the mainland
starting in Scotland.

Had full Home Rule been granted at any tine since 1886 with the parliament in
Dublin then its doubtful if republicaism would have gained any support at all.
The IRA eventually realised the game was up and with both the UK and the
Republic both being in the EU that took some of the sting out of the tail.
Not that that was even noticed by the Brexiteers.

The Northern Ireland Civil Rights Movement have presumably achieved
their original objectives in the meantime

>
> And Israel may come unstuck over the extreme religious groups.

No it won't. Nobody cares about the fate of the Palestinians of how many UN
resolutions Isreal breaks excepting for some concerned Isreali citizens and
the likes of Jeremy Corbyn. And everybody knows what happened to him/
>

bb

[Brian]

Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

> ?
>
> I was referring to a spate of "suicides" in the 80s of scientists working
> on secret defence contracts with Marconi (GEC). At least one tied a rope
> around their neck to decapitate themselves. They were reporting (with
> increasing scepticism) in Computing and Computer Weekly.
>

No shortage of speculation in the media at the time. Oddly, it was hardly
mentioned in the company - although there was never any kind of instruction
not to discuss it other than the general one we were given re talking to
the media etc on joining the company etc.

I’m not convinced there was anything to it. At the time, GEC was huge
employer and the defence part was probably ( collectively) the biggest
part. If memory serves, the total work force was over 100,000.

I don’t know what the rates for suicide are but, a bit of selective cherry
picking of numbers, and you could probably find all kinds of things in
100,000 people.

[JNugent]

Ah... Durkheim's Theory of Anomie...

It's been too many years...

[JNugent]

On 06/11/2022 10:15 am, Jethro_uk wrote:

> ?
> I was referring to a spate of "suicides" in the 80s of scientists working
> on secret defence contracts with Marconi (GEC). At least one tied a rope
> around their neck to decapitate themselves. They were reporting (with
> increasing scepticism) in Computing and Computer Weekly.

And I was referring to John Lennon's rhythmic count-in to a track on one
of the Anthology CDs:

"Isadora Duncan... worked for Telefunken...".

[Brian]

An interesting example.

While to most of us, the Third Reich policies were the evil incarnate, to a
committed National Socialist they must, I assume, have seemed perfectly
acceptable, indeed essential. Equally, how parent could murder their
children is hard to comprehend. Of course, many Germans, especially women,
committed suicide due to fear as the Russians invaded.

Who really knows what went through the mind of Goebbels. Certainly his
children were not to blame for his crimes. Some other family members of
high ranking Nazis actively worked to undermine the evil policies, saving
Jews, helping them escape etc. I believe at least one has been recognised
by Israel.

[Brian]

Define ‘extreme right wing group’, plus do you have access to special
information about him or just what is in the media?

I’m not defending him and certainly not defending terrorism.

I am objecting to demonising anyone who questions our lack of an
immigration policy.

[billy bookcase]

"Max Demian" <max_d...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message

news:tk85l3$33aiq$4...@dont-email.me...

Poor old Goebbels, will he never get a break ? Apparently is was his wife who
was the most keen.

< quote >

"Magda appears to have contemplated and talked about killing her children at
least a month in advance. After the war, Günther Quandt's sister-in-law Eleanore
recalled Magda saying she did not want her children to grow up hearing that their
father had been one of the century's foremost criminals and that reincarnation*
might grant her children a better future life.[33]

She refused several offers from others, such as Albert Speer, to take the children
out of Berlin.

< quote >

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goebbels_children

(That page includes a picture of the some of them with Daddy, giving the Nazi
salute.)
While Goebbels himself decided to stay with Hitler to the end its believed
Magda made the decision to stay independently. There were also fears about
what might happen to the children if they fell into the hands of the Russians.


bb

* You can't help wondering what Magda expected the chidren to be re-incarnated
as.






> --
> Max Demian
>

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2022-11-06, Brian <no...@lid.org> wrote:
> We may never know what motivated him. He could have lost someone in a
> terrorist attack. Simply believed he’d ‘missed out’ to an immigrant- the
> Nazis used that propaganda trick to great effect, the politics of envy is
> very powerful. He could simply have suffered from some mental problems and
> ‘vented’ his spleen at immigrants. It happens- not always at immigrants.
>
> Labelling him ‘right wing’ is too convenient but suits the leftie agenda of
> demonising anyone

It's not a "leftie agenda", it's this unfortunate thing called "facts":

Leak, from High Wycombe, who was found dead after Sunday’s attack,
made no secret of his admiration for Tommy Robinson, the founder of
the English Defence League. He pictured himself online wearing a
union jack face mask, and frequently shared posts by Robinson and
conspiracy theories by several far-right groups, including New World
Order, the Traditional Britain Group and Turning Point UK.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/01/immigration-who-was-dover-firebomb-suspect-andrew-leak

He hasn't been "labelled" right wing - he *was* right wing.

> who dares to even question immigration policy in the mildest terms.

Throwing firebombs at people is "mild", is it?

[Colin Bignell]

On 06/11/2022 10:55, Brian wrote:
> Colin Bignell <c...@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
>> On 06/11/2022 08:32, Brian wrote:
>> ....
>>> Labelling him ‘right wing’ is too convenient but suits the leftie agenda of
>>> demonising anyone who dares to even question immigration policy in the
>>> mildest terms.
>>>
>>
>> It is, however, a reasonable assumption, given the number of extreme
>> right wing groups he followed.
>>
>
> Define ‘extreme right wing group’,

I don't need to. The security services have identified a number of them,
including ones Leak followed. However, as one of them was a group that
Jacob Rees-Mogg dissociated himself from as being too extreme should
give a good indication.

> plus do you have access to special
> information about him or just what is in the media?

The information in the media is adequate.

>
> I’m not defending him and certainly not defending terrorism.
>
> I am objecting to demonising anyone who questions our lack of an
> immigration policy.

We don't lack an immigration policy. Indeed, despite what the Leave
campaign would have had people believe, that was one thing we reserved
to ourselves while in the EU. Whether it is a policy that everybody
agrees with is another matter.


--
Colin Bignell

[Max Demian]

On 06/11/2022 12:24, notya...@gmail.com wrote:

> One could understand genuine asylum seekers resorting to damage - e.g. pulling down the fence to escape if they thought they were going to be deported back to the dangerous country that had fled from (e.g. Iraq) or somewhere nearly as bad - e.g. Rwanda
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwanda#Human_rights
>
> They really ought ot be triaged: -
>
> Migrants - people who choose to come here for economic reasons.
> There is a process for legal migration. If you haven't got a visa or it runs out you go home.
>
> Refugees - people force to emigrate by war, famine or similar.
> Who might be granted temporary refuge, but expected to return home once conditions improved.
>
> Asylum seekers - people force to flee due to [wffo] persecution, with no realistic hope of returning home short of regime change - Iran, Syria, China etc.

A lot of asylum seekers are just people out of kilter with the customs
of their native land: religion, sexual practises, even sartorial customs
such as veil wearing. (We don't allow nudists to wear no clothes all the
time here. Where should disaffected naturists go to claim asylum?)

It's often been said that they should claim asylum in the first "safe"
country they come to, and the reasons they choose Britain are rather
poor: relatives here (can that be verified and do they want to help the
migrant?); ability to speak English; the existence of a community of
similar people here.

It's notable that asylum seekers always choose to come to a country a
lot wealthier than their native land; perhaps they are really economic
migrants after all?

Some may have been actually tortured, but can they show the cigarette burns?

--
Max Demian

[Brian]

The problems in NI are ingrained.

I recall when, in the early 90s, I was there to interview students for jobs
at the Uni in Belfast. We had an informal presentation in the evening when
we introduced the Company etc, had a buffet, answered questions. The next
day we did the interviews.

Mostly the questions were about the Company, career opportunities,
training, the kind of thing you would expect.

I confess I was almost lost for words when I was asked how many people of a
certain religion I worked with. I answered, honestly, I didn’t know. I
knew there was a couple of Sikhs one other who had told me in passing, but
beyond those I neither knew or cared and as far as I knew, it was illegal
to ask. The personal person with me confirmed the latter. I could see the
questioner didn’t believe my answer.

