# Cleaner for Urban 75



## B-Town (Jun 27, 2011)

Hi Guys

Long time reader first time poster... 

So I took the plunge and posted my first thread yesterday, something I am not sure I will be in a rush to do again (this one apart obviously). I was suprised at the level of abuse I received, now wanting to employ a cleaner may be a controversial topic, but what is the forum for? 

My opinion was it was a place where Brixtonians could share thoughts, chat, understand what was happening in the local comunity, support each other, and act as a resource if you wanted to benefit from some local knoweldge? I thought like Brixton it would ethnically and socially diverse, embracing new comers and striving to constantly improve itself - not dislike the town it is centred around. 

However, after posting I received a torrent of (virtually) unapposed abuse "clean yer own house you lazy fecker", "tax-dodging cunt", "you fuckwit", "utterly contemptible human being", "deluded, tiny-minded little shitcunt" - is this what this forum is about? is there no way to regulate or to express whether someones view is reflective of the majority? 

In my opinion small minded, agenda pushing, class obsessed few are spoiling this site for the majority - am I the only one that would like to see some way of this being addressed?


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Jun 27, 2011)

Yup. Think so.


----------



## editor (Jun 27, 2011)

B-Town said:


> In my opinion small minded, agenda pushing, class obsessed few are spoiling this site for the majority - am I the only one that would like to see some way of this being addressed?


So you're saying that you'd like this long-established community to instantly change to suit your personal sensibilities, because not everyone warmed to your request for a cleaner? Have I got that right?


----------



## editor (Jun 27, 2011)

That said, some of the abuse was way over the top.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 27, 2011)

editor said:


> That said, some of the abuse was way over the top.


 
Not ymu's finest moment (re "tax-dodging cunt").


----------



## trashpony (Jun 27, 2011)

B-Town said:


> Long time reader first time poster...


 
So surely, you must have some idea of what this site was about. Surely. 



> In my opinion small minded, agenda pushing, class obsessed few are spoiling this site for the majority - am I the only one that would like to see some way of this being addressed?



I think you mean the minority. The majority are the small minded, agenda pushing, class obsessed. There are a few people like you though


----------



## B-Town (Jun 27, 2011)

editor said:


> So you're saying that you'd like this long-established community to instantly change to suit your personal sensibilities, because not everyone warmed to your request for a cleaner? Have I got that right?


 
No, infact I think some of the comments where well made and challenged my existing thoughts, to which I am greatful to the contributors. However, personally, and maybe I am old fashioned - somebody that reaches out to a community does not deserve to be called a 'cunt'. 

You may go round calling people you have never met a cunt, but that is a sad reflection of your personality not a problem with my personal sensibilities


----------



## B-Town (Jun 27, 2011)

which is kind of what I am saying, i don't mind peoples opinions, but i think the way some of them were positioned was a bit of a shame and a did the site a bit of a disservice


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 27, 2011)

Ymu was intemperate, and silly, and surprisingly rude, but people do get called cunts here from time to time, which is part of the charm of the place.


----------



## B-Town (Jun 27, 2011)

editor said:


> That said, some of the abuse was way over the top.


 
which is kind of what I am saying, i don't mind peoples opinions, but i think the way some of them were positioned was a bit of a shame and a did the site a bit of a disservice


----------



## trashpony (Jun 27, 2011)

Yeah you did get a sackload of grief. Still, kudos for coming back. And you can take out your frustrations on other posters if you feel like it in future


----------



## Belushi (Jun 27, 2011)

You are coming across as a bit of a knob on this thread tbf. Chill out, dont be so sensitive and you might discover the community has more to offer than just abuse.


----------



## miss minnie (Jun 27, 2011)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Ymu was intemperate, and silly, and surprisingly rude, but people do get called cunts here from time to time, which is part of the charm of the place.


Makes it sound like a "Fawlty Towers" themed restaurant.


----------



## killer b (Jun 27, 2011)

Belushi said:


> You are coming across as a bit of a knob on this thread tbf. Chill out, dont be so sensitive and you might discover the community has more to offer than just abuse.


 
mostly abuse though, tbf.


----------



## spanglechick (Jun 27, 2011)

B-Town said:


> No, infact I think some of the comments where well made and challenged my existing thoughts, to which I am greatful to the contributors. However, personally, and maybe I am old fashioned - somebody that reaches out to a community does not deserve to be called a 'cunt'.
> 
> You may go round calling people you have never met a cunt, but that is a sad reflection of your personality not a problem with my personal sensibilities


 
you may or may not have a point more broadly, but this site has always been somewhere where people get called a cunt if they are disagreed with. It is the urban way and i would defend it to the death. there are other local forums you can join where things are more polite.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 27, 2011)

miss minnie said:


> Makes it sound like a "Fawlty Towers" themed restaurant.



There is certainly something of Basil and Sybil about the editor and FM, but I'm not sure who is supposed to be Manuel. Crispy?


----------



## Strumpet (Jun 27, 2011)

Oh I missed your thread. I wouldve mentioned that if I had enough (well any!) money id def employ a cleaner. I fuck nHATE cleaning/domestic stuff and would gladly pay someone a good wad to do it instead. And I don't give a fuck what others opinions of that are 


Getting called a cunt already?! Well done


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 27, 2011)

B-Town said:


> which is kind of what I am saying, i don't mind peoples opinions, but i think the way some of them were positioned was a bit of a shame and a did the site a bit of a disservice



If it's any consolation, it used to be a lot worse.


----------



## editor (Jun 27, 2011)

B-Town said:


> No, infact I think some of the comments where well made and challenged my existing thoughts, to which I am greatful to the contributors. However, personally, and maybe I am old fashioned - somebody that reaches out to a community does not deserve to be called a 'cunt'.
> 
> You may go round calling people you have never met a cunt, but that is a sad reflection of your personality not a problem with my personal sensibilities


The main problem is that you rocked up to start a thread on a topic that had already proved contentious. 

Had you searched for the topic first (as requested by the forum's rules) and posted in the right forum (Brixton Noticeboard) then the outcome might have been different.

Instead you posted in a _discussion _forum, and like it or not, that's what you got!


----------



## netbob (Jun 27, 2011)

now the initiation is over, can we keep him/her?


----------



## TruXta (Jun 27, 2011)

memespring said:


> now the initiation is over, can we keep him/her?


 
Send him into dwyer's loving care.


----------



## trashpony (Jun 27, 2011)

editor said:


> The main problem is that you rocked up to start a thread on a topic that had already proved contentious.
> 
> Had you searched for the topic first (as requested by the forum's rules) and posted in the right forum (Brixton Noticeboard) then the outcome might have been different.
> 
> Instead you posted in a _discussion _forum, and like it or not, that's what you got!


 
It is in the Brixton forum. Oh there is a new one now isn't there? I think that's a bit unfair to give him grief for that, even though it was a bit wanky. 

Cunty cunts. Just to be in the spirit n that


----------



## dessiato (Jun 27, 2011)

My wife has been a long term lurker here, with an average post count of something like 0,01 per day. A few days ago she started her first thread in a very long time. There were some very unkind comments on it. Oddly some of the posters posted more than once about how much she was disliked. People here are like this. They don't have the nous to just ignore the threads they don't like and prefer to spit some level of spite. As a result my wife has gone back to lurking which is a shame she is an intelligent and witty individual who could have contributed to a lot of topics here.

Ignore the rude posters. Ymu seems to prefer to be aggressive and rude when given the chance. She is not truly representative of most posters. She seems to have the intelligence and knowledge of most things that no others have. The majority of us will not spit bile at you because we disagree with your views. Most will tell you that they disagree, sometimes forcibly, but seldom with vitriol.


----------



## Belushi (Jun 27, 2011)

I want to hear more about what the majority think, as they appear to have appointed B-Town their spokesman.


----------



## B-Town (Jun 27, 2011)

How do you know what the rules are? I just clicked through to the forum... I see plenty of people posting about builders, plumbers without the abuse. 

TBF, I may have been wrong, and the majority of those here like the social class undertone needed to be accepted, I just think that it is a shame if you scare off a section of the local community. If the forum doesn't reflect 'Brixton' what is the point of a Brixton forum?


----------



## Belushi (Jun 27, 2011)

What section of the local community? People with cleaners?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 27, 2011)

You'd actually have to pay a lot to clean up after these lot. Once you'd factored in costs like trained operatives for removing corpses, contaminated sharps and mental health team liasons you are looking at 50 quid an hour minimum


----------



## London_Calling (Jun 27, 2011)

I read the thread and can only remember ymu being abusively way over the top, and just plain weird. I didn't agree with much of the rest either – a lot of it was bonkers, but I don't recall it being much more than lively intercourse. And what is intercourse if . . .

Fwiw, some of the comments in the dead Tory at Glastonbury thread were, if anything, even stupidier and stranger than what your thread got.


----------



## spanglechick (Jun 27, 2011)

dessiato said:


> My wife has been a long term lurker here, with an average post count of something like 0,01 per day. A few days ago she started her first thread in a very long time. There were some very unkind comments on it. Oddly some of the posters posted more than once about how much she was disliked. People here are like this. They don't have the nous to just ignore the threads they don't like and prefer to spit some level of spite. As a result my wife has gone back to lurking which is a shame she is an intelligent and witty individual who could have contributed to a lot of topics here.
> 
> Ignore the rude posters. Ymu seems to prefer to be aggressive and rude when given the chance. She is not truly representative of most posters. She seems to have the intelligence and knowledge of most things that no others have. The majority of us will not spit bile at you because we disagree with your views. Most will tell you that they disagree, sometimes forcibly, but seldom with vitriol.


 
she did come over a bit 'precious' though, your missus.


----------



## miss minnie (Jun 27, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> You'd actually have to pay a lot to clean up after these lot. Once you'd factored in costs like trained operatives for removing corpses, contaminated sharps and mental health team liasons you are looking at 50 quid an hour minimum


You would have to throw out the carpet too, it would be a bio-hazard.   + cost of new carpet


----------



## Crispy (Jun 27, 2011)

B-Town said:


> How do you know what the rules are? I just clicked through to the forum... I see plenty of people posting about builders, plumbers without the abuse.
> 
> TBF, I may have been wrong, and the majority of those here like the social class undertone needed to be accepted, I just think that it is a shame if you scare off a section of the local community. If the forum doesn't reflect 'Brixton' what is the point of a Brixton forum?


 
If this forum truly reflected Brixton, it wouldn't be dominated by the white middle class (although give it time...). If you're a long time reader then surely you knew the topic was going to push some buttons? But you're still posting. Fuck the haters - say what you want to say and feel free to "throw a few fucks" (as the saying goes) into anyone you disagree with. The rough-and-tumble nature of the place is part of urban's identity - and a reason why it's not representative of Brixton - or anywhere - as a whole.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 27, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> I read the thread and can only remember ymu being abusively way over the top, and just plain weird. I didn't agree with much of the rest either – a lot of it was bonkers, but I don't recall it being much more than lively intercourse. And what is intercourse if . . .
> 
> Fwiw, some of the comments in the dead Tory at Glastonbury thread were, if anything, even stupidier and stranger than what your thread got.


 

yeah but that was like an e-effigy springing up from the fecund depths of a portaloo to entertain us all.


----------



## dessiato (Jun 27, 2011)

spanglechick said:


> she did come over a bit 'precious' though, your missus.


 
She was having a bit of fun. She has hardly ever posted and thought that she could have a bit of silly fun being introduced in her own right. If the posters didn't like it, then why did they keep reading and commenting? After all, don't most mature people, in this situation, just shrug and ignore it?


----------



## TruXta (Jun 27, 2011)

dessiato said:


> She was having a bit of fun. She has hardly ever posted and thought that she could have a bit of a silly fun being introduced in her own right. If the posters didn't like it, then why did they keep reading and commenting? After all, don't most mature people, in this situation, just shrug and ignore it?


 
Are we posting on the same forum, reading the same threads?


----------



## trashpony (Jun 27, 2011)

dessiato said:


> My wife has been a long term lurker here, with an average post count of something like 0,01 per day. A few days ago she started her first thread in a very long time. There were some very unkind comments on it. Oddly some of the posters posted more than once about how much she was disliked. People here are like this. They don't have the nous to just ignore the threads they don't like and prefer to spit some level of spite. As a result my wife has gone back to lurking which is a shame she is an intelligent and witty individual who could have contributed to a lot of topics here.
> 
> Ignore the rude posters. Ymu seems to prefer to be aggressive and rude when given the chance. She is not truly representative of most posters. She seems to have the intelligence and knowledge of most things that no others have. The majority of us will not spit bile at you because we disagree with your views. Most will tell you that they disagree, sometimes forcibly, but seldom with vitriol.


 
If your wife is who I think she is, then ymu was very nice to her. I wasn't though but I'm not going to apologise for that. It was a silly thread. If she wants to actually contribute to the boards, then she'd probably get a much kinder reception. 

Same goes with the OP tbh. A long term lurker who only posts because and when they want something is always going to get short shrift. And tbh, I like that about this place.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 27, 2011)

dessiato said:


> She was having a bit of fun. She has hardly ever posted and thought that she could have a bit of silly fun being introduced in her own right. If the posters didn't like it, then why did they keep reading and commenting? After all, don't most mature people, in this situation, just shrug and ignore it?


 
I didn't see anything wrong with it, fwiw.


----------



## DietCokeGirl (Jun 27, 2011)

Surely a cleaner would sweep this stray bit of thread back to the original post it concerns?


----------



## Onket (Jun 27, 2011)

U75 sees poster with low post count as fair game shocker. Were there any accusations of being a returning previously banned poster?

