Did the French just ban crash helmets?
in [UK Motorcycles]
|
From: Ace on 22 May 2010 01:58 On Fri, 21 May 2010 20:27:44 GMT, "J�r�my" <a(a)b.com> wrote: >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 Income is not the same as not wealth. And anyway, it cuts off before it gets anywhere near the top. For that you'd need to use a logarithmic scale. >(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.) But what is "power"? Buying power, based on wealth (not income) can surely shape society, but if you'er talking about the power of one man to command another, then it's still mainly focussed at the top end, much more like the pyramid originally described.
From: J�r�my on 22 May 2010 05:05 Ace <b.rogers(a)ifrance.com> wrote in news:a9sev5d8t7t0s3k3pk3aktk1q6p52vakfa(a)4ax.com: >>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8068926.stm > > Income is not the same as not wealth. And anyway, it cuts off before > it gets anywhere near the top. For that you'd need to use a > logarithmic scale. All true. It was just intended as an indication of the shape of the curve, and whether it is more like a pyramid or a rugby ball. I think it's sufficient for that. -- Jeremy R1200RT
From: Grimly Curmudgeon on 22 May 2010 09:02 We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember Colin Irvine <look(a)bottom.of.home.page> saying something like: >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. If only he'd known he'd be dying for BP, eh?
From: stephen.packer on 22 May 2010 10:47 steve auvache <dont_spam(a)thecow.me.uk> wrote: > In article <1jiuvz5.1kr7m4f1brpan2N%stephen.packer(a)gonemail.com>, > stephen.packer(a)gonemail.com writes > >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. Which sounds pretty similar to the model I proposed.
From: Tosspot on 22 May 2010 13:58
The Older Gentleman wrote: > Tosspot <Frank.Leake(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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? >> >> The more you look the more you see it everywhere. > > It's the shape that he's got wrong. What he's described is, in fact, a > pretty good shape for a Societ Russian type of structure. > > 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. <shrug> I can't disagree, but it did remind that not so long ago we were a *proper* monarchy, with all tugging of forelocks and bowing and scraping. Now we have a prime minister, who sort of gets elected, depending on who votes. Christ the whole thing is fucked. |