[Fredxx]

On 06/11/2022 17:05, Colin Bignell wrote:
> On 06/11/2022 10:55, Brian wrote:
>> Colin Bignell <c...@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
>>> On 06/11/2022 08:32, Brian wrote:
>>> ....
>>>> Labelling him ‘right wing’ is too convenient but suits the leftie
>>>> agenda of
>>>> demonising anyone who dares to even question immigration policy in the
>>>> mildest terms.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is, however, a reasonable assumption, given the number of extreme
>>> right wing groups he followed.
>>>
>>
>> Define ‘extreme right wing group’,
>
> I don't need to.

I was intrigued what your answer might be and I wasn't disappointed.

Let me ask you some similar question. Would you consider a socialist to
be right wing, or left wing? And would you consider Hitler to be a
socialist? If not, why not?

[GB]

On 05/11/2022 20:49, Pamela wrote:

> I think he is more to be pitied than hated or demonised.

Surely, both?

Plenty of people top themselves, without seeking to harm others. The
fact he didn't succeed should not be used to excuse his attempt.

[GB]

On 06/11/2022 13:20, Brian wrote:
> Some other family members of
> high ranking Nazis actively worked to undermine the evil policies, saving
> Jews, helping them escape etc. I believe at least one has been recognised
> by Israel.
>

The story of the Jews in Denmark is fairly well known. Possibly, Herr
Best was simply fed up with killing people, or possibly he had one eye
on the war ending in defeat and wanted to save his own skin, or maybe
the requirement to keep Danish production up was paramount? Anyway, he
exported nearly all of Denmark's Jews to Sweden. His deputy was given
much of the credit.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-45919900

[Colin Bignell]

On 06/11/2022 17:12, Fredxx wrote:
> On 06/11/2022 17:05, Colin Bignell wrote:
>> On 06/11/2022 10:55, Brian wrote:
>>> Colin Bignell <c...@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 06/11/2022 08:32, Brian wrote:
>>>> ....
>>>>> Labelling him ‘right wing’ is too convenient but suits the leftie
>>>>> agenda of
>>>>> demonising anyone who dares to even question immigration policy in the
>>>>> mildest terms.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is, however, a reasonable assumption, given the number of extreme
>>>> right wing groups he followed.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Define ‘extreme right wing group’,
>>
>> I don't need to.
>
> I was intrigued what your answer might be and I wasn't disappointed.

You did, I note, trim my reply to remove the part where I said that The

security services have identified a number of them, including ones Leak

followed. The security services have much more information about them
than I could ever hope to accrue.

>
> Let me ask you some similar question. Would you consider a socialist to
> be right wing, or left wing?

Wikipedia will tell you that socialism is a left wing philosophy.

And would you consider Hitler to be a
> socialist? If not, why not?

This article discusses the matter in depth:

https://fullfact.org/online/nazis-socialists/

--
Colin Bignell

[Roger Hayter]

Someone who as one of his main strategic acts agreed to supply slave labour to
IG Farben in "payment" for its war production was not a socialist by any wild
stretch of the imagination, and the fact he had the word for socialist in
German as part of the name of his party is of no remote or credible relevance.
Nor is the fact that on a war footing he instituted strong social controls,
one of the main purposes of which was to slaughter groups he disapproved of
evidence of a "socialist" social or labour programme. And his method of
synchronising production with his war aims (see IG Farben above) had more in
common with Putin's recruitment of oligarch allies than any kind of
nationalisation programme. So calling Hitler a socialist is a big lie,
comparable in scale with holocaust denial.



--
Roger Hayter

[Colin Bignell]

On 06/11/2022 19:25, Jethro_uk wrote:

> On Sun, 06 Nov 2022 19:01:14 +0000, Colin Bignell wrote:
>
>> The security services have much more information about them than I could
>> ever hope to accrue.
>

> It's less about what information you have, and more about what you do
> with it. These are the same security services that manage to decide not
> to continue surveilling someone just before they commit an atrocity.
> Repeatedly.

An unfortunate consequence of not having infinite resources and,
instead, having to prioritize what they do have.

It is also an unfortunate fact that reports of their failures make much
better news stories than those about their successes. There were three
terrorist incidents in 2020, but 55 people were charged with terrorist
related offences and 49 were convicted.


--
Colin Bignell

[Colin Bignell]

On 06/11/2022 17:16, Max Demian wrote:
....

> A lot of asylum seekers are just people out of kilter with the customs
> of their native land: religion, sexual practises, even sartorial customs
> such as veil wearing. (We don't allow nudists to wear no clothes all the
> time here. Where should disaffected naturists go to claim asylum?)

....

It is not illegal to be naked in public in England and Wales, unless for
purposes of sexual gratification. Nobody doing so is at risk of their
life or even imprisonment. Any sanctions against them have to be for
other possible offences, such as behaviour likely to cause a breach of
the peace, while those who persist may, rarely, find themselves the
subject of an Anti-Social Behaviour Order.

--
Colin Bignell

[Colin Bignell]

On 06/11/2022 20:36, Jethro_uk wrote:

> On Sun, 06 Nov 2022 19:51:46 +0000, Colin Bignell wrote:
>
>> It is also an unfortunate fact that reports of their failures make much
>> better news stories than those about their successes. There were three
>> terrorist incidents in 2020, but 55 people were charged with terrorist
>> related offences and 49 were convicted.
>

> I view such claims with scepticism. A bit of back of fag packet
> calculations tends to demolish them. Especially when you have an elastic
> definition of "terrorism".

No elasticity that I can see in the Terrorism Act 2000.

> And while resources may not be infinite, they do tend to be able to be
> able to be targeted at people guilty of non-crimes.

What non-crimes do you believe MI5 are targetting?


--
Colin Bignell

[Vir Campestris]

On 06/11/2022 19:26, Roger Hayter wrote:
> Someone who as one of his main strategic acts agreed to supply slave labour to
> IG Farben in "payment" for its war production was not a socialist by any wild
> stretch of the imagination, and the fact he had the word for socialist in
> German as part of the name of his party is of no remote or credible relevance.
> Nor is the fact that on a war footing he instituted strong social controls,
> one of the main purposes of which was to slaughter groups he disapproved of
> evidence of a "socialist" social or labour programme. And his method of
> synchronising production with his war aims (see IG Farben above) had more in
> common with Putin's recruitment of oligarch allies than any kind of
> nationalisation programme. So calling Hitler a socialist is a big lie,
> comparable in scale with holocaust denial.

Mao is known as a socialist.

Mao seems to have killed over 20 million people.

It matters little to me what label is placed on an evil dictator.

Unless, of course, you claim that the label automatically means someone
is good.

Andy

[Roger Hayter]

On 6 Nov 2022 at 21:36:02 GMT, "Vir Campestris"

Even if any of those statements were true, what would it have to do with
whether Hitler was a socialist?

--
Roger Hayter

[JNugent]

On 06/11/2022 10:39 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:

> "Vir Campestris" <vir.cam...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 06/11/2022 19:26, Roger Hayter wrote:

>>> Someone who as one of his main strategic acts agreed to supply slave labour to
>>> IG Farben in "payment" for its war production was not a socialist by any wild
>>> stretch of the imagination, and the fact he had the word for socialist in
>>> German as part of the name of his party is of no remote or credible relevance.
>>> Nor is the fact that on a war footing he instituted strong social controls,
>>> one of the main purposes of which was to slaughter groups he disapproved of
>>> evidence of a "socialist" social or labour programme. And his method of
>>> synchronising production with his war aims (see IG Farben above) had more in
>>> common with Putin's recruitment of oligarch allies than any kind of
>>> nationalisation programme. So calling Hitler a socialist is a big lie,
>>> comparable in scale with holocaust denial.
>
>> Mao is known as a socialist.
>> Mao seems to have killed over 20 million people.
>> It matters little to me what label is placed on an evil dictator.
>> Unless, of course, you claim that the label automatically means someone
>> is good.
>

> Even if any of those statements were true, what would it have to do with
> whether Hitler was a socialist?

Are you denying that more than twenty million people were killed by the
socialist government of China under Mao?