There are lots of great things about this site, though. Stick with it.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 27, 2011)

dessiato said:


> My wife has been a long term lurker here, with an average post count of something like 0,01 per day. A few days ago she started her first thread in a very long time. There were some very unkind comments on it. Oddly some of the posters posted more than once about how much she was disliked. People here are like this. They don't have the nous to just ignore the threads they don't like and prefer to spit some level of spite. As a result my wife has gone back to lurking which is a shame she is an intelligent and witty individual who could have contributed to a lot of topics here.
> 
> Ignore the rude posters. Ymu seems to prefer to be aggressive and rude when given the chance. She is not truly representative of most posters. She seems to have the intelligence and knowledge of most things that no others have. The majority of us will not spit bile at you because we disagree with your views. Most will tell you that they disagree, sometimes forcibly, but seldom with vitriol.



Maybe suggest to your wife: 'suck it up, Princess!' 

For those able to grow just a few millimeters of a thicker skin, there's plenty to be learned and shared here, as you already know.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 27, 2011)

I think we could do a lot better with newbie treatment, tbf. But fuck knows how I'd steer the juggernaut - the patterns are well embedded now.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 27, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> For those able to grow just a few millimeters of a thicker skin, there's plenty to be learned and shared here, as you already know.



That is true, but I can see how it might come as a shock. you've had your moments, jc3


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 27, 2011)

Crispy said:


> I think we could do a lot better with newbie treatment, tbf. But fuck knows how I'd steer the juggernaut - the patterns are well embedded now.


 
Hazing rituals are being banned in the military, fraternities, schools, etc; but it seems we still have one here.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 27, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That is true, but I can see how it might come as a shock. you've had your moments, jc3


 
Yes, both as giver and recipient. I'm still here, though.


----------



## Belushi (Jun 27, 2011)

Crispy said:


> I think we could do a lot better with newbie treatment, tbf. But fuck knows how I'd steer the juggernaut - the patterns are well embedded now.


 
Pen them in to their own forum for a while until they develope a thick enough hide to survive in the general population?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 27, 2011)

I had a very gentle introduction to here, really. My first ruck was very much of my own making.

and the OP might like to think about one or two of the things that he said. I think the initial attack on him was unwarranted, but he then said things that could have been better put and thought out. 

Problem - and also good thing - about Urban is that you simply won't get away with stuff. You will be pulled up for making a crass statement. And probably be called a cunt for it. Don't worry, if you stick around, you'll get to call someone a cunt for yourself sooner or later.


----------



## dessiato (Jun 27, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Maybe suggest to your wife: 'suck it up, Princess!'
> 
> For those able to grow just a few millimeters of a thicker skin, there's plenty to be learned and shared here, as you already know.


 
I would never call my my wife by such a condescending term as Princess. She is a woman in her own right and has the right to expect to be treated as such. She will probably not be back, she is not currently interested in the site due to the way she was treated in that thread.

You are right, there is much to learn from here. The first is that there are some over opinionated people who believe that being offensive is somehow clever, and makes them big, rather than trying to open their minds to others opinions and experiences.

Anyway, I shall make no more comment on this as it is not fair to de-rail this thread.


----------



## spanglechick (Jun 27, 2011)

dessiato said:


> She was having a bit of fun. She has hardly ever posted and thought that she could have a bit of silly fun being introduced in her own right. If the posters didn't like it, then why did they keep reading and commenting? After all, don't most mature people, in this situation, just shrug and ignore it?


 
nah - i think quite often if someone you've never met shows up and starts being irritating, it can be quite enjoyable to tell them where to go. she misjudged it. never mind. if she started participating in threads that weren't about her, i'm sure she'd have a much better time. 

urban is generally fine with newbies, unless they draw attention to themselves in a way that gets up people's noses. it's just a social skill - fitting in with new groups of people. online is no different.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 27, 2011)

dessiato said:


> I would never call my my wife by such a condescending term as Princess. She is a woman in her own right and has the right to expect to be treated as such. .


 
She certainly sounds a cut above the rubbish women on here.


----------



## editor (Jun 27, 2011)

B-Town said:


> How do you know what the rules are? I just clicked through to the forum... I see plenty of people posting about builders, plumbers without the abuse.


When you sign up you're asked to read the forum rules, and I would have thought it was a fairly rudimentary courtesy to search the boards to see if any similar threads had been started first. 

Oh and this non-profit, community funded board  makes no claim to represent anything other than the posters who contribute here. Stick around and you can help alter/enhance that balance - that's the way it works with boards.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 27, 2011)

Belushi said:


> Pen them in to their own forum for a while until they develope a thick enough hide to survive in the general population?


 
or an e-Komsomol where they can prove dedication.


----------



## spanglechick (Jun 27, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Hazing rituals are being banned in the military, fraternities, schools, etc; but it seems we still have one here.


 
nobody 'hazed' me. most newbs just slip in under the wire and nobody gives them a hard time straightaway, or accuses them of trolling or being a returner.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 27, 2011)

I never read the rules. I'd be amazed if anyone does before they post tbf.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 27, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Hazing rituals are being banned in the military, fraternities, schools, etc; but it seems we still have one here.


 
Yeah, for real, it is a baptism of fire.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 27, 2011)

Crispy said:


> I never read the rules. I'd be amazed if anyone does before they post tbf.


 
Neither did I. I certainly didn't do a search before my first thread. 

I still remember receiving my first 'cunt' though (it was sas). *beams*


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 27, 2011)

dessiato said:


> I would never call my my wife by such a condescending term as Princess..


 
I guess it's all in how it's intended. Hell, if I've been moping and kvetching, my wife has even said it to me: 'suck it up, Princess!' It gets said to the kids, it gets said at work, etc. It's not actually meant to be serious.

But the underlying comment is fair. The abuse might be a bit offputting to a newcomer, but anyone who's lurked for awhile should know the ropes and not be all that surprised when the pattern gets repeated. They'll have seen it enough via their lurking to know it isn't actually anything personal.


----------



## dessiato (Jun 27, 2011)

spanglechick said:


> nah - i think quite often if someone you've never met shows up and starts being irritating, it can be quite enjoyable to tell them where to go. she misjudged it. never mind. if she started participating in threads that weren't about her, i'm sure she'd have a much better time.
> 
> urban is generally fine with newbies, unless they draw attention to themselves in a way that gets up people's noses. it's just a social skill - fitting in with new groups of people. online is no different.



But isn't the mature thing to do to ignore something on an internet board that you find annoying? It is what all the adults I know do. Or am I making a mistake by assuming that the posters here are mature enough to do something like that? Certainly when both she and I joined U75 it was the case. Newbies were not automatically hazed as they seem to be now.


----------



## editor (Jun 27, 2011)

Crispy said:


> I never read the rules. I'd be amazed if anyone does before they post tbf.


No one forces them to, but then they can't really complain if things don't go as expected later.


----------



## Belushi (Jun 27, 2011)

dessiato said:


> But isn't the mature thing to do to ignore something on an internet board that you find annoying? It is what all the adults I know do. Or am I making a mistake by assuming that the posters here are mature enough to do something like that? Certainly when both she and I joined U75 it was the case. Newbies were not automatically hazed as they seem to be now.


 
You're beginning to sound like a fifteen year old.

_"You're all so immature..."_


----------



## Belushi (Jun 27, 2011)

dessiato said:


> Certainly when both she and I joined U75 it was the case. Newbies were not automatically hazed as they seem to be now.


 
In 2005? No it fucking wasnt!


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 27, 2011)

it's like living in tom browns school days


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jun 27, 2011)

have i done something wrong?

i've been here a while and i don't think anyone's called me a cunt yet...


----------



## London_Calling (Jun 27, 2011)

Crispy said:


> I think we could do a lot better with newbie treatment, tbf. But fuck knows how I'd steer the juggernaut - the patterns are well embedded now.


 
It might be an idea to ease in gently rather than annouce yourself in the General Forum - which is reactionary central most of the time.


----------



## Onket (Jun 27, 2011)

dessiato said:


> But isn't the mature thing to do to ignore something on an internet board that you find annoying? It is what all the adults I know do. Or am I making a mistake by assuming that the posters here are mature enough to do something like that? Certainly when both she and I joined U75 it was the case. Newbies were not automatically hazed as they seem to be now.


 
What seems to happen quite a lot here is that the way that a thread develops can be heavily influenced by the first couple of replies to the OP. So I guess it's partly luck how it goes.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 27, 2011)

Puddy_Tat said:


> have i done something wrong?
> 
> i've been here a while and i don't think anyone's called me a cunt yet...


 
Not trying hard enough, clearly.


----------



## dessiato (Jun 27, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I guess it's all in how it's intended. Hell, if I've been moping and kvetching, my wife has even said it to me: 'suck it up, Princess!' It gets said to the kids, it gets said at work, etc. It's not actually meant to be serious.
> 
> But the underlying comment is fair. The abuse might be a bit offputting to a newcomer, but anyone who's lurked for awhile should know the ropes and not be all that surprised when the pattern gets repeated. They'll have seen it enough via their lurking to know it isn't actually anything personal.


 
But it so often is personal JC3. Most people I know would be very offended to be called a cunt by people who don't know them, and especially when they haven't done anything to justify such vitriol as is often posted here. I don't understand why so many, often newer, posters seem to think to show such an offensive behaviour is acceptable. Should you not get to know a little about the person before judging them so very harshly?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 27, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> *It might be an idea to ease in gently* rather than annouce yourself in the General Forum - which is reactionary central most of the time.


 
perhaps with fine wines, and belgian chocolates, eh swiss?


----------



## London_Calling (Jun 27, 2011)

Or, if in nobbing and sobbbing, with water-based lubricants.


----------



## dessiato (Jun 27, 2011)

Belushi said:


> You're beginning to sound like a fifteen year old.
> 
> _"You're all so immature..."_


 
Perhaps so, but I am trying to understand how rational people can behave so badly towards others, and think it is correct do so. Perhaps I have come to expect better of U75 than I should.


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 27, 2011)

Onket said:


> What seems to happen quite a lot here is that the way that a thread develops can be heavily influenced by the first couple of replies to the OP. So I guess it's partly luck how it goes.


 
Most people were nice to mrs dessiato and enjoying the thread.  I don't think she was being at all precious.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 27, 2011)

editor said:


> No one forces them to, but then they can't really complain if things don't go as expected later.


 
Nah, it's just a good way of kicking someone when they (inevitably) break a rule that draws attention. They're several pages long, with further tripwires to be found in secondary rules pages on usernames, feedback, privacy, reported posts etc. They can complain - they can say "I didn't read your rules cos they're really long and boring" (due to 10 years worth of modifications and additions after every Great Crisis)


----------



## Belushi (Jun 27, 2011)

dessiato said:


> Perhaps so, but I am trying to understand how rational people can behave so badly towards others, and think it is correct do so. Perhaps I have come to expect better of U75 than I should.



So you've been posting here five years and not noticed how rude posters can be until today?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 27, 2011)

It's never nice to be called names on here. Most of us have lost our temper with someone at some point, including most of the mods (don't remember crispy swearing at anyone, but all the others). It's rarely for no reason, and if it is for no reason, someone else will normally come in and say something. And if they don't, well maybe you deserved it, even a little bit. Problem is, this is a medium in which of course we cannot use body language or tone of voice, so we get taken the wrong way more often that irl. So there are more bunfights than irl. They're usually a mistake, tbh, bunfights, by both parties.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 27, 2011)

I think I called butchersapron a bad word once


----------



## editor (Jun 27, 2011)

Crispy said:


> Nah, it's just a good way of kicking someone when they (inevitably) break a rule that draws attention. They're several pages long, with further tripwires to be found in secondary rules pages on usernames, feedback, privacy, reported posts etc. They can complain - they can say "I didn't read your rules cos they're really long and boring" (due to 10 years worth of modifications and additions after every Great Crisis)


The vast, vast majority of new posters manage to sign up and join in without being ever being called a cunt, so I'm not sure what your point is.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 27, 2011)

Crispy said:


> I never read the rules. I'd be amazed if anyone does before they post tbf.


 
Rules?


What rules?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 27, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's never nice to be called names on here. Most of us have lost our temper with someone at some point, including most of the mods (don't remember crispy swearing at anyone, but all the others). It's rarely for no reason, and if it is for no reason, someone else will normally come in and say something. And if they don't, well maybe you deserved it, even a little bit. Problem is, this is a medium in which of course we cannot use body language or tone of voice, so we get taken the wrong way more often that irl. So there are more bunfights than irl. They're usually a mistake, tbh, bunfights, by both parties.


 

All mine are righteous long running feuds that I will see satisfied in this life or the next


----------



## Crispy (Jun 27, 2011)

editor said:


> The vast, vast majority of new posters manage to sign up and join in without being ever being called a cunt, so I'm not sure what your point is.


 
The vast majority of posters don't post!

Hang on, I'll make a poll


----------



## Belushi (Jun 27, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Rules?
> 
> 
> What rules?



The ones no one has ever actually read.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 27, 2011)

Rules? There are rules?


----------



## editor (Jun 27, 2011)

Crispy said:


> The vast majority of posters don't post!
> 
> Hang on, I'll make a poll


I think you're confusing 'member' with 'poster.' A poster is a person who posts. Like the word says.


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 27, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Rules? There are rules?


 
They are next to the frequently asked questions that no one asks.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 27, 2011)

Belushi said:


> The ones no one has ever actually read.


 
I've never looked at them! I know a little about them from what ed says every now and then.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 27, 2011)

quimcunx said:


> They are next to the frequently asked questions that no one asks.


