Mr Ceour de Lion II

[quote user="Rabbie"][quote user="Mr Ceour de Lion II"]If everyone was paid the same in a company, there would be little incentive to better oneself. Why bother trying to get higher up the ladder if all it brings is more stress for no monetary compensation (ie a higher wage)? Yeah, I'd probably want to be more than a toilet cleaner, but stuff going too high up the ladder. [/quote]For the sort of people who make good CEOs the money is not the main attraction - it's the power and the challenge and the adrenalin rush. They find the job challenging but fun. The ones motivated chiefly by their own paycheck are the sort that created the banking crisis. Who in the UK is only paying 20% when you take NI into account. Remember there is a top limit on the amount of NI an individual pays.   [/quote] Money may not be a chief attraction, but it is a massive motivation. Similarly for middle management positions, (which arguably are even more stressful given you get crap from above and below you), where is the incentive? I have no idea about the UK's tax system, I've not lived there in 15 years. I plucked 20% out of the air. And ultimately, I'd rather a load of rich people who didn't contribute much to society than a load of poor ones who also contributing nothing, because the rich ones will at least be buying stuff and putting into the system that way.

If everyone was paid the same in a company, there would be little incentive to better oneself. Why bother trying to get higher up the ladder if all it brings is more stress for no monetary compensation (ie a higher wage)? Yeah, I'd probably want to be more than a toilet cleaner, but stuff going too high up the ladder. There would be no benefit to me at all. Some CEOs do get paid extreme amounts of money, (these are very much a minority, just like football players and top atheletes), but when you consider the responsibility they must bear, it's understandable. What isn't understandable, is when they get paid huge sums to buy them off when they have made major stuff ups, but that's another story I guess. Surely 50% is a quite acceptable rate for the richest people to pay in a society? That's a hell of a lot of money being outlaid, and yet that rich person will benefit no more than anyone paying a standard 20% or whatever. Look at how much Gerard had already contributed through his earnings. Isn't that enough? And now they want more from him. Sorry, I think it's wrong. Government should take a hard look at all the things it wastes money on before crying. Give the rich incentives to create jobs should be the way to go imo. If I lived in France and the government slapped that on me despite me already having paid hundreds of thousands in the tax, I'd be sticking two fingers up at them as well.

[quote user="Rabbie"][quote user="Mr Ceour de Lion II"] They earned that money, it's ridiculous for the government to take most of it. In total agreement with Gerard here. [/quote]Not necessarily. There are four ways of having a fortune - Earn the money, Marry the money, Inherit the  money and Steal the money. If you don't tax the rich then you have to tax the poor who suffer more from paying a smaller percentage than the rich do paying a higher percentage. It all depends on what people do with their after tax money as to how it affects them. For example I and most forum members don't have the resources to buy more than 1 or 2 chateaux if that. The rich can buy several and even afford to rebuild them if their labour force "accidently " knock them down. Unfortunately the rewards people get for their labour bears no relation to their usefulness to society. Look how much a dedicated nurse earns relative to a professional footballer or pop star. I personally feel that if people have enough money to provide a good home and food for their family then they shouldn't complain about contributing towards the society where they live [/quote] So even 50% of their money isn't enough? Come on, they also pay out more in VAT, property taxes etc. Then they no doubt employ people. You invest in the rich, not the poor. Piss the rich off, and you'll end up with only the income of the poor. And there's bugger all money there. The rich should be encouraged to put their money to create more jobs, so more people can get off the arses and actually work for their money as opposed to taking government hand outs. Then the government would get more money back in these people's taxes, and not have to waste so much in unemployment benefit. This is why I'm so against socialism, it discourages people from wanting to do better, and encourages a take, take attitude all the time.

My mother in law wrote this on her facebook page today: "I teach Constitutional Law so please do not tell me about the second amendment or the latest Supreme Court decision. Instead, tell me about the innocent people who have died at the hands of the evil and mentally ill that gun advocates so often state are the " people" not the guns, who kill. To that I say: Yes there are mentally ill and evil people in society and always will be. Those people get firearms with ease and always seem to be rational enough to make a very calculated choice to use them in the correct way...........mental illness does not override their conscience choices. Every mentally ill person is not so overt as to demand "the system" help them before they act in such a way. They are among us so gun advocates should stop blaming the system for not addressing the mentally ill. The problem is THEY HAVE GUNS. Evil people too always seem to go straight for the firearm so they can achieve their purpose. SO, society needs to keep guns our of society AND from those people. It is as simple as that and perhaps the next time a crazy as a fox person or evil monster decides to kill, he or she will have to work a little harder to get a gun; or maybe not get one at all; or maybe not go though with it, or choose another weapon which will not be as successful. So spare me " people kill, not guns" because "people" include the evil and mentally ill who just always seem to conveniently have a gun!"

Oh good. I can go into my local corner shop and gloat at the owner :) He's always going on about how India are great at cricket.