[JNugent]

On 06/11/2022 07:26 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:

> On 6 Nov 2022 at 17:12:12 GMT, "Fredxx" <fre...@spam.uk> wrote:

[ ... ]

>> Let me ask you some similar question. Would you consider a socialist to
>> be right wing, or left wing? And would you consider Hitler to be a
>> socialist? If not, why not?
>
> Someone who as one of his main strategic acts agreed to supply slave labour to
> IG Farben in "payment" for its war production was not a socialist by any wild
> stretch of the imagination, and the fact he had the word for socialist in
> German as part of the name of his party is of no remote or credible relevance.
> Nor is the fact that on a war footing he instituted strong social controls,
> one of the main purposes of which was to slaughter groups he disapproved of
> evidence of a "socialist" social or labour programme. And his method of
> synchronising production with his war aims (see IG Farben above) had more in
> common with Putin's recruitment of oligarch allies than any kind of
> nationalisation programme. So calling Hitler a socialist is a big lie,
> comparable in scale with holocaust denial.

Have you ever read "Hamlet" (or seen it in a reasonably uncut performance)?

[Brian]

The USSR record for killing people, especially Jews, is often overlooked.

‘True’ facists tend to murder political rivals. Look a Spain, South America
- most atrocities are not against a particular ethnic / cultural group.
Even in Spain, the Basques weren’t singled out.

The Socialists use ‘divide and conquer’ - that group over there is stopping
you having a job, making you poor, etc . The Nazis used mainly the Jews,
who had been targets for years not only in Germany but across Europe. The
Kaiser hated Jews. The USSR used Jews, several other groups considered
“dangerous”. China didn’t have many Jews so used ‘counter revolutionaries’
- anyone handy, probably those educated, wealthy etc. Nothing better to
fire up a lazy mob than envy. Groups like the BNP - often considered to be
modern day Nazis therefore in the Socialist group- targeted Asians ( who
traditionally were recognised as hard working, be it as Doctors or shop
keepers when the BNP / National Front etc ‘flourished’ ) - who can forget
the expression used for assaults on Asians.

[billy bookcase]

"Brian" <no...@lid.org> wrote in message news:tkaki6$3ia5q$1...@dont-email.me...

> Nothing better fire up a lazy mob than envy.

As against hard working sheep with their noses to the grindstone 24/7 willing to work
for a pittance, in live in grinding poverty

bb

[notya...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, 6 November 2022 at 13:58:54 UTC, billy bookcase wrote:
> "Max Demian" <max_d...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message

SNIP

> > Not sure how that would relate to the IRA.
> The Ulster Workers Strike of 1974 which brought down the Sunningdale Agreement
> had far more influence on NI affairs than did 30 years of the troubles.
>
> The IRA have always proved singularly unsuccessful as they always failed to take
> account of the determination of the Protestants latterly of Northermn Ireland.

Which "prod's"? Protestants are nowonly in the majority in the over 70 age group, with an increasing proportion of people with no religion.

Still a much high level of irrational belief (aka theism) in NI than GB, but both the proportion and the strength of it is waning as has also been demonstrated by the declining popularity of Unionist parties in elections and that of the DUP in particular. The DUP are now reduced to spoilt child tactics, like refusing to agree a speaker for the assembly.

SNIP

[JNugent]

Exactly.

Socialism holds the (uncontested) world record for efficiency in killing
innocent people across the globe.

But socialists try to absolve the faith with the most ridiculous
quibbles about which type of socialism is worse than the others. Shades
of the Judaean Popular Front.

[JNugent]

A month or two back, someone tried to persuade me (in real life, not
here on Usenet) that life for the British working class is the same now
as it was in the early 1920s.

Life in the UK is far better, and the economy far more provident, than I
clearly remember from the 1970s, let alone the 1920s.

[notya...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, 6 November 2022 at 17:16:28 UTC, Max Demian wrote:
> On 06/11/2022 12:24, notya...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > One could understand genuine asylum seekers resorting to damage - e.g. pulling down the fence to escape if they thought they were going to be deported back to the dangerous country that had fled from (e.g. Iraq) or somewhere nearly as bad - e.g. Rwanda
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwanda#Human_rights
> >
> > They really ought ot be triaged: -
> >
> > Migrants - people who choose to come here for economic reasons.
> > There is a process for legal migration. If you haven't got a visa or it runs out you go home.
> >
> > Refugees - people force to emigrate by war, famine or similar.
> > Who might be granted temporary refuge, but expected to return home once conditions improved.
> >
> > Asylum seekers - people force to flee due to [wffo] persecution, with no realistic hope of returning home short of regime change - Iran, Syria, China etc.
> A lot of asylum seekers are just people out of kilter with the customs
> of their native land: religion, sexual practises, even sartorial customs
> such as veil wearing. (We don't allow nudists to wear no clothes all the
> time here. Where should disaffected naturists go to claim asylum?)
>
> It's often been said that they should claim asylum in the first "safe"
> country they come to, and the reasons they choose Britain are rather
> poor: relatives here (can that be verified and do they want to help the
> migrant?); ability to speak English; the existence of a community of
> similar people here.

Quote sensible reasons if you think about it especially already speaking English. Many people migrated to the UK quite legally from its empire (later commonwealth) before 1970 and created communities here.

>
> It's notable that asylum seekers always choose to come to a country a
> lot wealthier than their native land; perhaps they are really economic
> migrants after all?
>
> Some may have been actually tortured, but can they show the cigarette burns?
>

Ask a doctor https://www.freedomfromtorture.org/what-we-do/therapy-and-support/evidence-asylum-claims

Amnesty has stuff as well.


> --
> Max Demian

[billy bookcase]

"notya...@gmail.com" <notya...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d70e6328-0722-46be...@googlegroups.com...

> On Sunday, 6 November 2022 at 13:58:54 UTC, billy bookcase wrote:
>> "Max Demian" <max_d...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
>
> SNIP
>
>> > Not sure how that would relate to the IRA.
>> The Ulster Workers Strike of 1974 which brought down the Sunningdale Agreement
>> had far more influence on NI affairs than did 30 years of the troubles.
>>
>> The IRA have always proved singularly unsuccessful as they always failed to take
>> account of the determination of the Protestants latterly of Northermn Ireland.
>
> Which "prod's"? Protestants are nowonly in the majority in the over 70 age group, with
> an increasing proportion of people with no religion.
>

According to the Protestants of Northern Ireland, had it not been for
their forebears, you now would be speaking either Spanish or French.
As had they not been sent over the water to police the situation, the
Catholic Irish - both Celts and assimilated Normans would have welcomed
England's European Catholic enemies, both Spanish and French with open
arms. As it was believed for a short time during 1916, they would have
welcomed the Germans. Similarly had not King Billy put paid to James
11 and ensured a Protestant Succession, most likely you'd have been
raised as a Catholic and possibly fallen victim to a peadophile
priest.

bb

[billy bookcase]

"JNugent" <jennin...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:jssbdv...@mid.individual.net...

>
> Life in the UK is far better, and the economy far more provident, than I clearly
> remember from the 1970s, let alone the 1920s.

It's really nobody's business but your own, but as you've brought it up -

Aside from better health care perhaps in the form of better drugs how exactly
is your life so much better now than it was, or would have been, in the 1970's ?

Was life really that much more miserable, without DVD players or dare I say it
the internet ?

bb

[billy bookcase]

"JNugent" <jennin...@mail.com> wrote in message

news:jssb8q...@mid.individual.net...

>
> Socialism holds the (uncontested) world record for efficiency in killing innocent
> people across the globe.

That distinction must surely belong to the United States; as being the only country
to ever deploy atomic bombs on innocent civilians

A decision which Harry Truman, and every subsequent US President, has never had
cause to regret.


bb

[JNugent]

On 07/11/2022 12:44 pm, billy bookcase wrote:

> "JNugent" <jennin...@mail.com> wrote:

>> Life in the UK is far better, and the economy far more provident, than I clearly
>> remember from the 1970s, let alone the 1920s.

> It's really nobody's business but your own, but as you've brought it up -

> Aside from better health care perhaps in the form of better drugs how exactly
> is your life so much better now than it was, or would have been, in the 1970's ?

I had no need of health care in the 1970s... but materially?

I'm surprised you feel the need to ask, but I have at least twice the
income today as compared with what it would have been then (had I been
the age I am now). Maybe more than double in real terms. That's another
way of saying that pensioners - especially from my background - then
largely lived in what today would be seen as poverty. Occupational
pensions and the general increase in retirement pension have seen to
that. That's not to say that household income is as high as it was when
we were working (it isn't), but the mortgage is paid off...

> Was life really that much more miserable, without DVD players or dare I say it
> the internet ?