 
Well that's only because they've already been answered. THIS is why our m/s relationship is currently going down the drain.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 27, 2011)

dessiato said:


> But it so often is personal JC3. Most people I know would be very offended to be called a cunt by people who don't know them, and especially when they haven't done anything to justify such vitriol as is often posted here. I don't understand why so many, often newer, posters seem to think to show such an offensive behaviour is acceptable. Should you not get to know a little about the person before judging them so very harshly?


 
Yes, you should, but nothing is perfect. And like I say, a lurker should be able to put it in context.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 27, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I've never looked at them! I know a little about them from what ed says every now and then.


 
y'see how a dictatorship works now?_ I never read the rules_


Only yourself to blame.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 27, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's never nice to be called names on here. .


 
You called me names, just two nights ago.


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 27, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Well that's only because they've already been answered. THIS is why our m/s relationship is currently going down the drain.


 
I thought it was a temporary blimp on account of your broken toe making you lazy.  I'm fully expecting a return to full service next week.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 27, 2011)

_It was never broken._


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 27, 2011)

TruXta said:


> _It was never broken._


 
Really?  It could be arranged.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 27, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> You called me names, just two nights ago.


 
Yep. I lost my temper with you momentarily. 

I'm not claiming sainthood here.


----------



## dessiato (Jun 27, 2011)

Belushi said:


> So you've been posting here five years and not noticed how rude posters can be until today?


 
Not at all, of course I have noticed. But it is so often the same few who can make it so very difficult for newer posters to become assimilated to the site and for them to contribute in a positive manner. I wonder how many of the new posters, due to the way they feel they are treated, go on to leave very quickly. Of course it must be impossible to find this out, but it would make an interesting study to find out why so many stop contributing.

Unlike some, I don't really give a fuck about what I am called. I just think that some here need to think about their behaviour towards others. A little basic courtesy, especially with those with a very low post count, really wouldn't hurt. I am sure that in real life they would be shocked to be treated as badly as they treat others here. And yet they think that, because this is the internet, such behaviour is acceptable. I'm afraid I don't agree with them. Perhaps, because of my wife's recent experience, it has become more obvious to me how incredibly offensive some posters choose to be.


----------



## free spirit (Jun 27, 2011)

dessiato said:


> My wife has been a long term lurker here, with an average post count of something like 0,01 per day. A few days ago she started her first thread in a very long time. There were some very unkind comments on it. Oddly *some of the posters* posted more than once about how much she was disliked. People here are like this. They don't have the nous to just ignore the threads they don't like and prefer to spit some level of spite. As a result my wife has gone back to lurking which is a shame she is an intelligent and witty individual who could have contributed to a lot of topics here.


erm, I can only see one poster in that thread being rude to your misses, the rest of us were playing nice, and trashpony was only mildly abusive until she started trying to defend her position at which point she just dug herself into a hole. Oddly enough she started trying to justify herself when YMU called her on it, so I'm not entirely sure why you're now laying into YMU (although she may have been a wee bit over the top in the abuse stakes in the brixton cleaners thread).


----------



## Belushi (Jun 27, 2011)

dessiato said:


> Of course it must be impossible to find this out, but it would make an interesting study to find out why so many stop contributing.


 
Actually Stella (cant be bothered with that numbers malarkey) did try something like that a few months back.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 27, 2011)

quimcunx said:


> Really?  It could be arranged.


 
I've got people who do that specially for me. They're not cheap.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 27, 2011)

Belushi said:


> Actually Stella (cant be bothered with that numbers malarkey) did try something like that a few months back.


 
What, exit interviews?


----------



## editor (Jun 27, 2011)

dessiato said:


> Not at all, of course I have noticed. But it is so often the same few who can make it so very difficult for newer posters to become assimilated to the site and for them to contribute in a positive manner. I wonder how many of the new posters, due to the way they feel they are treated, go on to leave very quickly. Of course it must be impossible to find this out, but it would make an interesting study to find out why so many stop contributing.


The very thing that makes some people stay here and post like mad  is the thing that will drive others away, but we're always going to come in second place to Facebook for many net denizens.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 27, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yep. I lost my temper with you momentarily.
> 
> I'm not claiming sainthood here.



That's ok: a saint isn't something I ever mistook you for.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 27, 2011)

Maurice Picarda said:


> What, exit interviews?


 
Mission debriefs, more like it.


----------



## dessiato (Jun 27, 2011)

free spirit said:


> erm, I can only see one poster in that thread being rude to your misses, the rest of us were playing nice, and trashpony was only mildly abusive until she started trying to defend her position at which point she just dug herself into a hole. Oddly enough she started trying to justify herself when YMU called her on it, so I'm not entirely sure why you're now laying into YMU (although she may have been a wee bit over the top in the abuse stakes in the brixton cleaners thread).



I wasn't naming any particular one from that thread. I was commenting about a general situation with a particular poster who chooses to be rude and aggressive. Most of you did play nicely and took the thread in the way it was intended.


----------



## dessiato (Jun 27, 2011)

editor said:


> The very thing that makes some people stay here and post like mad  is the thing that will drive others away, but we're always going to come in second place to Facebook for many net denizens.


 
Second place perhaps, never second best though!


----------



## Crispy (Jun 27, 2011)

My brother came on here once. Said that Dark Side of The Moon was a classic album, got called a twat (or words to that effect) by Dubversion (or other posters to that effect) so he fucked off. He doesn't miss it, but it's a shame.


----------



## Belushi (Jun 27, 2011)

I can kind of see Dubversions point tbf.


----------



## free spirit (Jun 27, 2011)

editor said:


> The main problem is that you rocked up to start a thread on a topic that had already proved contentious.
> 
> Had you searched for the topic first (as requested by the forum's rules) and posted in the right forum *(Brixton Noticeboard)* then the outcome might have been different.
> 
> Instead you posted in a _discussion _forum, and like it or not, that's what you got!


 


editor said:


> When you sign up you're asked to read the forum rules, and I would have thought it was a fairly rudimentary courtesy to search the boards to see if any similar threads had been started first.
> 
> Oh and this non-profit, community funded board  makes no claim to represent anything other than the posters who contribute here. Stick around and you can help alter/enhance that balance - that's the way it works with boards.



eh.



> Brixton Noticeboard: **please read this before posting**
> This is a new virtual noticeboard for posting up local events and local happenings - e.g. campaign meetings, theatre shows, Lambeth council talks, Brixton Village events, Farmers Market updates, small local gigs etc.



if you want new posters to post up threads requesting cleaners in the brixton noticeboard section, you might want to think about altering the wording of the sticky to reflect this.

pointing the finger at a noob for posting a thread in the same place as all other similar threads have previously gone, and not in a forum that looks entirely events related is a bit of an odd way of pursuing your drive to recruit new members. As is this comment at post 6 that opened the floodgates to the later abuse, and meant you'd have looked a bit silly trying to reign that abuse in further down the thread if you'd been so inclined.


editor said:


> Maybe because the demographic here is more of the "clean yer own house you lazy fecker" type?


----------



## TruXta (Jun 27, 2011)

Crispy said:


> My brother came on here once. Said that Dark Side of The Moon was a classic album, got called a twat (or words to that effect) by Dubversion (or other posters to that effect) so he fucked off. He doesn't miss it, but it's a shame.


 
Which is why it there should be a warning to would-be posters in big bold letters - lurk and read before you post, get used to the tone.


----------



## editor (Jun 27, 2011)

Crispy said:


> My brother came on here once. Said that Dark Side of The Moon was a classic album, got called a twat (or words to that effect) by Dubversion (or other posters to that effect) so he fucked off. He doesn't miss it, but it's a shame.


If it was Dubversion, then he would have been called a cunt. Definitely.
There was a wide range of bands that would elicit the same response from an unyielding Dub, and I'd agree that it wasn't a lot of fun for newbies.
Thankfully, he has now found Facebook where he can post up Tune of the Day #4,565,678.076 and never have to argue about the Beatles anymore.


----------



## dessiato (Jun 27, 2011)

Crispy said:


> My brother came on here once. Said that Dark Side of The Moon was a classic album, got called a twat (or words to that effect) by Dubversion (or other posters to that effect) so he fucked off. He doesn't miss it, but it's a shame.


 
This is my point. How many others who might have contributed positively, have gone away? It is a shame that people are chased away by ill mannered baying mob behaviour of the few.

(Dark Side of the Moon IS a classic album, however others are entitled their opinion, no matter how obviously wrong they are)


----------



## editor (Jun 27, 2011)

free spirit said:


> pointing the finger at a noob for posting a thread in the same place as all other similar threads have previously gone, and not in a forum that looks entirely events related is a bit of an odd way of pursuing your drive to recruit new members, as is this comment at post 6 that opened the floodgates to the later abuse, and meant you'd have looked a bit silly trying to reign that abuse in further down the thread if you'd been so inclined.


I do believe I'm entitled to express an opinion in a discussion thread and I'd say 'cleaner wanted' is _exactly_ the sort of thing one would post up on a local noticeboard.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 27, 2011)

Nah, fs. One thing I like about here is that the mods post as themselves. Ed can be touchy, fm can have a short fuse, Mango5 likes winding people up, etc. It's part of the charm of the place.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 27, 2011)

dessiato said:


> This is my point. How many others who might have contributed positively, have gone away? It is a shame that people are chased away by ill mannered baying mob behaviour of the few.
> 
> (Dark Side of the Moon IS a classic album, however others are entitled their opinion, no matter how obviously wrong they are)


 
Well, people are still joining at a steady rate (altho IIRC posting rates are down slightly), so I don't know that baying mobs are scaring off the great civilized masses.


----------



## dessiato (Jun 27, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Well, people are still joining at a steady rate (altho IIRC posting rates are down slightly), so I don't know that baying mobs are scaring off the great civilized masses.


 
It would be interesting to know what the join to leave ratio is.

Personally, I like the site, I think I've learned a lot from it. It has changed my view on some topics, raised my interest on others, but there are others who will be frightened off by the behaviour of the few.

eta The baying mob behaviour of the few is what I actually said


----------



## TitanSound (Jun 27, 2011)

Fuck off.


Sorry. Reflex action.

This place isn't so bad. Stick around a bit longer and you will learn which topics to avoid to avoid being called a cunt. Unless it's affectionate. I have never known another place where the word cunt is used in such a way. But it is here. Often.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 27, 2011)

dessiato said:


> It would be interesting to know what the join to leave ratio is.
> 
> Personally, I like the site, I think I've learned a lot from it. It has changed my view on some topics, raised my interest on others, but _there are others who will be frightened off by the behaviour of the few_.


 
Oh, you mean like every other site I've ever come across? Really, I don't know what you're expecting here.


----------



## lizzieloo (Jun 27, 2011)

I hang out here specifically for the abuse


----------



## Belushi (Jun 27, 2011)

I think niceness is incredibly overrated, I like the fact we can be quite unpleasant.


----------



## dessiato (Jun 27, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Oh, you mean like every other site I've ever come across? Really, I don't know what you're expecting here.



I'm trying to see it from the point of view of newer, or less frequent, posters.



lizzieloo said:


> I hang out here specifically for the abuse



The right sort of punishment for inappropriate behaviour can be rather fun.


----------



## Santino (Jun 27, 2011)

Crispy said:


> I think we could do a lot better with newbie treatment, tbf. But fuck knows how I'd steer the juggernaut - the patterns are well embedded now.



Set out new guidelines, flag it up for a while, and then hand out short sharp bans (ake re-education camp) for infringement. People would soon learn.


----------



## lizzieloo (Jun 27, 2011)

Santino said:


> Set out new guidelines, flag it up for a while, and then hand out short sharp bans (ake re-education camp) for infringement. People would soon learn.



People would soon leave


----------



## free spirit (Jun 27, 2011)

editor said:


> I do believe I'm entitled to express an opinion in a discussion thread


no arguments there, but if you'd be slightly less in his face about it on post 6 of a thread where no abuse had yet been landed then the thread may have followed a slightly less abusive path.

but if you only want to reel noobs onto the site as fresh meat to be fed to the wolves, then carry on.



> and I'd say 'cleaner wanted' is _exactly_ the sort of thing one would post up on a local noticeboard.


the problem is that you haven't said it yet, so you're expecting the OP to be a mind reader, then blaming him for getting abuse for not being very good at mind reading.

looking through the threads on the front page of each brixton forum, it's difficult to see how anyone would conclude that a thread asking for recommendations of good cleaners in brixton should go in the noticeboard section, and not the main section where the existing threads on the front page include threads asking about builders, locksmiths and plant shops.


----------



## Santino (Jun 27, 2011)

lizzieloo said:


> People would soon leave


 
Nah, not because of one new rule. There are already rules against call-out threads. I'm not advocating the ending of abuse, you twat-faced cunt, just arguing that people would soon adapt to a specific new guideline about unwarranted abuse in certain circumstances.


----------



## lizzieloo (Jun 27, 2011)

Santino said:


> Nah, not because of one new rule. There are already rules against call-out threads. I'm not advocating the ending of abuse, you twat-faced cunt, just arguing that people would soon adapt to a specific new guideline about unwarranted abuse in certain circumstances.


----------



## editor (Jun 27, 2011)

free spirit said:


> no arguments there, but if you'd be slightly less in his face about it on post 6 of a thread where no abuse had yet been landed then the thread may have followed a slightly less abusive path.


Sorry, but I'm really not going to take the rap for ANY of the over-the-top abuse that followed. 

As dwyer dutifully pointed out, I simply  expressed the same opinion that I expressed four years ago on the topic!


