Did the French just ban crash helmets?
in [UK Motorcycles]
|
From: Colin Irvine on 21 May 2010 15:34 On Fri, 21 May 2010 19:37:48 +0100, DR squeezed out the following: >Tosspot posted: >>The Older Gentleman wrote: >>> des hanging around for a while <des(a)des.com> wrote: >>> >>>> UK society is a pyramid with the Queen at the top and the plebs >>>> at the bottom >>> >>> Bwaaaahahahahahahaha! >>> >>> No, it's not. >> >>Why is it called Her Majesty's Government then? And come to think of it, why is >>the Queen Commander In Chief of Her Majesty's Armed Forces. Or <spit> Her >>Majesties Customs and Excise? > >Basically, because that's how it is; it's tradition. Reminds me of whoever it was at the time of the Falklands who said he didn't mind dying for Queen and Country but he was buggered if he was going to die for Mrs Thatcher. -- Colin Irvine ZZR1400 BOF#33 BONY#34 COFF#06 BHaLC#5 http://www.colinandpat.co.uk
From: Colin Irvine on 21 May 2010 15:39 On Fri, 21 May 2010 18:37:35 +0100, The Older Gentleman squeezed out the following: >Hog <sm911SPAM(a)CHIPShotmail.co.uk> wrote: > >> Champ <news(a)champ.org.uk> wrote: > >> > >> > <nods> >> > >> > I've definitely got a thing for asian women. >> >> AOL kemo sabi > >I noticed. As did The Doctor. Indira Varma for me. -- Colin Irvine ZZR1400 BOF#33 BONY#34 COFF#06 BHaLC#5 http://www.colinandpat.co.uk
From: J�r�my on 21 May 2010 16:27 des hanging around for a while <des(a)des.com> wrote in news:4bf6cf2a$1(a)news.x-privat.org: > On 21-05-2010, stephen.packer(a)gonemail.com > <stephen.packer(a)gonemail.com> wrote: >> The Older Gentleman <totallydeadmailbox(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> The UK, and pretty much most <waves hands vaguely> developed wealthy >>> democraciies have a sort of rugby ball shape. >>> >>> A few people right at the top, gradually swelling out into the mass >>> of middle class middle-income people, and then narrowing to the >>> small minority of utter scumbags at the bottom. >> >> I think there are probably more disadvantaged/dispossesed people (I >> presume this is what you mean by 'scum bags') than privilliged >> people at the top so it's kind of compressed on the bottom. > > I suspect that TOG is buying into some neo-Thatcherist claim that > 'we're all middle class, now' or something. It's the only thinking I > could imagine to justify his claim that the underclass is smaller than > the 'middle class'. It's easy enough to find out. Here's the cross section of your pyramid, or rugby ball, or whatever. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8068926.stm (caveat: although it wasn't stated, I think this discussion was as much about power as income. However I also think the distinction is only relevant at the top end, where it won't make much difference to the graph.) -- Jeremy R1200RT
From: steve auvache on 21 May 2010 23:49 In article <1jiuvz5.1kr7m4f1brpan2N%stephen.packer(a)gonemail.com>, stephen.packer(a)gonemail.com writes >The Older Gentleman <totallydeadmailbox(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >> The UK, and pretty much most <waves hands vaguely> developed wealthy >> democraciies have a sort of rugby ball shape. >> >> A few people right at the top, gradually swelling out into the mass of >> middle class middle-income people, and then narrowing to the small >> minority of utter scumbags at the bottom. > >I think there are probably more disadvantaged/dispossesed people (I >presume this is what you mean by 'scum bags') than privilliged people >at the top so it's kind of compressed on the bottom. > >I think that a pyramid which was reflected and then had the bottom >2/3rds of the reflection chopped off would be a more accurate model. Or >something like that. You are all wrong, it is tear drop shaped. -- steve auvache VN750 Third gear has scope. SR250 The SpazzTrakka (Improved).
From: steve auvache on 21 May 2010 23:54
In article <4bf6df3a$1(a)news.x-privat.org>, des hanging around for a while <des(a)des.com> writes >On 21-05-2010, DR <motorbandit(a)hotmail.co.uk.invalid> wrote: >> Tosspot posted: >>>The Older Gentleman wrote: >>>> des hanging around for a while <des(a)des.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> UK society is a pyramid with the Queen at the top and the plebs >>>>> at the bottom >>>> >>>> Bwaaaahahahahahahaha! >>>> >>>> No, it's not. >>> >>>Why is it called Her Majesty's Government then? And come to think of it, why >is >>>the Queen Commander In Chief of Her Majesty's Armed Forces. Or <spit> Her >>>Majesties Customs and Excise? >> >> Basically, because that's how it is; it's tradition. The Queen has no >> executive power, no way to make anyone do anything - she may advise >> the PM, but that's about it, and the PM is not bound to act on that >> advice. The Queen cannot refuse to sign Royal Assent on an Act of >> Parliament, either. > >You're confusing theory and practice. She can perfectly well refuse to >sign any law, Indeed she can though owning a country where we sort of do stuff by precedent she would be well aware of the consequences of doing so. >and I'd love to see any Parliament try to bring in a law >abolishing the monarchy. I wouldn't. I am not even sure it is their job. >The whiff of tear gas would fill London's >streets. Wouldn't be the first time. -- steve auvache VN750 Third gear has scope. SR250 The SpazzTrakka (Improved). |