How about cars, the house we own outright (first generation of the
family for whom that happened), significant savings, the ability to
travel worldwide (out of income, not savings), eating out whenever we
wish (which admittedly isn't often these days), the ability to take part
in cultural activity (eg, watching the plays at the RSC), not having to
worry about provision (whereas my grandparents had a hard time in
feeding their offspring)?

The idea that life today is like it was in the 1920s, or 1970s, is away
with the fairies.

[JNugent]

On 07/11/2022 01:24 pm, billy bookcase wrote:

> "JNugent" <jennin...@mail.com> wrote:

>> Socialism holds the (uncontested) world record for efficiency in killing innocent
>> people across the globe.

> That distinction must surely belong to the United States; as being the only country
> to ever deploy atomic bombs on innocent civilians

Even so, that was nowhere even remotely near the number of people
killed* as in the socialist countries. And those state were not even at
war with their own populations.

> A decision which Harry Truman, and every subsequent US President, has never had
> cause to regret.

It isn't clear how you can know that, but I accept that it it equally
cannot be disproven.

[* Including death by under-nutrition - a favoured means of populus
control for socialists.]

[Colin Bignell]

On 07/11/2022 12:44, billy bookcase wrote:
> "JNugent" <jennin...@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:jssbdv...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> Life in the UK is far better, and the economy far more provident, than I clearly
>> remember from the 1970s, let alone the 1920s.
>
> It's really nobody's business but your own, but as you've brought it up -
>
> Aside from better health care perhaps in the form of better drugs how exactly
> is your life so much better now than it was, or would have been, in the 1970's ?

Disposable income is a common measure. A report in 2007 showed that,
corrected to 2007 values, the average UK household disposable income
rose from around £12,000 pa in 1977 to just over £25,000 pa in 2007.

> Was life really that much more miserable, without DVD players or dare I say it
> the internet ?

Disposable income is what people have to spend on non-essentials or to
invest. The non-essentials may be different, but with more disposable
income, people can afford more of whatever is currently available or can
put aside bigger savings.

--
Colin Bignell

[Pamela]

Not only is life in the UK better in material terms than the 1920s or
1970s but also in terms of life expectancy, available leisure time,
personal freedoms, quality of healthcare, housing, etc.

I'm sure there will be some measures by which life is less attractive but
they are overshadowed by the improvements.

[Brian]

We’ve just returned from a trip to our original ‘home town’ on Tyneside, we
left in the mid 70s. We return once or twice a year and always drive around
where we lived etc.

I lived on a council estate. Cars were rare. 1 per 10 houses would be an
over estimate.

Now they are plentiful and not old ones. Many of the houses are obviously
owned- they have fences/ walls, porches, some have solar panels, …

We visited Newcastle, the shops have an unbelievable range of expensive
clothes etc - wider than Bluewater, regarded as a first class shopping
centre in the South East.

We decided to have lunch in one of the stores - it used to have a ‘fancy’ (
to us at the time) place to eat. It had been replaced but looked ok. It was
full. We were lucky to get a table.

We went out for a meal - mid week- with my brothers etc. We tried 3 or 4
places to find a table - the others were full. The one we found was very
busy, very good, but busy.

True, the town centre is tatty but the road network is first class. The
Metro system is excellent - new since we left.

So much for ‘levelling up’.

[Pamela]

On 12:24 6 Nov 2022, notya...@gmail.com said:
> On Saturday, 5 November 2022 at 18:42:39 UTC, Pamela wrote:
>> On 14:19 5 Nov 2022, Graham. said:
>> >
>> >
>> > All I can find is that he was found dead in a car on a fuel
>> > forecourt.
>> >
>> It's interesting that the media, more or less, seem to think that
>> he's right-winger and is anti-immigration, so he got what he
>> deserved.
>>
>> On the other hand, if it has been a migrant living in the Manson
>> Centre who killed himself after throwing several petrol bombs the
>> media emphasis would most likely be: poor chap traumatised by his
>> experience, driven by events to extreme measures, insufficient
>> supervision, inadequate living conditions, lack of social support,
>> neglected suicidal moods, authorities at fault, etc.
>>
>> I doubt Andrew Leak will get much sympathy for whatever drove him to
>> extreme actions but instead his character will probably be
>> questioned by the media, if not attacked.
>
> Leak lived nowhere near the coast and does not seem to have even been
> inconvenienced.

>
> One could understand genuine asylum seekers resorting to damage -
> e.g. pulling down the fence to escape if they thought they were going
> to be deported back to the dangerous country that had fled from (e.g.
> Iraq) or somewhere nearly as bad - e.g. Rwanda
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwanda#Human_rights
>

> They really ought to be triaged: -

>
> Migrants - people who choose to come here for economic reasons.
> There is a process for legal migration. If you haven't got a visa
> or it runs out you go home.
>
> Refugees - people force to emigrate by war, famine or similar.
> Who might be granted temporary refuge, but expected to return home
> once conditions improved.

On that particular point, Denmark is currently in the process of
revoking the residency permits of Syrian migrants on the grounds that
Syria is no longer as dangerous as when they came. It can't be
unconnected that Syrian males in Denmark are 15 times more likely to
commit violent crime [see Wikipedia]. I suspect neighbouring Sweden,
which has suffered a huge wave of criminality from recent asylum
seekers, can't be far behind.

[Stuart O. Bronstein]

"billy bookcase" <bi...@anon.com> wrote:
> "JNugent" <jennin...@mail.com> wrote

>>
>> Socialism holds the (uncontested) world record for efficiency in
>> killing innocent people across the globe.
>
> That distinction must surely belong to the United States; as being
> the only country to ever deploy atomic bombs on innocent civilians
>
> A decision which Harry Truman, and every subsequent US President,
> has never had cause to regret.

Unfortunately true, even though it was clearly a war crime.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

[billy bookcase]

"JNugent" <jennin...@mail.com> wrote in message

news:jssfg3...@mid.individual.net...

> On 07/11/2022 12:44 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
>
>> "JNugent" <jennin...@mail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Life in the UK is far better, and the economy far more provident, than I clearly
>>> remember from the 1970s, let alone the 1920s.
>
>> It's really nobody's business but your own, but as you've brought it up -
>
>> Aside from better health care perhaps in the form of better drugs how exactly
>> is your life so much better now than it was, or would have been, in the 1970's ?
>
> I had no need of health care in the 1970s

Hence the "would have been"

> ... but materially?

>
> I'm surprised you feel the need to ask, but I have at least twice the income today as
> compared with what it would have been then (had I been the age I am now). Maybe more
> than double in real terms. That's another way of saying that pensioners - especially
> from my background - then largely lived in what today would be seen as poverty.
> Occupational pensions and the general increase in retirement pension have seen to that.
> That's not to say that household income is as high as it was when we were working (it
> isn't), but the mortgage is paid off...

I'm not talking about income. Unless you're the type of person who likes to
sit counting their money either literally in banknotes or oggling at onscreen
balances.

I'm asking what you spend it on which gives you such a much better life.

>
>> Was life really that much more miserable, without DVD players or dare I say it
>> the internet ?
>
> How about cars,

How about traffic ? Obvously if you live in the sticks your only problem is
finding a spot in Tesco but anyone living in town has to sit in traffic jams
nowadays in places which in the the 70's were relatively traffic free.

The only reason people need to have so many gadgets and gizmos in
their cars nowadays, is because they spend so much time sitting in
traffic jams so they need to take their living rooms with them.

> the house we own outright (first generation of the family for whom that happened),
> significant savings,

But that's just you. * I assumed you were talking about living standards for
everyone.* The house price to earning ratio has gone through the roof
in the meantime.

> the ability to travel worldwide (out of income, not savings),

Ok.A first point to you. Cheaper air travel with the opportunity to travel
to foreign climes and catch diseases nobody had even heard of, in the 70's/

> eating out whenever we wish

We could eat out in Wimpy Bars in the 70's as often as we liked and actually
watch the delicious Wimpys being fried on the hotplate in front of our eyes.
Along with the onions. Unfortunately that standard of service and quality proved
uneconomical. So that Wimpys are now a thing of the past having fallen victim
to the onslaught of MacDonalds marketing budgets peddling a vastly inferor
offering - complete with lettuce if you please! Lettuce !

> which admittedly isn't often these days), the ability to take part in cultural activity
> (eg, watching the plays at the RSC),

You weren't even able to go to the RSC ? (founded 1961) We even went with the school.
Why, were you banned or something ?