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 27, 2011)

Crispy said:


> My brother came on here once. Said that Dark Side of The Moon was a classic album, got called a twat (or words to that effect) by Dubversion (or other posters to that effect) so he fucked off. He doesn't miss it, but it's a shame.


 





"Hi everybody! I think Dark Side of the Moon is a classic album!"




"Fuck off, ya twat!"





[runs away] "Waaah!"


----------



## Crispy (Jun 28, 2011)

Yeah pretty much 
He just wasn't cut out for it


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 28, 2011)

dessiato said:


> eta The baying mob behaviour of the few


 the best thing about the site imo


----------



## lizzieloo (Jun 28, 2011)

It's usually not "mob behaviour" IMO it's someone posting here without getting a feel for the place at all then folk expressing similar opinions about what they've posted.

When they get all pissy about it it's just funny, same as if any regular poster gets pissy about something, difference is a regular poster (or someone that's at least got a feel for the place) would expect a ribbing.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 28, 2011)

Belushi said:


> You are coming across as a bit of a knob on this thread tbf. Chill out, dont be so sensitive and you might discover the community has more to offer than just abuse.


well said mate.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 28, 2011)

lizzieloo said:


> It's usually not "mob behaviour" IMO it's someone posting here without getting a feel for the place at all then folk expressing similar opinions about what they've posted.
> 
> When they get all pissy about it it's just funny, same as if any regular poster gets pissy about something, difference is a regular poster (or someone that's at least got a feel for the place) would expect a ribbing.


 
There are times when some posters band together like a dog pack. It's not as much anymore, but it's still there.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jun 28, 2011)




----------



## TruXta (Jun 28, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> There are times when some posters band together like a dog pack. It's not as much anymore, but it's still there.


 
You and phil you mean?


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 28, 2011)

Belushi said:


> You are coming across as a bit of a knob on this thread tbf. Chill out, dont be so sensitive and you might discover the community has more to offer than just abuse.


 
That's what they said when I joined the EDL forums.


----------



## free spirit (Jun 28, 2011)

editor said:


> Sorry, but I'm really not going to take the rap for ANY of the over-the-top abuse that followed.
> 
> As dwyer dutifully pointed out, I simply  expressed the same opinion that I expressed four years ago on the topic!


same opinion, but a little more abusive, and this was a reply to a raw recruit, which is my point, not your ability to express your opinion.

Though tbf, that thread still turned into an almighty train wreck so maybe you just cut to the chase with this one.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 28, 2011)

TruXta said:


> You and phil you mean?


 
Two dogs is a pretty small pack.


----------



## xenon (Jun 28, 2011)

spanglechick said:


> nah - i think quite often if someone you've never met shows up and starts being irritating, it can be quite enjoyable to tell them where to go. she misjudged it. never mind. if she started participating in threads that weren't about her, i'm sure she'd have a much better time.
> 
> urban is generally fine with newbies, unless they draw attention to themselves in a way that gets up people's noses. it's just a social skill - fitting in with new groups of people. online is no different.


 

^ This absolutely.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 28, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> There are times when some posters band together like a dog pack. It's not as much anymore, but it's still there.


like, you mean, people who have the same passionately-held opinion on a particular sensitive issue? yeah, how bizarre.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 28, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> like, you mean, peiople who have the same passionately-held opinion on a particular sensitive issue? yeah, how bizarre.


 
No, I mean when some poster gets identified as fair game, and those who are wont to get their jollies that way, will join in in an abusive kicking that would never be attempted with a more popular poster.


----------



## ymu (Jun 28, 2011)

B-Town said:


> ... "tax-dodging cunt" ... "utterly contemptible human being", "deluded, tiny-minded little shitcunt"


I would like to take credit for these. 

I'd also like to point out that the context for the first was the OP proudly declaring that they paid cash-in-hand, which rapidly morphed into paying them as a contractor when the tax-dodging was pointed out.

The OP was then advised that he should pay the same amount per hour that he earns. Which he considers excessively generous because he earns a fucking fortune and anyone should be grateful to trek to his house once a fortnight and deal with the taxman/DWP for the privilege of cleaning up his shit for £25.

That provided the context for the other insults. Obv.

I would also like it noted that I defended people who needed cleaners and paid them properly, and that the OP is a petulant, whiny, selfish little shitcunt with a highly over-inflated sense of entitlement. And who can't even be arsed to do 15 minutes extra housework a week if he can pay someone else a pittance to do it.

Better read the rest of the thread now. I do hope it's been going well.


----------



## ymu (Jun 28, 2011)

dessiato said:


> My wife has been a long term lurker here, with an average post count of something like 0,01 per day. A few days ago she started her first thread in a very long time. There were some very unkind comments on it. Oddly some of the posters posted more than once about how much she was disliked. People here are like this. They don't have the nous to just ignore the threads they don't like and prefer to spit some level of spite. As a result my wife has gone back to lurking which is a shame she is an intelligent and witty individual who could have contributed to a lot of topics here.
> 
> Ignore the rude posters. Ymu seems to prefer to be aggressive and rude when given the chance. She is not truly representative of most posters. She seems to have the intelligence and knowledge of most things that no others have. The majority of us will not spit bile at you because we disagree with your views. Most will tell you that they disagree, sometimes forcibly, but seldom with vitriol.


 
I'd also like it noted that I defended your wife, quite strongly. That doesn't mean you can't attack me for being aggressive - it is so terribly unladylike and utterly unacceptable, I know. I'd just like to point out that I find it a bit weird to read you complaining about how your wife was treated and then in the same breath go on to slag off someone who stuck up for her.

But I'm mental so I wouldn't worry about it. Your behaviour is probably quite normal. I'd not know.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 28, 2011)

ymu said:


> The OP was then advised that he should pay the same amount per hour that he earns.


 
Why in heaven's name should he do that?


----------



## ymu (Jun 28, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Why in heaven's name should he do that?


 
I have no idea. I think it's unrealistic to expect a self-employed individual to work on itty-bitty hour-or-two here and there jobs for the same hourly rate as someone doing a full-time job, because most people doing a full-time job aren't earning enough an hour to make that reasonable.

The OP is earning plenty more, and seems to think that his time should be valued more highly than the time of the person who is coming to clean his house, despite their having higher over-heads and travel time, zero benefits and no job security.

My preferred approach is outlined in the thread. With maths.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 28, 2011)

ymu said:


> I have no idea. I think it's unrealistic to expect a self-employed individual to work on itty-bitty hour-or-two here and there jobs for the same hourly rate as someone doing a full-time job, because most people doing a full-time job aren't earning enough an hour to make that reasonable.
> 
> The OP is earning plenty more, and seems to think that his time should be valued more highly than the time of the person who is coming to clean his house, despite their having higher over-heads and travel time, zero benefits and no job security.
> 
> My preferred approach is outlined in the thread. With maths.


 

I think what you pay is the going rate, just like you do for other services.

If the neurosurgeon is going to pay the cleaner his neurosurgery hourly rate, why not just quit and clean instead? Cleaning is way less stressful.


----------



## ymu (Jun 28, 2011)

It isn't less stressful at all. That's why the life expectancy of a neurosurgeon is so much higher than the life expectancy of a cleaner. The more senior you are in an organisation, the less likely you are to have a heart attack. The stress is in poverty and routine disrespect, not the possibility that you might kill someone. All doctors have killed someone, they aren't proper doctors until they have. If they're dangerously incompetent, they'll get shunted into a role where they can do no harm. Neurosurgeons have a pretty cushy life.

To do a two hour cleaning job once a fortnight, the cleaner is travelling for two hour's worth of paid work - that's a lot of time and money spent for a two hour job. They have to find a different job to fill that two hour slot in the off-weeks. They are responsible for their own tax returns, holiday pay, sick pay and pension. They have to spend time touting for work, and losing a client can mean a big hole in their finances. The insecurity is considerable.

Which is why contractors typically charge 3x the standard PAYE hourly rate, because they have higher costs and their administrative time has to be paid for too. The living wage in London is around £8. So, £24/hour is reasonable. The OP was calling half that generous.

Which is a bit insulting, unless you regard cleaners as lesser human beings who should be grateful for crumbs, in which case it is really fucking insulting.

And now he's whining about being insulted back.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 28, 2011)

ymu said:


> It isn't less stressful at all. .


 
I've been a cleaner in my life, and I've been a professional. Cleaner is less stressful. As a cleaner, I never lay awake at night thinking about that day's work, and about the deadlines awaiting me tomorrow. As a cleaner, I never worried that my customers would sue me if they were unhappy with some aspect of my work. As a cleaner, my work didn't involve life and death, or large sums of money hanging in the balance.

Don't get me wrong: there are of course aspects of professional work that are satisfying. But along with the money and the satisfaction, come tremendous stress, ill health, marital discord etc etc etc.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 28, 2011)

ymu said:


> The more senior you are in an organisation, the less likely you are to have a heart attack..


 



I've watched people have heart attacks, right in our offices.  More than once.  It was never the cleaners.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jun 28, 2011)

Fuck off

Can't Believe no else has posted this ones posted this....


----------



## ymu (Jun 28, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I've been a cleaner in my life, and I've been a professional. Cleaner is less stressful. As a cleaner, I never lay awake at night thinking about that day's work, and about the deadlines awaiting me tomorrow. As a cleaner, I never worried that my customers would sue me if they were unhappy with some aspect of my work. As a cleaner, my work didn't involve life and death, or large sums of money hanging in the balance.
> 
> Don't get me wrong: there are of course aspects of professional work that are satisfying. But along with the money and the satisfaction, come tremendous stress, ill health, marital discord etc etc etc.



I've been a cleaner too. I wouldn't swap back for the same money, would you? And if you wouldn't, why should anyone else accept less than your wage for a job you wouldn't deign to do for that money?


----------



## ymu (Jun 28, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I've watched people have heart attacks, right in our offices.  More than once.  It was never the cleaners.


 
Confirmation bias. Anecdote is not data. Etc etc. You need to check whether it's actually true before you make such statements:



> Lancet. 1991 Jun 8;337(8754):1387-93.
> Health inequalities among British civil servants: the Whitehall II study.
> Marmot MG, Smith GD, Stansfeld S, Patel C, North F, Head J, White I, Brunner E, Feeney A.
> Source
> ...


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 28, 2011)

ymu said:


> I've been a cleaner too. I wouldn't swap back for the same money, would you?



Nope. I also had  to go to school for seven years before they'd let me do the job I do now.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 28, 2011)

ymu said:


> Confirmation bias. Anecdote is not data. Etc etc. You need to check whether it's actually true before you make such statements:


 
Who knows. All that bangers and mash can't be good for a body.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 28, 2011)

ymu said:


> And if you wouldn't, why should anyone else accept less than your wage for a job you wouldn't deign to do for that money?



But when I was a cleaner I accepted that money. I've done different jobs at different stages of my life, all for different wages.

Back when I was a cleaner, the people I cleaned for had more money than me.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 28, 2011)

ymu said:


> I've been a cleaner too.


 
Why? Did they pay you neurosurgeon money, and if why not, why didn't you turn your nose up at the prospect of that work?


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 28, 2011)

Crispy said:


> My brother came on here once. Said that Dark Side of The Moon was a classic album, got called a twat (or words to that effect) by Dubversion (or other posters to that effect) so he fucked off. He doesn't miss it, but it's a shame.


 
Coincidentally, much the same happened to my brother, although he still posts.


----------



## ymu (Jun 28, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Nope. I also had  to school for seven years before they'd let me do the job I do now.


So what? You took a lower income for one sixth of your working life in order to do a more enjoyable job and earn higher wages for the rest of it. What makes you think you deserve to earn more per hour than someone who is dealing with all their own paperwork and gets no benefits? 

You weren't required to sacrifice your firstborn child. You didn't have to win some heroic Olympian competition to secure your place. You were just lucky enough to have the opportunity to improve your prospects by doing a different sort of work for seven years. There is a limit to how much of a wage differential you can justify on that basis.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 28, 2011)

ymu said:


> So what? You took a lower income for one sixth of your working life in order to do a more enjoyable job and earn higher wages for the rest of it. What makes you think you deserve to earn more per hour than someone who is dealing with all their own paperwork and gets no benefits?
> 
> You weren't required to sacrifice your firstborn child. You didn't have to win some heroic Olympian competition to secure your place. You were just lucky enough to have the opportunity to improve your prospects by doing a different sort of work for seven years. There is a limit to how much of a wage differential you can justify on that basis.


 

Luck had nothing to do with it. I come from a family of very limited means.


----------



## ymu (Jun 28, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Who knows. All that bangers and mash can't be good for a body.


It's a longitudinal study of 30,000 people Johnny. You don't get to say 'who knows' when I contrast it with your anecdote. You can critique the study, you can come up with alternative evidence and explain why it supports your position. But you don't get to draw equivalence between a massive decades long study and the  media myths you drag out of your brain.

Show us how working-class life expectancy is longer. Or stress-related disease incidence if you like. Evidence, Johnny, evidence. The world is as it is, not as you would like it to be.



Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Why? Did they pay you neurosurgeon money, and if why not, why didn't you turn your nose up at the prospect of that work?


 
Huh? I was a public sector scientist moonlighting at the weekend for double-time on Saturdays and triple-time on Sundays and doubled my income as a result. It was the only way I could make ends meet, because those fatcat public sector salaries just aren't enough for a greedy spendthrift like me.


----------



## ymu (Jun 28, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Luck had nothing to do with it. I come from a family of very limited means.