I said at the time raising taxes for the rich wouldn't work. It was a stupid idea. I don't blame any rich person for leaving. They already pay far more in taxes than anyone else. They earned that money, it's ridiculous for the government to take most of it. In total agreement with Gerard here. And it's the same ridiculous logic Obama is trying on here, which will lead the US to falling over the fiscal cliff.

[quote user="PaulT"]From some source or another that I cannot remember it was stated that in the cowboy films showing the firing of guns in to the air for no apparent reason did not happen - they were too poor to waste them. There was a programme on the other day about Bonnie and Clyde. Thier end came with being ambushed, on their way to a meeting, by a posse. The car absolutely riddled with bullets. It seemed an orgy of gunfire to kill two people whereby just a few shots would have sufficed. The gun an everyday item for use. Perhaps though it is only certain States where the problem is - as RII says New Jersey has strict gun laws. However, it would seem that in the US the pro gun lobby is so powerful that the massacres will keep on happening. RII how is the US press reporting this, I wonder if it is with the horror of the UK press or just as sensationalist news. I suppose the size of the US needs to be taken in to account in any statistics and therefore these should be on the basis of per x number of the population rather than the number for the whole population. [/quote] I rarely watch the news, so can't comment on how it's being reported here. I've been getting all my updates from the BBC website, I prefer a more impartial view of events here. But here's something Morgan Freeman said which is interesting: "You want to know why. This may sound cynical, but here's why. It's because of the way the media reports it. Flip on the news and watch how we treat the Batman theater shooter and the Oregon mall shooter like celebrities. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are household names, but do you know the name of a single victim of Columbine? Disturbed people who would otherwise just off themselves in their basements see the news and want to top it by doing something worse, and going out in a memorable way. Why a grade school? Why children? Because he'll be remembered as a horrible monster, instead of a sad nobody. CNN's article says that if the body count "holds up", this will rank as the second deadliest shooting behind Virginia Tech, as if statistics somehow make one shooting worse than another. Then they post a video interview of third-graders for all the details of what they saw and heard while the shootings were happening. Fox News has plastered the killer's face on all their reports for hours. Any articles or news stories yet that focus on the victims and ignore the killer's identity? None that I've seen yet. Because they don't sell. So congratulations, sensationalist media, you've just lit the fire for someone to top this and knock off a day care center or a maternity ward next. You can help by forgetting you ever read this man's name, and remembering the name of at least one victim. You can help by donating to mental health research instead of pointing to gun control as the problem." For sure gun laws need to be made stricter all over the country, but it's still not going to prevent things like yesterday from happening. Even if you had a complete ban, it would still happen. It's cultural, it needs addressing at root level, reeducation and a change in attitudes. Perhaps part of the problem is that America is too free, I don't know. There's no simple answer to this, that's for sure.

[quote user="DerekJ"]They lost the plot years ago. Now they have no way of fixing it. Obama (or any other US politician) doesn't have the gonads to legislate and even if they did, they've gone way beyond the point of no return with the sheer volume of firearms available. This type of tragedy will continue to repeat itself year after year.[/quote] Sadly, I think you are right. It's so ingrained in the culture. Banning guns wouldn't stop these extreme idiots carrying out their evil attacks, they'd find a way of obtaining the weapons. Drugs are illegal, but it's still very easy to get hold of them if you really want to. The laws in many states certainly need tightening up. The NRA is the big problem, and I believe the only way forward is slow reeducation. I still have no issue with handguns for home use only as a means of protection against intruders, but there is no reason why anyone should need to own one of these bloody great big automatic weapons. The answer is, there is no easy answer, and it is going to take a long time for this type of thing to be stopped, if indeed it ever could be. I live in New Jersey, and the gun controls here are very tight. If other states adopted the same laws, perhaps we'd see less of this sort of thing, but I have a feeling we wouldn't.

[quote user="powerdesal"]Of course the climate is changing, it's what the climate does and has done for millions of years, why should it stop now? Equally it's basic biology that plants need CO2, it helps them grow. No CO2 = no plants = no food. The planet has had warmer and colder periods in the past and will no doubt have warmer and colder periods in the future. To assume that mankind can radically affect that future is arrogance in the extreme. The climate was warmer in the recorded past, even during Roman times and I don't seem to remember learning about Roman 4 x 4s and power stations being the cause of any problems.[/quote] Yep, plants need CO2, but the way deforestation is occurring with rising levels of CO2, you're going to have less plants to take this CO2 on board, therefore more will remain in the atmosphere. I'm not expecting any catastrophe like most go on about, but there will be change (like you say), and it'll be up to life on the planet to adapt. There'll no doubt be extinctions, but these happen all the time, and new species come about to replace them. I believe mankind does have an effect on the climate, just as every dominant species in the past probably has, but to what extent, who knows?