> not having to worry about provision (whereas my grandparents had a hard time in feeding
> their offspring)?
> The idea that life today is like it was in the 1920s, or 1970s, is away with the
> fairies.

I'm taking about the 1970's which is within living memory.

In the 1970s I'd already had this conversation with someone who argued
fairly convincingly that most people living in the London suburbs anyway,
were really no better off than they'd been in the 1930's.


bb

[Stuart O. Bronstein]

JNugent <jennin...@mail.com> wrote:
> billy bookcase wrote:
>> "JNugent" <jennin...@mail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Socialism holds the (uncontested) world record for efficiency in
>>> killing innocent people across the globe.
>
>> That distinction must surely belong to the United States; as
>> being the only country to ever deploy atomic bombs on innocent
>> civilians
>
> Even so, that was nowhere even remotely near the number of people
> killed* as in the socialist countries. And those state were not
> even at war with their own populations.

The fact that they were socialist has nothing to do with it. They
were autocracies, and that's what lead to so many deaths of people
who opposed the dictator. Socialism is not a form of government but
a financial system that can be part of an autocracy or a democracy.

>> A decision which Harry Truman, and every subsequent US President,
>> has never had cause to regret.
>
> It isn't clear how you can know that, but I accept that it it
> equally cannot be disproven.

Obama was asked to apologize for it, but sadly refused.


--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

[Stuart O. Bronstein]

Pamela <uk...@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:

> On that particular point, Denmark is currently in the process of
> revoking the residency permits of Syrian migrants on the grounds
> that Syria is no longer as dangerous as when they came. It can't
> be unconnected that Syrian males in Denmark are 15 times more
> likely to commit violent crime [see Wikipedia]. I suspect
> neighbouring Sweden, which has suffered a huge wave of criminality
> from recent asylum seekers, can't be far behind.

I wasn't aware of that. In the US migrants are much less likely to
commit crimes, even though Americans think they commit more crimes
because, well, they are generally browner.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

[billy bookcase]

"JNugent" <jennin...@mail.com> wrote in message

news:jssfld...@mid.individual.net...

> On 07/11/2022 01:24 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
>
>> "JNugent" <jennin...@mail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Socialism holds the (uncontested) world record for efficiency in killing innocent
>>> people across the globe.
>
>> That distinction must surely belong to the United States; as being the only country
>> to ever deploy atomic bombs on innocent civilians
>
> Even so, that was nowhere even remotely near the number of people killed* as in the
> socialist countries. And those state were not even at war with their own populations.
>
>> A decision which Harry Truman, and every subsequent US President, has never had
>> cause to regret.
>
> It isn't clear how you can know that, but I accept that it it equally cannot be
> disproven.

One *big* clue might be whether they decided to built any more, or not.

What do you think ?

>
> [* Including death by under-nutrition - a favoured means of populus control for
> socialists.]
>

now lets see

Irish Potato Famine,,,, approx 1 million dead ....Prime Minister Lord John Russell

Indian Famine of 1896.....at least 5 million dead Prime Minister the 3rd Marquis of
Salisbury

Bengal Famine of 1943 1.5 to 3 million dead Prime Minister Winston Churchill

Clearly all socialists to a man !

There are simply too many Indian famines to list.


bb

[Brian]

Just imagine if the UK tried that, the ECHR would ‘be all over us’, the
‘human rights’ lawyers would be running to the ECHR, the UK courts, …..

Denmark does it, no one raises an eyebrow.

Rwanda wasn’t Patel’s idea. Other European countries not only set up the
facility but have sent illegal immigrants there. Films of them were shown
in the UK detention centres.

Not the first time there has been one set of rules for certain countries
and another, less favourable, for the UK.

[billy bookcase]

"Pamela" <uk...@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote in message
news:XnsAF4898A...@88.198.57.247...

> On 12:44 7 Nov 2022, billy bookcase said:
>>
>> "JNugent" <jennin...@mail.com> wrote in message
>> news:jssbdv...@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>> Life in the UK is far better, and the economy far more provident,
>>> than I clearly remember from the 1970s, let alone the 1920s.
>>
>> It's really nobody's business but your own, but as you've brought it
>> up -
>>
>> Aside from better health care perhaps in the form of better drugs how
>> exactly is your life so much better now than it was, or would have
>> been, in the 1970's ?
>>
>> Was life really that much more miserable, without DVD players or dare
>> I say it the internet ?
>>
>> bb
>
> Not only is life in the UK better in material terms than the 1920s or
> 1970s but also in terms of life expectancy, available leisure time,
> personal freedoms, quality of healthcare, housing, etc.

Two of those life expectancy and healthcare were exempted. Are
you saying that working hours and working conditions generally
are better now than they were in the 1970's ? Or that housing is
more affordable now than it was then ?


bb

[GB]

My parents were immigrants to this country, and they both worked very
hard. My father was 80 when he retired.

I have no idea what job opportunities there are for Syrian migrants in
Denmark?

[Colin Bignell]

Housing pricing is remarkably variable. In terms of cost as a percentage
of income, at around 6 times, the 1970s were relatively expensive,
compared to the 1960s, when the ratio was nearer 4 times. Today it is
about 8 times, but in 1950, it was about 7.5 times. The best time to buy
was just after WW1, when houses cost about twice the annual income. The
worst on record was the mid 19th century, when they were about 12 times
the annual income.



--
Colin Bignell

[billy bookcase]

"Colin Bignell" <c...@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote in message
news:MiGdncoBEvu6yPT-...@giganews.com...

Possibly you looked at the same graph as me

https://www.schroders.com/en-gb/uk/individual/insights/what-174-years-of-data-tell-us-about-house-price-affordability-in-the-uk/

So that while there was a big spike around 1972 by 1977 the ratio was down to 4 as
compared
with 8 today. Possibly in the 19th century the income distribution was skewed with a
higher proportion
of poorly paid people which then brought the average income down as well. In towns there
may have
been many poorly paid people, maybe living a family to one or two rooms in comparatively
expensive
yet run down houses.

Schroders figures are from the Banlk of England so how they derive the average incomes
might be of interest to anyone wishing to pursue the matter further.

bb


> --
> Colin Bignell
>

[JNugent]

Exactly.

But someone (having read it in the Daily Mirror, probably) did recently
try to convince me that living standards had regressed back to those of
the 1920s.

[JNugent]

Housing is certainly *better* than it typically was in the 1970s*.

I started that decade as a non-householder in a terraced house which was
in sound enough condition, but had no hot water system and no bathroom.
It certainly had no double-glazing or central heating. I progressed
through a couple of London bedsits and an unfurnished studio flat in
Liverpool 1 before returning to the (now improved) parental terraced
house whilst saving a deposit. I eventually bought a house for £7,000 in
late 1977. It had a bathroom and a parking space, but no central heating
or double-glazing. It was four years old when I bought it.

[Brian]

There is an interesting chart here:

https://www.trustforlondon.org.uk/data/housing-tenure-over-time/

London is generally acknowledged to be the most expensive area for buying
and renting.

Since the 70s, ownership has increased with renting decreasing. The rates
remaining constant ( pretty well) for the last decade.

[Mark Goodge]

On 7 Nov 2022 17:29:20 GMT, "Stuart O. Bronstein" <spam...@lexregia.com>
wrote:

Migrants in the US are primarily Hispanic, and, language apart, come from a
background of a broadly similar nature to the US. Their religious background
is similar to white Americans, and they mostly come from countries that are
broadly democratic in form even though poorer and often more corrupt. So
they fit into American culture without too much difficulty; they are used to
a similar legal framework and their ethical framework is much the same.

Europe's problem is that a large proportion of migrants come from a
background that is very different to their host nation. In particular, many
of them come from totalitarian or otherwise oppressive regimes (many of
which they are genuinely fleeing from, of course) and from cultures and
religions which do not have anything like the level of tolerance and respect
for women and minorities that is common across Western Europe. So they often
struggle to fit in, and have difficulty adjusting to the different legal and
ethical framework of their host. That tends to manifest itself in increased
crime levels compared to the non-migrant population, particularly in aspects
which, in their culture of origin, would be considered acceptable but in
Western Europe are treated as an offence.

Mark

[Fredxx]

I'm not sure how you work that out. In general famines under socialism
have been unintentional. Whereas under less benevolent right wing
control there's an inherent lack of concern.

If you feel there has been regular intentional control of population
through a socialist government rather than through incompetence, do let
us know.