Which means luck had plenty to do with it. Or were you under the impression that everyone who tries to beat the odds succeeds?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 28, 2011)

ymu said:


> It's a longitudinal study of 30,000 people Johnny. You don't get to say 'who knows' when I contrast it with your anecdote. You can critique the study, you can come up with alternative evidence and explain why it supports your position. But you don't get to draw equivalence between a massive decades long study and the  media myths you drag out of your brain.


 
If you're a scientist, you know that there are a multitude of factors that could account for the discrepancy, aside from the simple fact of the different job descriptions.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 28, 2011)

ymu said:


> Which means luck had plenty to do with it. Or were you under the impression that everyone who tries to beat the odds succeeds?


 
What are you talking about: what odds?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 28, 2011)

ymu said:


> Huh? I was a public sector scientist moonlighting at the weekend for double-time on Saturdays and triple-time on Sundays and doubled my income as a result. It was the only way I could make ends meet, because those fatcat public sector salaries just aren't enough for a greedy spendthrift like me.


 
Huh. I did it because I had just moved here, had no training, and I needed money. After cleaner, I moved up to store clerk. I didn't get a neurosurgeon's wages to do that, either.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 28, 2011)

ymu said:


> So what? You took a lower income for one sixth of your working life in order to do a more enjoyable job and earn higher wages for the rest of it. .



There is no connection between my working as a cleaner and my other occupations later in life. Mostly I used that money to pay rent, buy some food, and then go to the bar and get drunk.


----------



## ymu (Jun 28, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> If you're a scientist, you know that there are a multitude of factors that could account for the discrepancy, aside from the simple fact of the different job descriptions.


 
Indeed. Which is why I am looking forward to your detailed critique of the study, and presentation of the more robust evidence you base your statements of fact on.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 28, 2011)

ymu said:


> Indeed. Which is why I am looking forward to your detailed critique of the study, and presentation of the more robust evidence you base your statements of fact on.


 
You'll be waiting some time, because it ain't gonna happen.


----------



## Badgers (Jun 28, 2011)

I used to be a cleaner and quite enjoyed it actually. Wages were okay, better than bar/restaurant/retail work I could get at the time.


----------



## ymu (Jun 28, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> What are you talking about: what odds?


It's a well known fact that every kid that tries hard succeeds, Johnny. If they don't, they have only themselves to blame. If only everyone applied themselves, there'd be no such thing as minimum wage jobs.

Is that what you think? That the moment you decided to study past school level - a free choice that everyone gets, of course if only they want to do it - you were destined to succeed, because everyone who tries to succeed does succeed.

It's an unusual approach, I'll grant you.


----------



## ymu (Jun 28, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> You'll be waiting some time, because it ain't gonna happen.


 
And I was so looking forward to your incisive analysis that showed it was misleading compared to your personal impression of what actually happens.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 28, 2011)

ymu said:


> And I was so looking forward to your incisive analysis that showed it was misleading compared to your personal impression of what actually happens.


 
Life's a bitch; and then you die.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 28, 2011)

ymu said:


> It's a well known fact that every kid that tries hard succeeds, Johnny..



You're living in a fantasy world. Some kids are smarter than others. If you want a job that involves study and learning, the smarter ones have a way better chance than the dumber ones. For some people, trying their best isn't good enough.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 28, 2011)

ymu said:


> That the moment you decided to study past school level - a free choice that everyone gets,


 

In Canada, you have to pay through the nose to go past school level. I was in debt up to my eyeballs for years.  Wait: what am I saying 'was'?


----------



## ymu (Jun 28, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> You're living in a fantasy world. Some kids are smarter than others. If you want a job that involves study and learning, the smarter ones have a way better chance than the dumber ones. For some people, trying their best isn't good enough.


 
So you were lucky. 

Make your mind up.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 28, 2011)

So your response to being presented with the most incredible study of tens of thousands of people over decades of their life is to stick your fingers in your ears and just say "don't wanna?". You have literally no intention whatsoever of entertaining the beginnings of the idea that your perception might just possibly be wrong?

Wow.  Really, wow.  I don't know what you do in your professional job but I dearly hope it doesn't involve having to analyse and synthesis information before making decisions off the back of it.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 28, 2011)

ymu said:


> So you were lucky.
> 
> Make your mind up.


 
Whatever I am, flows from all that went before. Chance played no part in it, therefore, luck wasn't involved.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 28, 2011)

kabbes said:


> So your response to being presented with the most incredible study of tens of thousands of people over decades of their life is to stick your fingers in your ears and just say "don't wanna?". You have literally no intention whatsoever of entertaining the beginnings of the idea that your perception might just possibly be wrong?
> 
> Wow.  Really, wow.  I don't know what you do in your professional job but I dearly hope it doesn't involve having to analyse and synthesis information before making decisions off the back of it.


 

Don't worry. It involves throwing darts at little pieces of paper stuck to the wall, and going with whatever's written on the one that gets hit.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 28, 2011)

Chance is the chief ingredient of pretty much everything, at least at the local level.  At the universal level, I'd argue that there is an inevitability to it all, meaning that free will is eliminated.  Either way, there is a limit to the credit one can personally take for one's successes.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 28, 2011)

> Don't worry. It involves throwing darts at little pieces of paper stuck to the wall, and going with whatever's written on the one that gets hit.



Jolly good.  Glad to see you're putting seven years' study to good use and justifying your much higher income and stress levels.  Hope that none of the darts land in "sue me"!


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 28, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Jolly good.  Glad to see you're putting seven years' study to good use and justifying your much higher income and stress levels.  Hope that none of the darts land in "sue me"!


 
Me too!

And............ did I miss a post or two? The part about where I have to justify something?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 28, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Chance is the chief ingredient of pretty much everything, at least at the local level.  At the universal level, I'd argue that there is an inevitability to it all, meaning that free will is eliminated.  Either way, there is a limit to the credit one can personally take for one's successes.


 
Next time you go to a concert, don't bother clapping. Don't be giving credit to the musician for something he got through chance.


----------



## ymu (Jun 28, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Chance is the chief ingredient of pretty much everything, at least at the local level.  At the universal level, I'd argue that there is an inevitability to it all, meaning that free will is eliminated.  Either way, there is a limit to the credit one can personally take for one's successes.


 
I'm not sure that zooming out so far that you can't see the trees means the trees don't actually exist.

At the quantum level, yes, the Venus de Milo could suddenly wave at us if all the atoms in her arm happened to move in a particular way at a particular time. But the zooming out means that this is basically never going to happen - the average movement of the atoms will be invisible to the naked eye, and irrelevant.

I don't think you can apply that to free will and human history though. No one who asks this question actually wants to zoom out far enough that it is irrelevant if I murder you tomorrow or not. At any level, that is a choice that matters to the human questioner, I think.

But I'm shit at philosophy.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 28, 2011)

The point I'm trying to get at is that any level of employment will have its advantages and drawbacks. Professionals of all stripes can have the specter of litigation hanging over them, thanks to our litigious society. I don't know if that justifies higher salaries, but it's a job factor that isn't present for a lot of other types of workers.


----------



## ymu (Jun 28, 2011)

Their employers and/or clients cover the cost of their professional indemnity insurance.

Any reason you place the possibility of litigation - rare in most professions, unless you're shit at the job - above other aspects which differentiate jobs? Should hard physical work be rewarded more highly than a desk job? Is physical risk less important than legal or financial risk? How about disgusting smells and unpleasant tasks? Would you work down a sewer for your current pay?


----------



## kabbes (Jun 28, 2011)

Johnny, I'm in the category judged riskiest of all by E+O insurers -- as they say, lawyers get sued for millions, accountants for tens of millions and actuaries for hundreds of millions.  Other than ensuring I do *nothing* without a thought to how I would justify it on the stand, this really doesn't cause me sleepless nights.  It's actually far less stressful to have this abstract, insured, controllable and corporate background threat than it is to be immediately and viscerally worried for personal safety (as per many physical jobs) or at the individual level (like being a cleaner and fucking up somebody else's stuff).


----------



## Santino (Jun 28, 2011)

You're really covering yourself in glory here, Johnny.


----------



## ymu (Jun 28, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Johnny, I'm in the category judged riskiest of all by E+O insurers -- as they say, lawyers get sued for millions, accountants for tens of millions and actuaries for hundreds of millions.  Other than ensuring I do *nothing* without a thought to how I would justify it on the stand, this really doesn't cause me sleepless nights.  It's actually far less stressful to have this abstract, insured, controllable and corporate background threat than it is to be immediately and viscerally worried for personal safety (as per many physical jobs) or at the individual level (like being a cleaner and fucking up somebody else's stuff).


 
Or just constantly having to choose which bills are going to get paid this month, and whether there's going to be money for the meter if you buy enough food to last the week.

Substantially more stressful and life-shortening than sitting in an office feeling powerful.


----------



## B-Town (Jun 28, 2011)

ymu said:


> You were just lucky enough to have the opportunity to improve your prospects by doing a different sort of work for seven years. There is a limit to how much of a wage differential you can justify on that basis.


 
Everybody has the opportunity to better themselves, you do not need a qualification to gain a promotion. Just apply for a job in a heirachal business - such as a shop. People who sit on their arse claiming they never had an opportunity make me sick, stop being a cunt and get some ambition


----------



## killer b (Jun 28, 2011)

Yeah, pull your fucking socks up ffs.


----------



## killer b (Jun 28, 2011)

A glorious life as a macdonalds shift supervisor awaits anyone with enough ambition.


----------



## B-Town (Jun 28, 2011)

And what is wrong with working in MacDonald’s? They are one of the worlds best employers, flexible hours, invest in their staff, offer opportunities to travel round the world. Oh, no, wait - it's a minimum wage job so U75 looks down on it, whilst anyone earning more than minimum wage is chastised. The hypocrisy of the contributors on here is unreal.


----------



## fractionMan (Jun 28, 2011)

lol

tell you what, how about you come and install my new toilet for £8 an hour.

I think there might be some syphon action involved


----------



## Santino (Jun 28, 2011)

"Flexible hours" lol.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 28, 2011)

B-Town said:


> And what is wrong with working in MacDonald’s? They are one of the worlds best employers, flexible hours, invest in their staff, offer opportunities to travel round the world. Oh, no, wait - it's a minimum wage job so U75 looks down on it, whilst anyone earning more than minimum wage is chastised. The hypocrisy of the contributors on here is unreal.


 
You ever worked in McDonalds?


----------



## ymu (Jun 28, 2011)

B-Town said:


> Everybody has the opportunity to better themselves, you do not need a qualification to gain a promotion. Just apply for a job in a heirachal business - such as a shop. People who sit on their arse claiming they never had an opportunity make me sick, stop being a cunt and get some ambition


But what if I'm happy doing what I do? Why shouldn't I be paid a decent day's pay for a decent day's work? 

The main problem with your fantasy view of the world is that it assumes that the opportunity exists for all. That in a hierarchical system, within an already advanced economy, it is possible for someone to move up without someone else moving down.

One third of the workforce earn less than £15k. Those low-paid jobs won't disappear, no matter how hard people work to 'better' themselves. You just end up with call centre workers needing degrees, and gardeners, and child-minders  ... will you pay your cleaner properly when he had a PhD? Or will he have to be professionally qualified too to deserve that?

Try using your brain a little more carefully, and I might stop calling you a cunt.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 28, 2011)

B-Town said:


> Everybody has the opportunity to better themselves, you do not need a qualification to gain a promotion. Just apply for a job in a heirachal business - such as a shop. People who sit on their arse claiming they never had an opportunity make me sick, stop being a cunt and get some ambition


 
OK, I didn't read your original thread and I was reserving judgement.  But it turns out you really _are_ a cunt.  And it would probably be best if you really did just cunt off.


----------



## ymu (Jun 28, 2011)

kabbes, how come you are always right?


----------



## ChrisSouth (Jun 28, 2011)

Puddy_Tat said:


> have i done something wrong?
> 
> i've been here a while and i don't think anyone's called me a cunt yet...


 
Me neither. I'm really disappointed. What do you have to do round here to be called a cunt?


----------



## kabbes (Jun 28, 2011)

ChrisSouth said:


> What do you have to do round here to be called a cunt?


 
Be a cunt.


----------



## B-Town (Jun 28, 2011)

Pretty much every other member of my family earns less than £15k, despite this they do not seem to have the resentment for others displayed through here. 

Yes, I have worked in McDonalds, and one of my friends (from a council estate) is currently traveling round the world on a MacDonalds passport - allowing you to work in any country you visit - thus funding the trip.

There is a core on here who revel in feeling sorry for themselves and oppreseed when I believe they could do something about it... e.g. I take online surveys, they take 5 mins and each one pays 50p or a £1 - at the end of the day it's an extra tenner a week (or an hours cleaning!)


----------



## kabbes (Jun 28, 2011)

ymu said:


> kabbes, how come you are always right?


 
Seven years' professional training and a fear of being sued.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 28, 2011)

B-Town said:


> e.g. I take online surveys, they take 5 mins and each one pays 50p or a £1 - at the end of the day it's an extra tenner a week (or an hours cleaning!)


 
Glad to see that you are _bettering_ yourself.


----------



## Santino (Jun 28, 2011)

Isn't he a little... too obvious?


----------



## ymu (Jun 28, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Be a cunt.


 
Or catch me in a bad mood, tbf. But still, I think my 'deserved it' hit rate is pretty high.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 28, 2011)

Crispy said:


> You ever worked in McDonalds?



I have.

It was absolutely the most disgusting job I've ever had.  Anyone who suggests that it is anything other than the vilest form of exploitation is insane.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 28, 2011)

santino said:


> you're weally convewing yourself in glowy waa waa blaa blaa




shaaaduppp!