I think any effects on wind and wave would be negligible. Certainly not as much as the pollution emitted via fossil fuels. I agree there's no such thing as a free lunch. The climate is changing, anyone with any intelligence can see that, the question is how much of an impact is man made? Deforestation and more CO2 emmissions will help heat the planet up, there's no doubt about that, it's basic physics. What we need is to open the window and let some of this CO2 out. Perhaps create one over the Antarctic...

Technically they're actually not wrong, as water vapour (which is what cooling towers emit for want of a better word), is the most dominant greenhouse gas. However, you are right, the media are trying to bark up another tree, and show these images as filthy pollution.

I thought this was France, not America. I agree with AnOther, surely the fact you've lived there for more than 5 years qualify you for cover?

Latest I've read on this is that she also has injuries to her wrists, but the report didn't say whether they were old or new injuries. If they are old, then it seems she has previous, but also it surprises me that someone who has shown suicidal tendencies in the past should be allowed to nurse.

Not only are wind turbines dependent on having wind to operate, if there is too much wind, then they cannot operate either. They will never satisfy energy requirements. For the moment, nuclear is probably the best solution, although that of course has its own set of problems. Over here in the states, I have seen some interesting solutions that contribute a little to easing the load. For example, i've seen solar panels on many lamps and traffic lights which would charge by day to be used at night. I imagine when they do run out of juice, the national grid system kicks in. There's heaps as individuals we can do to lessen the energy demands, and that should be the first priority. Prevention is better than cure.

[quote user="Chancer"]They wont get any compassion from me [:@] My reasons are that they are younger than me, better looking than me, considerably richer than me and have a brighter future than me [6] Oh and I dont like Australians either [:P] Apart from Richard that is [;-)], and in fact all the other Australians I have had the pleasure of meeting, its the rest of em, especially the DJ's and celebs, and Peter André but not Barry Humphries. I am going to have a lie down now! [/quote] I was born and bred in England. I only spent 7 years in Australia and got citizenship after 5 years (and no, I didn't pinch anything ;) )

[quote user="Ivor Nidea"]Mr CDL says The people who complain about these companies not "paying their fair share" of tax would be the same people who then complain that the companies got rid of a load of staff because they have to pay a higher tax bill.   On the other side of the coin the ones who say these companies are simply paying tax according to the tax laws have, in the past, thrown their hands up in disgust at "rich" expats living it up in France and claiming winter fuel allowance. This is not aimed at Mr CDL, just used as an illustration to point out double standards. If you have a memory like mine it's vital you keep singing the same tune and not to change them according to newspaper headlines. Big companies and their tax affairs IMHO is another example of smoke and mirrors to effect a swerve away from the unfairness of tax changes. [/quote] Just as well, because Mr CDL is proud to say he has never claimed any benefits whatsoever from any government :)

The people who complain about these companies not "paying their fair share" of tax would be the same people who then complain that the companies got rid of a load of staff because they have to pay a higher tax bill. I'd far rather companies pay less tax as long as that money is being used to employ people, who would then pay tax. And less money would be wasted on the people who are unemployed too. To me that makes more sense than taxing companies at higher tax rates. But I guess that's socialism for you.

I still find it hard to believe that this was the sole reason for the woman's suicide. There has to have been other issues in her life and this tipped her over.

Has anyone mentioned what should happen to the station's editor and lawyers at all? After all, both these parties were happy for the recorded "joke" to be broadcast.

[quote user="Hoddy"]For whatever cause they made this woman look like a fool in most of the world's media. Someone will remember the Shakespeare quote about a good name being the most precious thing we have better than I do. They may have been after someone famous, but they were completely thoughtless about the effect it might have on a ordinary working woman doing her job. Hoddy[/quote] They didn't make this woman look a fool. She didn't disclose the information, she only put them through to the ward, and another nurse disclosed the information. As I say, I think there is a lot more to the stability of the nurse who did suicide, there must have been many other issues, and this perhaps sent her over the edge.

[quote user="Quillan"][quote user="PaulT"] What a wonderful world this would be if there was no religion. [/quote] Exactly, I always say I don't have a problem with God, just religion. [/quote] I doubt it would be any different to be honest. There'd be other excuses for mankind being so crappy to one another. Christmas isn't even a christian festival anyway.

Makes me wonder if the poor nurse had other issues going on with her life. I know it's hard to put yourself in another's position, but I'm not sure this hoax call would be enough to top myself. She had done nothing wrong.

I'm sorry it posted twice. Been having posting issues on here today.

[quote user="Gardian"]My comic was The Eagle (I think).  Dan Dare and all that. Wasn't there one called The Topper?  That just got dredged up from the memory bank. This is all a bit like Saturday Morning Pictures at the Granada. [/quote] Yep, I remember The Topper, and also the Beezer I think is was from DC Thompsen. Am reading The Walking Dead comics at the moment on my computer, they're strangely addictive. The tv series is good too.

[quote user="Russethouse"]I guess it depends who the other choices were.[/quote] President Blair!