[billy bookcase]

"JNugent" <jennin...@mail.com> wrote in message

news:jst1qt...@mid.individual.net...

Freedom of choice:

Today people have hundreds of TV channels to choose from, whereas in the
"bad old 1970's" there were only three. BBC1 BBC2 and ITV

Yes only three channels who not only attracted the best British talent but also
competed to buy in the best of American TV

And so unlike today's when people are free to spend all their time
flicking through hundreds of channels showing rubbish and subscribing
to numerous streaming platforms in the vain hope of eventually finding
something worthwhile to watch.

Consumer goods. White goods universally rubbish as compared with
the past with enamel so thin it will start to rust if you breathe too heavily
in its vicinity. Solid state electronics TV's phones all with firmware with built
in obsolescence which will render them useless within a few years.

Libraries closing, parks cutting back because people are all so well off
nowadays, they're all queuing up to pay more Council Tax. Not.

The NHS on its knees because people are so well off nowadays they're
all queuing up to pay more income tax. Not

Not forgetting Britain is the 4th richest country in the World.

Yet another one of the Brexiteers wet dreams.


bb

[Colin Bignell]

My point is that house prices are subject to a lot of variables, so can
be misleading as a guide to standard of living. They give a few reasons
in that article, but there are others.

There was a big dip after WW1, when we lost over 800,000 killed and
Spanish flu killed another 228,000. Fewer people would mean less demand
for housing while the 1919 Housing Act provided subsidies to local
authorities to build council houses.

Cheap money produced a house building boom in the 1930s. However, after
WW2, houses were in short supply, as a result of bombing, and housing
materials were in short supply. That shortage continued until the 1960s
and lead to changes in the way houses were built, using less materials
and making them cheaper to build.

The price rises of the 1970s were due to increased demand, as the Bank
of England eased credit restrictions. Oil price rises as a result of the
Yom Kippur War brought that boom in demand to an end.

The prices rises of the 1980s followed on from the Right to Buy scheme,
which lead to a boom in house buying.

In the 1990s, interest rates went to 15% and unemployment was over 3
million, ending that boom. Credit became cheap again in the new century,
while house building fell sharply, leading to the next big peak, ended
by the banking crisis.

The pandemic is the latest external factor in house prices and the
current rising trend is expected to reverse next year, as the effects of
that fade.

--
Colin Bignell

[Roland Perry]

In message <XnsAF4898A...@88.198.57.247>, at 15:00:29 on Mon, 7
Nov 2022, Pamela <uk...@permabulator.33mail.com> remarked:

>On 12:44 7 Nov 2022, billy bookcase said:
>>
>> "JNugent" <jennin...@mail.com> wrote in message
>> news:jssbdv...@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>> Life in the UK is far better, and the economy far more provident,
>>> than I clearly remember from the 1970s, let alone the 1920s.
>>
>> It's really nobody's business but your own, but as you've brought it
>> up -
>>
>> Aside from better health care perhaps in the form of better drugs how
>> exactly is your life so much better now than it was, or would have
>> been, in the 1970's ?
>>
>> Was life really that much more miserable, without DVD players or dare
>> I say it the internet ?
>

>Not only is life in the UK better in material terms than the 1920s or
>1970s but also in terms of life expectancy, available leisure time,
>personal freedoms, quality of healthcare, housing, etc.
>
>I'm sure there will be some measures by which life is less attractive but
>they are overshadowed by the improvements.

Quality of housing is one thing that's often overlooked. In 1970 I was
living with my parents in an early 60's new build, single glazed
windows, coal (or coke) fired boiler, needed a couple of hours notice to
heat enough water to have a bath and had just two radiators (on each in
downstairs and upstairs hall).

We had a fridge, which was a great luxury at the time. Kitchen was just
one worktop, a cupboard under the sink plus one more hanging on the
wall. Coal fire in the living room (again we had better than the
neighbours with something more like a modern wood-burner than an open
grate). Initially no phone, you had to walk several hundred yards to a
phone box, later we had a [party] line installed.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <tkb87k$3k3qg$1...@dont-email.me>, at 15:28:52 on Mon, 7 Nov
2022, Brian <no...@lid.org> remarked:

>We visited Newcastle, the shops have an unbelievable range of expensive
>clothes etc - wider than Bluewater, regarded as a first class shopping
>centre in the South East.

I recall a bigger supermarket opening in the High St in the 70's and the
great novelty was they had more varieties of cheese than just Cheddar
and Edam (which was the norm for others places). I remember the late
50's when Chicken was a luxury for Xmas, and you had to pre-order weeks
in advance.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <XnsAF485FA71B6F6s...@130.133.4.11>, at
17:24:12 on Mon, 7 Nov 2022, Stuart O. Bronstein <spam...@lexregia.com>
remarked:

>>>> Socialism holds the (uncontested) world record for efficiency in
>>>> killing innocent people across the globe.
>>
>>> That distinction must surely belong to the United States; as
>>> being the only country to ever deploy atomic bombs on innocent
>>> civilians
>>
>> Even so, that was nowhere even remotely near the number of people
>> killed* as in the socialist countries. And those state were not
>> even at war with their own populations.
>
>The fact that they were socialist has nothing to do with it. They
>were autocracies, and that's what lead to so many deaths of people
>who opposed the dictator. Socialism is not a form of government but
>a financial system that can be part of an autocracy or a democracy.
>
>>> A decision which Harry Truman, and every subsequent US President,
>>> has never had cause to regret.
>>
>> It isn't clear how you can know that, but I accept that it it
>> equally cannot be disproven.
>
>Obama was asked to apologize for it, but sadly refused.

Isn't it generally accepted that dropping the bombs was an alternative
to continuing [the suffering of] a conventional war for several more
years?
--
Roland Perry

[JNugent]

On 07/11/2022 05:43 pm, billy bookcase wrote:

> "JNugent" <jennin...@mail.com> wrote in message

>> billy bookcase wrote:
>>> "JNugent" <jennin...@mail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Socialism holds the (uncontested) world record for efficiency in killing innocent
>>>> people across the globe.
>
>>> That distinction must surely belong to the United States; as being the only country
>>> to ever deploy atomic bombs on innocent civilians
>
>> Even so, that was nowhere even remotely near the number of people killed* as in the
>> socialist countries. And those state were not even at war with their own populations.
>
>>> A decision which Harry Truman, and every subsequent US President, has never had
>>> cause to regret.
>
>> It isn't clear how you can know that, but I accept that it it equally cannot be
>> disproven.
>
> One *big* clue might be whether they decided to built any more, or not.

You'd have to ask him.

> What do you think ?
>
>> [* Including death by under-nutrition - a favoured means of populus control for
>> socialists.]

> now lets see
>
> Irish Potato Famine,,,, approx 1 million dead ....Prime Minister Lord John Russell

Terrible. My ancestors were there. Some of them came to England as a
direct result. Don't ask me to defend the British government over it.

> Indian Famine of 1896.....at least 5 million dead Prime Minister the 3rd Marquis of
> Salisbury
> Bengal Famine of 1943 1.5 to 3 million dead Prime Minister Winston Churchill

I don't know much about those. I don't believe it would have been as
easy to relieve as the situation in 1840s Ireland.

> Clearly all socialists to a man !

You had not heard anything yet! You had to wait until the 1940s and later.

> There are simply too many Indian famines to list.

I expect you're right. And taking India to be the whole of the India
which was a British possession, they haven't yet ceased.

[JNugent]

On 07/11/2022 05:24 pm, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:
> JNugent <jennin...@mail.com> wrote:
>> billy bookcase wrote:
>>> "JNugent" <jennin...@mail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Socialism holds the (uncontested) world record for efficiency in
>>>> killing innocent people across the globe.
>>
>>> That distinction must surely belong to the United States; as
>>> being the only country to ever deploy atomic bombs on innocent
>>> civilians
>>
>> Even so, that was nowhere even remotely near the number of people
>> killed* as in the socialist countries. And those state were not
>> even at war with their own populations.
>
> The fact that they were socialist has nothing to do with it.

Maybe. Maybe not.

It still happened.

> They
> were autocracies, and that's what lead to so many deaths of people
> who opposed the dictator. Socialism is not a form of government but
> a financial system that can be part of an autocracy or a democracy.

Ah... "the wrong sort of socialism"...