----------



## two sheds (Jun 28, 2011)

B-Town said:


> Pretty much every other member of my family earns less than £15k, despite this they do not seem to have the resentment for others displayed through here.


 
I think you'll find that the 'resentment' is not on behalf of the posters themselves, who will often be in a reasonably or well paying job, but on behalf of the overwhelming majority of people in society who are forced into low paid jobs because that's all there is. That has certain implications for peoples' prospects for feeding themselves, let alone buying a house and effects on their life expectancy, for example. 

My own view is that if you don't get angry at what's going on, you're just not paying attention.


----------



## ymu (Jun 28, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Glad to see that you are _bettering_ yourself.


I'm a bit concerned that someone who has found work that pays £6-12/hour is only making an extra tenner a week from it. I think some clever maths type has conned his simple brain.

If only he'd learnt how to use it properly.


----------



## IC3D (Jun 28, 2011)

Cleaners like the one that checked in on my Gran every day and got some extra cash to help look after her disabled son or the Brazilian who cleans my mates flat here on a student visa or the one that cleans for my child's mum while hers is at the grandparents none of them feel exploited its bout tax free cash and none of them rely on it solely this thread is mental.


----------



## Santino (Jun 28, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> shaaaduppp!



You're upset about not understanding that formal logic I posted up, aren't you?


----------



## ymu (Jun 28, 2011)

Be reasonable, Santino. Cleaning is woman's work. They can hardly expect the same legal protections as afforded to 'real' workers. And they don't need the money because they have a husband or father paying the bills. And if they don't like it, some immigrant will happily agree to be exploited instead. There's really no need to get worked up about it. It's just the way the world is and there's no point trying to change it.


----------



## fractionMan (Jun 28, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> I have.
> 
> It was absolutely the most disgusting job I've ever had.  Anyone who suggests that it is anything other than the vilest form of exploitation is insane.


 
I did stints in Kentucky and Spud-u-like.  Sacked from the first and made redundant from the second.  Shit employers both.


----------



## killer b (Jun 28, 2011)

Santino said:


> Isn't he a little... too obvious?


 
i was uncertain at first, but that macdonalds post took it well over the edge...


----------



## Santino (Jun 28, 2011)

killer b said:


> i was uncertain at first, but that macdonalds post took it well over the edge...


 
It was the rhetorically convenient family circumstances that did it for me.


----------



## Belushi (Jun 28, 2011)

I bet he's received hundreds of pm's of support.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 28, 2011)

I still say he's just a cunt, genuine or no.


----------



## editor (Jun 28, 2011)

B-Town said:


> And what is wrong with working in MacDonald’s? They are one of the worlds best employers, flexible hours, invest in their staff, offer opportunities to travel round the world. Oh, no, wait - it's a minimum wage job so U75 looks down on it, whilst anyone earning more than minimum wage is chastised. The hypocrisy of the contributors on here is unreal.


----------



## editor (Jun 28, 2011)

B-Town said:


> Everybody has the opportunity to better themselves, you do not need a qualification to gain a promotion. Just apply for a job in a heirachal business - such as a shop. People who sit on their arse claiming they never had an opportunity make me sick, stop being a cunt and get some ambition


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jun 28, 2011)

B-Town said:


> Yes, I have worked in McDonalds, and one of my friends (from a council estate) is currently traveling round the world on a MacDonalds passport - allowing you to work in any country you visit - thus funding the trip.


 
Countries all over the world waive their employment regulations on McDonalds say so? Bollocks.


----------



## killer b (Jun 28, 2011)

the mcpassport is EU only, apparently.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 28, 2011)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Countries all over the world waive their employment regulations on McDonalds say so? Bollocks.


 
Not a McDonald passpart, a _Macdonald_ passpart.  As in Sir Ken Macdonald QC, British barrister, Director of Public Prosecutions and Head of the Crown Prosecution Service (2003–2008).  Borrow his passport and you can go wherever the fuck you want.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jun 28, 2011)

killer b said:


> the mcpassport is EU only, apparently.



The EU you can work in with a regular passport from any EU country? How useful.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 28, 2011)

B-Town said:


> Yes, I have worked in McDonalds, and one of my friends (from a council estate) is currently traveling round the world on a MacDonalds passport



Come on, is no one going to design one then?

I was expecting one within 10 posts.  Slackers.


----------



## killer b (Jun 28, 2011)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> The EU you can work in with a regular passport from any EU country? How useful.


 
indeed. 

i think it just demonstrates to the manager of macdonalds in madrid that you are a competent burger flipper or whatever, without him having to get on the blower to the manager of the place you worked at in penge.

not really a massive selling point for the company, tbh.


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 28, 2011)

Crispy said:


> I think we could do a lot better with newbie treatment, tbf. But fuck knows how I'd steer the juggernaut - the patterns are well embedded now.


 
Yeah, people forget how they come across to others sometimes.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 28, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> Yeah, people forget how they come across to others sometimes.


 
I don't think they forget.  I think they do the opposite of forget.  Erm, thingy, you know.  _Remember_, that's it.  I think they remember.


----------



## B-Town (Jun 28, 2011)

Belushi said:


> I bet he's received hundreds of pm's of support.


 
very little support through PM

I am not Tory, I am Labour (although best of a bad bunch). But then isn't it a left opinion that you can achieve anything regardless of class or background?

That said, I am openly middle class!


----------



## B-Town (Jun 28, 2011)

which of course makes me a cunt


----------



## kabbes (Jun 28, 2011)

B-Town said:


> which of course makes me a cunt


 
No, the fact that you are a cunt is what makes you a cunt.


----------



## Santino (Jun 28, 2011)

I'm crypto-middle class.


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 28, 2011)

kabbes said:


> I don't think they forget.  I think they do the opposite of forget.  Erm, thingy, you know.  _Remember_, that's it.  I think they remember.


 
OK I now officially don't understand anything on this thread.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 28, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> OK I now officially don't understand anything on this thread.


 
Sometimes people act like cunts on purpose because they want to be cuntish.  They haven't forgotten that they are being cuntish.  Being cunty is the whole point.


----------



## ymu (Jun 28, 2011)

B-Town said:


> very little support through PM
> 
> I am not Tory, I am Labour (although best of a bad bunch). But then isn't it a left opinion that you can achieve anything regardless of class or background?
> 
> That said, I am openly middle class!


 
You're trying to make us think you're not a cunt by claiming that Labour is on the left.

And you say you've been reading the boards a while.

So you are either a returning troll - and therefore a cunt - or a really stupid liar - and therefore also a cunt.


----------



## editor (Jun 28, 2011)

B-Town said:


> very little support through PM
> 
> I am not Tory, I am Labour (although best of a bad bunch). But then isn't it a left opinion that you can achieve anything regardless of class or background?
> 
> That said, I am openly middle class!


Tell us more why you think the McDonalds are so wonderful. 



> McMunchies (UK)
> In 1996, McDonald's forced Scottish sandwich shop owner Mary Blair of Fenny Stratford, Buckinghamshire to drop McMunchies as her trading name. Mrs. Blair did not sell burgers or chips. She said she chose the name because she liked the word munchies and wanted the cafe to have a Scottish feel. The cafe's sign reflected this, featuring a Scottish thistle and a St Andrew's flag. But in a statement to Mrs. Blair's solicitors, *McDonald's said if someone used the Mc prefix, even unintentionally, they were using something that does not belong to them*
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_legal_cases


They even stole off Viz, FFS!


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jun 28, 2011)

TBF preventing someone from calling their shop 'McMunchies' is doing them a favour.


----------



## editor (Jun 28, 2011)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> TBF preventing someone from calling their shop 'McMunchies' is doing them a favour.


I rather like it. It instantly brings to mind top level Scottish cuisine like Mars Bars in batter.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 28, 2011)

B-Town said:


> And what is wrong with working in MacDonald’s? They are one of the worlds best employers, flexible hours, invest in their staff, offer opportunities to travel round the world. Oh, no, wait - it's a minimum wage job so U75 looks down on it, whilst anyone earning more than minimum wage is chastised. The hypocrisy of the contributors on here is unreal.


Are you serious?
you're _mental_


----------



## ymu (Jun 28, 2011)

Language, Timothy. He's willfully ignorant and a rather nasty piece of work. He is not mentally ill, as far as we know.

He appears to think that the minimum wage pays enough to live on. Wonder if he knows how much it is. And what the poverty level is. And why he thinks we should be paying housing benefit to people in full-time work, just so that selfish cunts like him can live in London but not pay their employees enough to afford local rents.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 28, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> In Canada, you have to pay through the nose to go past school level. I was in debt up to my eyeballs for years.  Wait: what am I saying 'was'?


and you think that is in everyone's best interest, or conducive to developing a high-skilled, educated populace?


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 28, 2011)

ymu said:


> Language, Timothy. He's willfully ignorant and a rather nasty piece of work. He is not mentally ill, as far as we know.
> 
> He appears to think that the minimum wage pays enough to live on. Wonder if he knows how much it is. And what the poverty level is. And why he thinks we should be paying housing benefit to people in full-time work, just so that selfish cunts like him can live in London but not pay their employees enough to afford local rents.


yeah, you're right. He's not a nutter. He is, however, either a dickhead or a grade-A cunt.
ooh good, my first 'cunt' of the year....


----------



## ska invita (Jun 28, 2011)

as i posted once before, i tried to talk a couple of people into joining up on the boards, but they immediately both found it too aggressive and abusive. I dont know how urban stands compared to other boards, but i expect its much the same everywhere - or is it?


----------



## London_Calling (Jun 28, 2011)

ymu said:


> Language, Timothy. He's willfully ignorant and a rather nasty piece of work. He is not mentally ill, as far as we know.
> 
> He appears to think that the minimum wage pays enough to live on. Wonder if he knows how much it is. And what the poverty level is. And why he thinks we should be paying housing benefit to people in full-time work, just so that selfish cunts like him can live in London but not pay their employees enough to afford local rents.


I've seen you do this before in the politics forum; not talking directly to the person you don't like but, instead, trying to build a group of 'like-minded' posters who will join you in the sneering and abuse. It's really not very far from bullying. And it's becoming your MO.

You won't listen because you seem pretty lost in your internet experience atm but, imo, you really should take a break for a bit.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 28, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Me too!
> 
> And............ did I miss a post or two? The part about where I have to justify something?


Yeah, the point where ymu duffed your argument with an authoritative stat study, and you effectively said "yeah so what?"


----------



## B-Town (Jun 28, 2011)

ymu said:


> Language, Timothy. He's willfully ignorant and a rather nasty piece of work. He is not mentally ill, as far as we know.
> 
> YMU you are a dreg of society who twists and manipulates peoples comments to push your own political stance. At no point have I ever claimed that I will support housing benefit for full-time workers. What I did say was I would pay someone cash in hand - sitting the example that if this is to the wife of a provider it could contribute to a little bonus.
> 
> ...


----------



## Crispy (Jun 28, 2011)

ska invita said:


> as i posted once before, i tried to talk a couple of people into joining up on the boards, but they immediately both found it too aggressive and abusive. I dont know how urban stands compared to other boards, but i expect its much the same everywhere - or is it?


 
The moderation on urban is by far the most permissive I've experienced, outside of forums whose USP is their lawlessness. Normal places on the internet would have banned half the posters on this thread long ago. One forum I read will happily prune entire pages from a thread if it goes off topic, and ban the people who took it off topic for a month. Nobody bats an eyelid.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 28, 2011)

B-Town said:


> YMU you are a dreg of society who twists and manipulates peoples comments to push your own political stance. At no point have I ever claimed that I will support housing benefit for full-time workers. What I did say was I would pay someone cash in hand - sitting the example that if this is to the wife of a provider it could contribute to a little bonus.
> 
> You are clearly one of those people who likes to feel oppressed, it's because I am poor. it's because I am female - I have sympathy with poverty - however, in a global scale I actually don’t think things are that bad in the UK. So any charity I try and direct towards Africa.
> 
> I am also relatively young, so maybe my ideas are naive - but I fear the only 'nasty piece of work' on this site is you - at the end of the day this whole thread is based out of your intolerable way of speaking to people.


Let me explain PRECISELY what has happened here; you've talked a load of politically braindead, ignorant utter bullshit - and you've been called on it. EVERYTHING you've posted here is either trolling, or sub-_Daily Mail_, ill-thought-through, ill-informed, reactionary tripe. If you're gonna post the words of a cunt, that's what you'll get called.
Clear enough?
And ymu has been relatively mild here, compared to what could justifiably be said to you.


----------



## B-Town (Jun 28, 2011)

Crispy said:


> The moderation on urban is by far the most permissive I've experienced, outside of forums whose USP is their lawlessness. Normal places on the internet would have banned half the posters on this thread long ago. One forum I read will happily prune entire pages from a thread if it goes off topic, and ban the people who took it off topic for a month. Nobody bats an eyelid.


 
I would not want U75 to be modirated, however have you seen how yahoo answers works (and many others) where you give a thumbs up or down to a post. This then allows people to see if one post is reflective of the rest of the forum. 

i.e. some one calls me a cunt, everyone gives it thumbs up, we except the forum thinks i'm a cunt. 
someone posts that calling someon is a cunt is probably a bit extreme for a new comer in search of a cleaner, more thumbs up, ppl think about what they post. 

If by having lots of negative thumbs down next to your post i believe it would make you consider what you type and challenge our ideolgy further. 