>
>>> A decision which Harry Truman, and every subsequent US President,
>>> has never had cause to regret.
>>
>> It isn't clear how you can know that, but I accept that it it
>> equally cannot be disproven.
>
> Obama was asked to apologize for it, but sadly refused.

He was right to refuse. There would be much for the Empire of Japan to
apologise for.

[JNugent]

On 07/11/2022 05:21 pm, billy bookcase wrote:

> "JNugent" <jennin...@mail.com> wrote:
>> On 07/11/2022 12:44 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
>>> "JNugent" <jennin...@mail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Life in the UK is far better, and the economy far more provident, than I clearly
>>>> remember from the 1970s, let alone the 1920s.
>
>>> It's really nobody's business but your own, but as you've brought it up -
>
>>> Aside from better health care perhaps in the form of better drugs how exactly
>>> is your life so much better now than it was, or would have been, in the 1970's ?
>
>> I had no need of health care in the 1970s
>
> Hence the "would have been"
>
>> ... but materially?
>> I'm surprised you feel the need to ask, but I have at least twice the income today as
>> compared with what it would have been then (had I been the age I am now). Maybe more
>> than double in real terms. That's another way of saying that pensioners - especially
>> from my background - then largely lived in what today would be seen as poverty.
>> Occupational pensions and the general increase in retirement pension have seen to that.
>> That's not to say that household income is as high as it was when we were working (it
>> isn't), but the mortgage is paid off...
>
> I'm not talking about income. Unless you're the type of person who likes to
> sit counting their money either literally in banknotes or oggling at onscreen
> balances.

You surprise me yet again. I'd have said that it is a commonplace that
standard of living is a function of income.

> I'm asking what you spend it on which gives you such a much better life.
>

Security, lack of stress...

>
>>> Was life really that much more miserable, without DVD players or dare I say it
>>> the internet ?
>
>> How about cars,
>
> How about traffic ? Obvously if you live in the sticks your only problem is
> finding a spot in Tesco but anyone living in town has to sit in traffic jams
> nowadays in places which in the the 70's were relatively traffic free.

I don't recognise that. When I'm in Liverpool, I don't find the traffic
burdensome (but then, I did learn to drive, and passed my driving test,
in London).

Yours is a bit of a cosmic question. As you might already know, I live
in a village. But even if I lived in a terraced street in a town or city
(as of course, once I did), I'd be seeking to have the convenience of a
car (I passed my test fifty years ago, in 1972).

I wonder how many people would give up the ultra-convenience of a car
because of traffic congestion? The evidence of my eyes is that the
answer is "very few".

>
> The only reason people need to have so many gadgets and gizmos in
> their cars nowadays, is because they spend so much time sitting in
> traffic jams so they need to take their living rooms with them.
>

I don't know that people *need* these things. They have been added as
they became technically feasible.

>> the house we own outright (first generation of the family for whom that happened),
>> significant savings,
>
> But that's just you.

I don't *think* so!

I reckon there are millions more home-owners now than there were in
1972, let alone 1922!

* I assumed you were talking about living standards for
> everyone.* The house price to earning ratio has gone through the roof
> in the meantime.

I think you are confusing two things. No matter what the price of a
house, every one of them that is built is sold. To a nicety, every house
that exists is inhabited, unless some peculiar situation applies
(probate, semi-dereliction, being held back for a purpose which has not
happened).

>> the ability to travel worldwide (out of income, not savings),

> Ok.A first point to you. Cheaper air travel with the opportunity to travel
> to foreign climes and catch diseases nobody had even heard of, in the 70's/

>> eating out whenever we wish
>
> We could eat out in Wimpy Bars in the 70's as often as we liked and actually
> watch the delicious Wimpys being fried on the hotplate in front of our eyes.
> Along with the onions. Unfortunately that standard of service and quality proved
> uneconomical. So that Wimpys are now a thing of the past having fallen victim
> to the onslaught of MacDonalds marketing budgets peddling a vastly inferor
> offering - complete with lettuce if you please! Lettuce !

:-)

We don't often eat in McDonald's, but I'm not snobbish about a good
hamburger or fried chicken. Everything has its place (fried chicken's
place is probably in Georgia, USA).

>> which admittedly isn't often these days), the ability to take part in cultural activity
>> (eg, watching the plays at the RSC),
>
> You weren't even able to go to the RSC ? (founded 1961) We even went with the school.
> Why, were you banned or something ?

I was 100 miles away. My family certainly could not have afforded a trip
to Stratford. It wouldn't even have seriously occurred to us, any more
than making a phone call to the USA at £1 a minute (technology has
brought that down to 2p a minute from a mobile(!) phone).

>> not having to worry about provision (whereas my grandparents had a hard time in feeding
>> their offspring)?
>> The idea that life today is like it was in the 1920s, or 1970s, is away with the
>> fairies.
>
> I'm taking about the 1970's which is within living memory.

I am talking about both (re-read that last sentence).

> In the 1970s I'd already had this conversation with someone who argued
> fairly convincingly that most people living in the London suburbs anyway,
> were really no better off than they'd been in the 1930's.
>

Yes, it's the sort of thing that some people say. As I said, a friend
was trying to convince me that 2022 living standards are the same as
those in 1922.

[JNugent]

I've only ever been to Tyneside a couple of times (on business, more
than twenty years ago) and stayed at the Royal Station Hotel. I also saw
the Metro Centre (I know it's the other side of the river).

I was back there just before the pandemic, for leisure purposes, and saw
that the place has been substantially redeveloped and now exudes a
distinct air of affluence. None of what you say surprises me. But that's
probably true of most places in the UK these days.

[Les. Hayward]

Whilst I agree with most of your claims, I would be interested to see
how any of them can be linked to Brexit, since they were all true before
the event.

[Brian]

One of my memories from around 1967 is my parents going out for an evening
meal,
which was all but unknown - working class people just didn’t do that.

My mother had Gammon, she talked about it for weeks.

About 8 years later, the evening I got engaged, my now wife and I went to a
local restaurant ( it seemed posh at the time but was in the Bernie Inn
class). I had gammon. My mother asked what we’d had when I got home. She
spent another few weeks remembering her 1967 meal. It must have been a good
restaurant, I’ve tried to find it but it closed down.

One puzzle we have is broccoli. I love it raw. I never had it as a child. I
worked as teenager in a fruit and veg shop. The shop didn’t sell it. This
was THE fruit and veg shop in the area. I don’t regard broccoli as exotic
but it simply wasn’t available in the North East in the 1970s. Cauli yes,
broccoli, no.

[Pamela]

The standard of housing the average Briton lives in is now is better
than it used to be in the 1970s and 1920s.

Significant increases in life expectancy from improved diet and better
lifestyle is not a result of improved drugs.

[Pamela]

I don't know how reliable the Daily Mirror is in these matters but it has
a higher circulation if it can interest readers and I wonder if assertions
about worse modern times were written with that in mind.

[Pamela]

On 06:34 8 Nov 2022, Colin Bignell said:
>
> [TRIMMED]

>
> My point is that house prices are subject to a lot of variables, so
> can be misleading as a guide to standard of living. They give a few
> reasons in that article, but there are others.
>
> There was a big dip after WW1, when we lost over 800,000 killed and
> Spanish flu killed another 228,000. Fewer people would mean less
> demand for housing while the 1919 Housing Act provided subsidies to
> local authorities to build council houses.
>
> Cheap money produced a house building boom in the 1930s. However,
> after WW2, houses were in short supply, as a result of bombing, and
> housing materials were in short supply. That shortage continued until
> the 1960s and lead to changes in the way houses were built, using
> less materials and making them cheaper to build.
>
> The price rises of the 1970s were due to increased demand, as the
> Bank of England eased credit restrictions. Oil price rises as a
> result of the Yom Kippur War brought that boom in demand to an end.
>
> The prices rises of the 1980s followed on from the Right to Buy
> scheme, which lead to a boom in house buying.
>
> In the 1990s, interest rates went to 15% and unemployment was over 3
> million, ending that boom. Credit became cheap again in the new
> century, while house building fell sharply, leading to the next big
> peak, ended by the banking crisis.
>
> The pandemic is the latest external factor in house prices and the
> current rising trend is expected to reverse next year, as the effects
> of that fade.

Tenants in social housing live in better housing conditions nowadays than
in the 1970s or 1920s, largely on account of changes in mimumum
standards and improvements to the housing stock (sometimes funded by
geenrous grants). Looking only at home ownership, which is a rather
British preoccupation, can mask this.