Before everyone posts pictures of thumbs, lets just except I am a cunt, here on behalf of the David Cameron, paid for by the Telegraph.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 28, 2011)

Crispy said:


> The moderation on urban is by far the most permissive I've experienced, outside of forums whose USP is their lawlessness. Normal places on the internet would have banned half the posters on this thread long ago. One forum I read will happily prune entire pages from a thread if it goes off topic, and ban the people who took it off topic for a month. Nobody bats an eyelid.


 
Sounds either incredibly boring or incredibly useful.


----------



## London_Calling (Jun 28, 2011)

Nah, ymu is trying to bully.



> He is not mentally ill, as far as we know


etc, etc.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 28, 2011)

FWIW if I hired a cleaner and they asked to be paid cash in hand I wouldn't bat an eyelid. More power to them.

edit - no I don't have one, I am the cleaner in this household.


----------



## two sheds (Jun 28, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> You won't listen because you seem pretty lost in your internet experience atm but, imo, you really should take a break for a bit.


 
Nah the boards would be a poorer place without ymu.


----------



## editor (Jun 28, 2011)

B-Town said:


> I would not want U75 to be modirated, however have you seen how yahoo answers works (and many others) where you give a thumbs up or down to a post. This then allows people to see if one post is reflective of the rest of the forum.


New forum software (which we're currently testing) has this function and we hope to implement it soon.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 28, 2011)

editor said:


> New forum software (which we're currently testing) has this function and we hope to implement it soon.


 
Please don't implement that! It sucks and leads to even more showboating.


----------



## Santino (Jun 28, 2011)

Hurrah for more subtle forms of bullying!


----------



## TruXta (Jun 28, 2011)

It's like the worst of Facebook tacked onto a forum. It's absolutely fine in situs where one is seeking a right or best answer, but that's hardly what this board is about IME.


----------



## editor (Jun 28, 2011)

Santino said:


> Hurrah for more subtle forms of bullying!





TruXta said:


> Please don't implement that! It sucks and leads to even more showboating.


How does one 'showboat' or 'bully' via the medium of a like button?


----------



## Santino (Jun 28, 2011)

editor said:


> How does one 'showboat' or 'bully' via the medium of a like button?


 
Someone calls someone a cunt, and lots of people 'Like' it, but without having to justify themselves or even reveal who they are.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 28, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Nah, ymu is trying to bully.
> 
> 
> etc, etc.


If you think that's bullying, then I envy you the serene and sheltered life you've led.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 28, 2011)

editor said:


> How does one 'showboat' or 'bully' via the medium of a like button?


 
Everything becomes a popularity contest. People get more extreme. If you build the code they will come.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 28, 2011)

If Santino and I agree it's gotta be bad. He is a massive cunt after all.


----------



## London_Calling (Jun 28, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> If you think that's bullying, then I envy you the serene and sheltered life you've led.


 
As I envy your naivity. But enough of the personalisation.


----------



## Winot (Jun 28, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> I've seen you do this before in the politics forum; not talking directly to the person you don't like but, instead, trying to build a group of 'like-minded' posters who will join you in the sneering and abuse. It's really not very far from bullying. And it's becoming your MO.
> 
> You won't listen because you seem pretty lost in your internet experience atm but, imo, you really should take a break for a bit.


 
Seconded.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 28, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Please don't implement that! It sucks and leads to even more showboating.


 
Yep.  That would be a big mistake, Mods.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 28, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Everything becomes a popularity contest.



Yes.  Seen it happen on other forums.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 28, 2011)

Santino said:


> Someone calls someone a cunt, and lots of people 'Like' it, but without having to justify themselves or even reveal who they are.



Yep.  And when Santino, Truxta and I agree, you know it makes sense.


----------



## wtfftw (Jun 28, 2011)

Only implement in sections like tech?


----------



## Onket (Jun 28, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Nah, fs. One thing I like about here is that the mods post as themselves. Ed can be touchy, fm can have a short fuse, Mango5 likes winding people up, etc. It's part of the charm of the place.


 
'Charm'


----------



## TruXta (Jun 28, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> Yep.  And when Santino, Truxta and I agree, you know it makes sense.


 
Or it's so wrong that wrongness took a break and left it to apocalyptically fucked. But I think it's safe to say we're right on this one.

e2a - this surely belongs in a proper thread.


----------



## London_Calling (Jun 28, 2011)

^ likes


Ed - doesn't instinct tell you you need to offer something diff to Facebook, not implement the more banal features of it?


----------



## ymu (Jun 28, 2011)

ska invita said:


> as i posted once before, i tried to talk a couple of people into joining up on the boards, but they immediately both found it too aggressive and abusive. I dont know how urban stands compared to other boards, but i expect its much the same everywhere - or is it?


It's far, far worse elsewhere. I used to post somewhere where swearing wasn't allowed. It was a seething pit of hatred. Cross-thread spats all over. grown adults running to the mods the second they don't like an opinion. One guy took a whole paragraph to call me a wanker (because he wouldn't usually swear at a laydee and needed to make this clear), and then insta-reported me for calling him a cunt. 

Insulting entire demographic groups was pretty much compulsory too. People who need protecting from a bit of bad language probably need to find somewhere else to post, because urban manages more actual content, even in spatty threads, than most places manage. Treat posters like children, and they will act like it.


----------



## wtfftw (Jun 28, 2011)

I think there's been a proper thread or it was covered in the "the new boards are so different we can't really compare and therefore must trial everything like avatars etc" decision.


----------



## temper_tantrum (Jun 28, 2011)

Winot said:


> Seconded.


 
Thirded.


----------



## spring-peeper (Jun 28, 2011)

wtfftw said:


> I think there's been a proper thread or it was covered in the "the new boards are so different we can't really compare and therefore must trial everything like avatars etc" decision.



No avatars, no "like" buttons.


----------



## fractionMan (Jun 28, 2011)

I think we should be able to assign people avatars based on votes


----------



## TruXta (Jun 28, 2011)

fractionMan said:


> I think we should be able to assign people avatars based on votes


 
You'd be first in line for goatse.


----------



## temper_tantrum (Jun 28, 2011)

fractionMan said:


> I think we should be able to assign people avatars based on votes


 
I've been itching for ages to be able to edit other people's taglines ... think how much fun that would be


----------



## spring-peeper (Jun 28, 2011)

temper_tantrum said:


> I've been itching for ages to be able to edit other people's taglines ... think how much fun that would be



I found a glitch on another board, and did just that 

ah - the memories....


----------



## TruXta (Jun 28, 2011)

temper_tantrum said:


> I've been itching for ages to be able to edit other people's taglines ... think how much fun that would be


 
Yours would be "life with a cock in it". HTH


----------



## wtfftw (Jun 28, 2011)

temper_tantrum said:


> I've been itching for ages to be able to edit other people's taglines ... think how much fun that would be


 I was an admin on a tiny board once upon a time. I totally abused my power.


----------



## temper_tantrum (Jun 28, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Yours would be "life with a cock in it". HTH


 
Just the one?


----------



## ymu (Jun 28, 2011)

Nah, I'm a bully Streathamite. Surely you've seen me lurking on threads waiting to see who's getting a hard time and then piling in on them when I sense safety in numbers. I have never once stepped into defend someone who was being treated unfairly, cos I'm a gutless coward of a bully. I don't get aggressive because someone's being a cunt (in my oft mistaken eyes), and I never apologise when I'm wrong. I do it for kicks, you see. All us aggressive women are like that. Bullies. We're too stupid to have an actual opinion worth defending, you see.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 28, 2011)

editor said:


> New forum software (which we're currently testing) has this function and we hope to implement it soon.


 
No, it doesn't and no we're not!
It lets you "like" individual posts, but not "dislike" them, and the number of likes has no bearing on the visibility or prominence of a post.

The intent of the feature is to replace posts that just say "this" or "+1" or "QFT" - no record is kept of the number of likes made or received. If the feature _does_ end up causing trouble, we'll turn it off.


----------



## ymu (Jun 28, 2011)

editor said:


> New forum software (which we're currently testing) has this function and we hope to implement it soon.


It;s a terrible idea. The saddoes have a field day with it. No argument - point to the numpty numbers!

Please, no.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 28, 2011)

Crispy said:


> No, it doesn't and no we're not!
> It lets you "like" individual posts, but not "dislike" them, and the number of likes has no bearing on the visibility or prominence of a post.



Still a terrible idea!


----------



## TruXta (Jun 28, 2011)

Crispy said:


> No, it doesn't and no we're not!
> It lets you "like" individual posts, but not "dislike" them, and the number of likes has no bearing on the visibility or prominence of a post.


 
Then what's the bleeding point?


----------



## Crispy (Jun 28, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Then what's the bleeding point?


 
See my edit.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 28, 2011)

Crispy said:


> See my edit.


 
I don't get it. Is the "like" a separate post then?


----------



## Rushy (Jun 28, 2011)

ska invita said:


> as i posted once before, i tried to talk a couple of people into joining up on the boards, but they immediately both found it too aggressive and abusive.


 


Crispy said:


> The moderation on urban is by far the most permissive I've experienced, outside of forums whose USP is their lawlessness. Normal places on the internet would have banned half the posters on this thread long ago. One forum I read will happily prune entire pages from a thread if it goes off topic, and ban the people who took it off topic for a month. Nobody bats an eyelid.


 
That's my experience too. Forum usage is more mainstream than it was and most mainstream internet users I know aren't looking to interact in such an aggressive way. Obviously some get a kick out of having an aggressive and bullying style and this forum suits them well because it is tolerated. If that is part of U75's essential character then so it should continue. But I cant help wondering whether that is contributing to the decline in activity which has been referred to from time to time. A local community website where you can't ask if anyone can recommend a cleaner without having your personality and politics torn apart by a complete stranger tapping away from behind a screen seems to be of limited value other than perhaps for mild entertainment.


----------



## Onket (Jun 28, 2011)

You can already 'rate threads' in certain forums on these boards.


----------



## ymu (Jun 28, 2011)

Crispy said:


> See my edit.


 
So what. The saddoes click, the adults don't bother. It's completely anonymous, so meaningless because you can't judge the quality of the support. The sddoes end up vote counting as if it proves them right. And some are sad enough that zillions of sock-puppets will have a whole new purpose.

Not very useful in a technical forum. Completely pointless on a busy discussion forum. Seen it, on a much nastier forum than urban, and if anything it made it nastier.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 28, 2011)

TruXta said:


> I don't get it. Is the "like" a separate post then?


 
Looks like this:


----------



## Crispy (Jun 28, 2011)

Rushy said:


> That's my experience too. Forum usage is more mainstream than it was and most mainstream internet users I know aren't looking to interact in such an aggressive way. Obviously some get a kick out of having an aggressive and bullying style and this forum suits them well because it is tolerated. If that is part of U75's essential character then so it should continue. But I cant help wondering whether that is contributing to the decline in activity which has been referred to from time to time. A local community website where you can't ask if anyone can recommend a cleaner without having your personality and politics torn apart by a complete stranger tapping away from behind a screen seems to be of limited value other than perhaps for mild entertainment.


 
My thoughts exactly. And I mean exactly, it's like I typed that


----------



## editor (Jun 28, 2011)

ymu said:


> So what. The saddoes click, the adults don't bother.


Tens of millions of adult Facebook users may take exception at being dismissed as a 'saddo,' you know.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 28, 2011)

Onket said:


> You can already 'rate threads' in certain forums on these boards.


 
Nobody uses it. The interface is clunky, and the user feedback (for liker and likee) doesn't reward the behaviour.


----------



## editor (Jun 28, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Everything becomes a popularity contest. People get more extreme. If you build the code they will come.


And your evidence for this is?


----------



## peterkro (Jun 28, 2011)

@B-Town
I was the poster who suggested you pay the same rate as your hourly rate and as someone pointed out it should be considerably higher because of the extra costs of being self employed.I wouldn't necessarily use the terms ymu used but agree with what was posted.I don't use the C word as a rule but don't care if other people do,and having read your posts in this thread you are coming across by the bowels of Christ as a fuckknuckle of the highest order.


----------



## B-Town (Jun 28, 2011)

Crispy said:


> My thoughts exactly. And I mean exactly, it's like I typed that


 
->


----------



## TruXta (Jun 28, 2011)

editor said:


> And your evidence for this is?


 
It's got about the same evidence base that you have for saying "likes" are a good thing. And no, the fact that it's on FB doesn't make it a good thing.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jun 28, 2011)

Rushy said:


> That's my experience too. Forum usage is more mainstream than it was and most mainstream internet users I know aren't looking to interact in such an aggressive way. Obviously some get a kick out of having an aggressive and bullying style and this forum suits them well because it is tolerated. If that is part of U75's essential character then so it should continue. But I cant help wondering whether that is contributing to the decline in activity which has been referred to from time to time. A local community website where you can't ask if anyone can recommend a cleaner without having your personality and politics torn apart by a complete stranger tapping away from behind a screen seems to be of limited value other than perhaps for mild entertainment.


 
Urban's role as a local community forum is relatively small compared to the overall site though. You might be right that the overall atmosphere in here compromises that element a little bit but I don't think compromising the boards as a whole in order to boost that element a little bit would be a great idea. And I'm pretty sure it wouldn't bring in a lot of new posters.


----------



## Onket (Jun 28, 2011)

Crispy said:


> Nobody uses it. The interface is clunky, and the user feedback (for liker and likee) doesn't reward the behaviour.


 
I know nobody uses it. Seems odd to add a slightly different way to do pretty much the same thing to the new boards. 

I expect people will use it though.


----------



## editor (Jun 28, 2011)

TruXta said:


> It's got about the same evidence base that you have for saying "likes" are a good thing. And no, the fact that it's on FB doesn't make it a good thing.