[Pamela]

On 18:06 7 Nov 2022, Mark Goodge said:
> On 7 Nov 2022 17:29:20 GMT, "Stuart O. Bronstein"
> <spam...@lexregia.com> wrote:
>>Pamela <uk...@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
>>>

>>> [TRIMMED]

That's well observed.

The social theorist Thomas Sowell has an intriguing theory that many of
the problems arising in black Americans ghetto culture actually
originate from white American rednecks, who in turn derive their less
desirable behaviours from early British immigrants to America.

His book "Black Rednecks and White Liberals" explains this idea and the
theory is outlined in YouTube videos like this.

I can't say I'm entirely persuaded.

"The origin of the redneck culture from Britain"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pls-Z0KOOgw

[Andy Leighton]

On Mon, 7 Nov 2022 14:12:33 +0000, Colin Bignell <c...@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:

> On 07/11/2022 12:44, billy bookcase wrote:
>> "JNugent" <jennin...@mail.com> wrote in message
>> news:jssbdv...@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>> Life in the UK is far better, and the economy far more provident, than I clearly
>>> remember from the 1970s, let alone the 1920s.
>>
>> It's really nobody's business but your own, but as you've brought it up -
>>
>> Aside from better health care perhaps in the form of better drugs how exactly
>> is your life so much better now than it was, or would have been, in the 1970's ?
>

> Disposable income is a common measure. A report in 2007 showed that,
> corrected to 2007 values, the average UK household disposable income
> rose from around £12,000 pa in 1977 to just over £25,000 pa in 2007.

That is an overall average and maybe doesn't accurately reflect the
working class in JNugent's orginal statement.

Also 2007 is 15 years ago. There has been water under the bridge since
then which may well mean the disposable income figures have changed
markedly.

--
Andy Leighton => an...@azaal.plus.com
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
- Douglas Adams

[Roland Perry]

In message <jstr3q...@mid.individual.net>, at 01:52:57 on Tue, 8 Nov
2022, JNugent <jennin...@mail.com> remarked:

>My family certainly could not have afforded a trip to Stratford.

Apart from anything else, on the roads at that time it would have taken
hours.

>It wouldn't even have seriously occurred to us, any more than making a
>phone call to the USA at £1 a minute

Inflation adjusted £3/minute in today's money. I'm just young enough
that you could make such calls ad-hoc, previously they'd have to be
booked in advance.

>(technology has brought that down to 2p a minute from a mobile(!)
>phone).

Or free using Whats-App (other VoIP platforms are available).
--
Roland Perry

[JNugent]

On 07/11/2022 10:28 pm, billy bookcase wrote:

> "JNugent" <jennin...@mail.com> wrote

>> On 07/11/2022 03:00 pm, Pamela wrote:
>>> On 12:44 7 Nov 2022, billy bookcase said:
>>>> "JNugent" <jennin...@mail.com> wrote
>

>>>>> Life in the UK is far better, and the economy far more provident,
>>>>> than I clearly remember from the 1970s, let alone the 1920s.
>
>>>> It's really nobody's business but your own, but as you've brought it
>>>> up -
>>>> Aside from better health care perhaps in the form of better drugs how
>>>> exactly is your life so much better now than it was, or would have
>>>> been, in the 1970's ?
>
>>>> Was life really that much more miserable, without DVD players or dare
>>>> I say it the internet ?
>

>>> Not only is life in the UK better in material terms than the 1920s or
>>> 1970s but also in terms of life expectancy, available leisure time,
>>> personal freedoms, quality of healthcare, housing, etc.

>>> I'm sure there will be some measures by which life is less attractive but
>>> they are overshadowed by the improvements.
>
>> Exactly.
>> But someone (having read it in the Daily Mirror, probably) did recently try to convince
>> me that living standards had regressed back to those of the 1920s.
>
> Freedom of choice:
>
> Today people have hundreds of TV channels to choose from, whereas in the
> "bad old 1970's" there were only three. BBC1 BBC2 and ITV

> Yes only three channels who not only attracted the best British talent but also

> competed to buy in the best of American TV...

...and made sure that the consumer had no choice over any of it.

> And so unlike today's when people are free to spend all their time
> flicking through hundreds of channels showing rubbish and subscribing
> to numerous streaming platforms in the vain hope of eventually finding
> something worthwhile to watch.

Well, that's your view. I'd say that the situation today is vastly
better than it was in 1972. All that now needs to be done is to undo the
BBC's right to insist on payment from people who would rather watch
other broadcaster's offerings, whether FTA or via subscription. The
licence really unjustifiable and Prime Video and Netflix have proven
that several times over.

> Consumer goods. White goods universally rubbish as compared with
> the past with enamel so thin it will start to rust if you breathe too heavily
> in its vicinity.

Fridges, is it?

I never had one until I was 26 (and bought my first house, buying a £52
Zanussi at the same time). The only time we'd had access to a fridge
before that was when my parents kept a pub and there was one provided
for the bar-sandwich ingredients.

But no matter how robust a 1900 fridge was, hardly anyone could afford
one, and those who could certainly didn't include the likes of my
forebears. So forgive me for not regarding the Victorian and Edwardian
eras as golden ages. For my family, they weren't.

No... give me a £400 Bosch fridge/freezer any day. It'll outlast me.

> Solid state electronics TV's phones all with firmware with built
> in obsolescence which will render them useless within a few years.

They're cheap enough to give away on Freecycle when you want an upgrade.

> Libraries closing, parks cutting back because people are all so well off
> nowadays, they're all queuing up to pay more Council Tax. Not.

I remember Kensington Library in Liverpool. One of my favourite places,
open until 21:00 on weekday evenings (and it still exists). Whether
satisfying the evening quiet reference (not even lending) reading of
myself, another man and his dog was a worthwhile expenditure of the
taxpayers' money is a matter of opinion, I suppose. I can see it both ways.

>
> The NHS on its knees because people are so well off nowadays they're
> all queuing up to pay more income tax. Not

Never had more spent on it.

>
> Not forgetting Britain is the 4th richest country in the World.
>
> Yet another one of the Brexiteers wet dreams.

You can do better than that. I've seen you do it.

[notya...@gmail.com]

On Monday, 7 November 2022 at 17:14:44 UTC, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:

> "billy bookcase" <bi...@anon.com> wrote:
> > "JNugent" <jennin...@mail.com> wrote
> >>
> >> Socialism holds the (uncontested) world record for efficiency in
> >> killing innocent people across the globe.
> >
> > That distinction must surely belong to the United States; as being
> > the only country to ever deploy atomic bombs on innocent civilians
> >

> > A decision which Harry Truman, and every subsequent US President,
> > has never had cause to regret.

> Unfortunately true, even though it was clearly a war crime.
>
> --
> Stu
> http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

So would sacrificing a million US soldiers, millions of Japanese soldiers and probably even more civilians in an invasion of Japan been a more moral choice. It only took Japan nine days after Hiroshima to unconditionally surrender.

[Colin Bignell]

On 08/11/2022 10:37, Andy Leighton wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Nov 2022 14:12:33 +0000, Colin Bignell <c...@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
>> On 07/11/2022 12:44, billy bookcase wrote:
>>> "JNugent" <jennin...@mail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:jssbdv...@mid.individual.net...
>>>>
>>>> Life in the UK is far better, and the economy far more provident, than I clearly
>>>> remember from the 1970s, let alone the 1920s.
>>>
>>> It's really nobody's business but your own, but as you've brought it up -
>>>
>>> Aside from better health care perhaps in the form of better drugs how exactly
>>> is your life so much better now than it was, or would have been, in the 1970's ?
>>
>> Disposable income is a common measure. A report in 2007 showed that,
>> corrected to 2007 values, the average UK household disposable income
>> rose from around £12,000 pa in 1977 to just over £25,000 pa in 2007.
>
> That is an overall average and maybe doesn't accurately reflect the
> working class in JNugent's orginal statement.

Everybody gained a significant amount of disposable income over the
period, but, in general, the higher the income, the greater the increase.

> Also 2007 is 15 years ago. There has been water under the bridge since
> then which may well mean the disposable income figures have changed
> markedly.

With the financial crisis and the pandemic, it dropped, but the average
is now about 6% higher than in 2007, except for pensioners, who have
seen a 25% rise in disposable income over that period.



--
Colin Bignell