Why do you think so many people use them and they're becoming such an integral part of the web experience then? Why do you think Google has just introduced them?

And Facebook 'like' buttons have driven tons of traffic to my blog and there's ample evidence of their effectiveness elsewhere:
http://searchengineland.com/by-the-...says-likes-social-plugins-help-websites-76061


----------



## Santino (Jun 28, 2011)

How are Like buttons on threads supposed to drive traffic, and where to?


----------



## TruXta (Jun 28, 2011)

editor said:


> Why do you think so many people use them and they're becoming such an integral part of the web experience then? Why do you think Google has just introduced them?
> 
> Facebook 'like' buttons have driven tons of traffic to my blog and there's ample evidence of their effectiveness elsewhere:
> http://searchengineland.com/by-the-...says-likes-social-plugins-help-websites-76061


 
Why do people press big red shiny buttons that say DO NOT PRESS? I know why they work, I just don't like the vapidity it promotes. And your example of driving traffic doesn't really apply to liking posts on here does it?


----------



## B-Town (Jun 28, 2011)

peterkro said:


> @B-Town
> I was the poster who suggested you pay the same rate as your hourly rate and as someone pointed out it should be considerably higher because of the extra costs of being self employed.I wouldn't necessarily use the terms ymu used but agree with what was posted.I don't use the C word as a rule but don't care if other people do,and having read your posts in this thread you are coming across by the bowels of Christ as a fuckknuckle of the highest order.


 
Am I? 

For wanting to challeng if the collective agression was restricting participation from a part of society? because, the concensus seems that it is, with the regular posters believing this to be a good thing. I believe as a forum, 'we' should be welcoming to new members and embrace all parts of society and I dont see why such an embrasive opinion is that of a _fuckknuckle_


----------



## Dan U (Jun 28, 2011)

peterkro said:


> @B-Town
> I was the poster who suggested you pay the same rate as your hourly rate and as someone pointed out it should be considerably higher because of the extra costs of being self employed.I wouldn't necessarily use the terms ymu used but agree with what was posted.I don't use the C word as a rule but don't care if other people do,and having read your posts in this thread you are coming across by the bowels of Christ as a fuckknuckle of the highest order.



leaving aside your second comment, how many cleaners are actually 'self employed' and incurring any kind of costs aside from transport. most cleaners i have known are semi retired or retired and are working happily for cash in hand. alternately they have other state income and they don't want to declare it.

they aren't driving around in a branded van, handing out flyers etc and advertising. its word of mouth stuff.


----------



## killer b (Jun 28, 2011)

gosh. who'd have thought a newbie would know exactly what buttons to press to get a clusterfuck going.


----------



## editor (Jun 28, 2011)

Onket said:


> I know nobody uses it. Seems odd to add a slightly different way to do pretty much the same thing to the new boards.
> 
> I expect people will use it though.


People are very used to using 'like' buttons now and I'm confident it's going to have a real benefit to these boards, especially with the new BB system letting you see who's liked your posts as soon as you log on. Just like on Facebook, it's nice to see that people have enjoyed something you've posted.

But if it turns out it doesn't work for here, then we can get rid of it.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 28, 2011)

peterkro said:


> @B-Town
> I was the poster who suggested you pay the same rate as your hourly rate and as someone pointed out it should be considerably higher because of the extra costs of being self employed.


 
Isn't this confusing the value of an individual human being with the monetary value of the skills any particular individual has acquired?


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 28, 2011)

Rushy said:


> A local community website where you can't ask if anyone can recommend a cleaner without having your personality and politics torn apart by a complete stranger tapping away from behind a screen seems to be of limited value other than perhaps for mild entertainment.


but it isn't *just* a 'community website' - not by a long chalk - and brixton isn't the sort of community where you'd imagine the long-established population employ cleaners, or are in a position to do so.
And B-Town _did_ deserve a bit of a kicking, tbh


----------



## Dan U (Jun 28, 2011)

Crispy said:


> My thoughts exactly. And I mean exactly, it's like I typed that



*likes*


----------



## ddraig (Jun 28, 2011)

anyway
can we clean urban of this odious cunt troll Btown?
please


----------



## spring-peeper (Jun 28, 2011)

ddraig said:


> anyway
> can we clean urban of this odious cunt troll Btown?
> please


----------



## Dan U (Jun 28, 2011)

ddraig said:


> anyway
> can we clean urban of this odious cunt troll Btown?
> please



why?

because he/she has got a few peoples backs up?

ffs

thats a bit rubbish when people are telling him/her to suck up the 'cunting' but they won't suck up the different opinion


----------



## ddraig (Jun 28, 2011)

spring-peeper said:


>


 
wut?


----------



## ddraig (Jun 28, 2011)

Dan U said:


> why?
> 
> because he/she has got a few peoples backs up?
> 
> ffs


 
cos it's an obvious troll


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jun 28, 2011)

ddraig said:


> anyway
> can we clean urban of this odious cunt troll Btown?
> please


 
He might be a bit of a dick and have deserved a bit of a verbal kicking but I can't see he's done anything to even vaguely deserve banning.


----------



## spring-peeper (Jun 28, 2011)

ddraig said:


> wut?



Leave the newbie alone.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 28, 2011)

ymu said:


> Nah, I'm a bully Streathamite. Surely you've seen me lurking on threads waiting to see who's getting a hard time and then piling in on them when I sense safety in numbers. I have never once stepped into defend someone who was being treated unfairly, cos I'm a gutless coward of a bully. I don't get aggressive because someone's being a cunt (in my oft mistaken eyes), and I never apologise when I'm wrong. I do it for kicks, you see. All us aggressive women are like that. Bullies. We're too stupid to have an actual opinion worth defending, you see.


 
blimey, I could sharpen my kitchen knife on the edge of your sarcasm!


----------



## Dan U (Jun 28, 2011)

ddraig said:


> cos it's an obvious troll



i wonder how many people have been lost to the boards because of this kind of thing when they are in no way an actual troll/returnee.

having an opinion that raises a few heckles is not trolling.

obv if ip logs prove otherwise i'll consume my hat.


----------



## editor (Jun 28, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Why do people press big red shiny buttons that say DO NOT PRESS? I know why they work, I just don't like the vapidity it promotes.


How does it introduce all-new extra 'vapidity' to a board compared to, say, someone posts to say, "I agree"?


----------



## ddraig (Jun 28, 2011)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> He might be a bit of a dick and have deserved a bit of a verbal kicking but I can't see he's done anything to even vaguely deserve banning.


 it is a returner/troll/second account to push buttons


spring-peeper said:


> Leave the newbie alone.


 no


----------



## Crispy (Jun 28, 2011)

Santino said:


> How are Like buttons on threads supposed to drive traffic, and where to?


 
They don't, they're just fun. During our trial of XF, it was always nice seeing my alerts with some likes in there, made me feel welcome. On the posts themselves, they're very unobtrusive. The only way I can see them being used to 'bully' is for people to Like abusive posts. This is pretty indirect bullying so might not be attractive or effective. But if it becomes a problem we'll turn it off.



Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Urban's role as a local community forum is relatively small compared to the overall site though. You might be right that the overall atmosphere in here compromises that element a little bit but I don't think compromising the boards as a whole in order to boost that element a little bit would be a great idea. And I'm pretty sure it wouldn't bring in a lot of new posters.


 
Thing is, it's editor's stated aim to focus on improving urban's use as a community site for Brixton. So we do have conflicting interests.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 28, 2011)

ddraig said:


> anyway
> can we clean urban of this odious cunt troll Btown?
> please


 
No. Get to fuck.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 28, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> brixton isn't the sort of community where you'd imagine the long-established population employ cleaners,


 
The ones that are likely to post on urban would (as shown by the poll )


----------



## wtfftw (Jun 28, 2011)

killer b said:


> gosh. who'd have thought a newbie would know exactly what buttons to press to get a clusterfuck going.


*likes*


we kept foxyred ffs.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jun 28, 2011)

ddraig said:


> it is a returner/troll/second account to push buttons



Bollocks. You don't know that at all.


----------



## editor (Jun 28, 2011)

Crispy said:


> Thing is, it's editor's stated aim to focus on improving urban's use as a community site for Brixton. So we do have conflicting interests.


That statement is really more about just repositioning the site in response to how the web has changed and how people now use the web. I don't think it reflects any fundamental shift really - this board has always adapted to changes.


----------



## ddraig (Jun 28, 2011)

so we have
cleaning
class
mcshite
clique/bullying allegations and
'bettering yourself'
and


B-Town said:


> YMU you are a dreg of society who twists and manipulates peoples comments to push your own political stance. At no point have I ever claimed that I will support housing benefit for full-time workers. What I did say was I would pay someone cash in hand - sitting the example that if this is to the wife of a provider it could contribute to a little bonus.
> 
> You are clearly one of those people who likes to feel oppressed, it's because I am poor. it's because I am female - I have sympathy with poverty - however, in a global scale I actually don’t think things are that bad in the UK. So any charity I try and direct towards Africa.
> 
> I am also relatively young, so maybe my ideas are naive - but I fear the only 'nasty piece of work' on this site is you - at the end of the day this whole thread is based out of your intolerable way of speaking to people.


 


B-Town said:


> I would not want U75 to be modirated, however have you seen how yahoo answers works (and many others) where you give a thumbs up or down to a post. This then allows people to see if one post is reflective of the rest of the forum.
> 
> i.e. some one calls me a cunt, everyone gives it thumbs up, we except the forum thinks i'm a cunt.
> someone posts that calling someon is a cunt is probably a bit extreme for a new comer in search of a cleaner, more thumbs up, ppl think about what they post.
> ...


 sudden bad speeling too1


Dan U said:


> i wonder how many people have been lost to the boards because of this kind of thing when they are in no way an actual troll/returnee.
> 
> having an opinion that raises a few heckles is not trolling.
> 
> obv if ip logs prove otherwise i'll consume my hat.


 FAIR ENOUGH


Crispy said:


> No. Get to fuck.


 isn't it "Get too fuck."?


----------



## killer b (Jun 28, 2011)

hey B-town! what's the most you'd spend on a pram?


----------



## Crispy (Jun 28, 2011)

killer b said:


> hey B-town! what's the most you'd spend on a pram?


 
Crispy likes this post


----------



## wtfftw (Jun 28, 2011)

or a bin?


----------



## Winot (Jun 28, 2011)

peterkro said:


> @B-Town
> I was the poster who suggested you pay the same rate as your hourly rate and as someone pointed out it should be considerably higher because of the extra costs of being self employed.


 
And what rate should the cleaner pay if they want to employ B-Town?

Incidentally, I hope you top up the wages to your level of everyone who carries out a service for you.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 28, 2011)

editor said:


> How does it introduce all-new extra 'vapidity' to a board compared to, say, someone posts to say, "I agree"?


 
Because you don't even have to make the effort to write anything, you just click a button. Honestly I'm a bit surprised you don't see this as a tad dumbing-down. What next, stock replies?


----------



## killer b (Jun 28, 2011)

TruXta said:


> What next, stock replies?


 
only on soup related threads.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 28, 2011)

killer b said:


> only on soup related threads.


 
I Lololoed.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 28, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Because you don't even have to make the effort to write anything, you just click a button. Honestly I'm a bit surprised you don't see this as a tad dumbing-down. What next, stock replies?



Agree again.  Also, it will be used to "like" abusive posts, presumably over and over again.

Obviously I have no problem with abusive posts, but people should at least take the trouble--and have the courage--to write their own.


----------



## Onket (Jun 28, 2011)

Crispy said:


> No. Get to fuck.


 


Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Bollocks. You don't know that at all.


 
*Like*


----------



## clandestino (Jun 28, 2011)

Crispy said:


> Thing is, it's editor's stated aim to focus on improving urban's use as a community site for Brixton. So we do have conflicting interests.



I'm a bit confused by this statement. In what way are your interests conflicting? Don't you want to improve urban's use as a community site for Brixton?


----------



## ymu (Jun 28, 2011)

editor said:


> Tens of millions of adult Facebook users may take exception at being dismissed as a 'saddo,' you know.


I was referring to forum software not facebook. You may not be familiar with social media yet, it's quite new ... but all these things are used for quite different purposes and what works on Facebook is an invitation to grown adults to act like two year olds on forums ... It's amusing, but not good for a forum that wants and needs good content. Threads can become all about who is voting their own posts up ... 

Don't do it.


----------



## killer b (Jun 28, 2011)

fwiw, while i think it's a bit shit and pointless, a like button doesn't really make a difference.

avatars, now...


----------



## Belushi (Jun 28, 2011)

killer b said:


> avatars, now...


 
I honestly think that would finish urban off for me.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 28, 2011)

killer b said:


> fwiw, while i think it's a bit shit and pointless, a like button doesn't really make a difference.
> 
> avatars, now...


 
I'd have avatars over like buttons in a flash. As long they're small and unobtrusive I don't mind too much. Sigs are still a no-no IMO.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 28, 2011)

ianw said:


> I'm a bit confused by this statement. In what way are your interests conflicting? Don't you want to improve urban's use as a community site for Brixton?


 
The forum's whole ethos would have to be turned around if we wanted to appeal to everyone in Brixton. Uncompromising bans for abuse, trolling, off-topic posts etc. are what people expect from mainstream bulletin boards. If urban75's bulletin boards were to become a broad-ranging community site, then they would stop being what they are now - a relative free-for-all.

I think there's scope in providing community services for the sort of people who already post here. The site could be a lot more popular in that respect, and the Noticeboard forum is a good step in that direction.


----------



## two sheds (Jun 28, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> Also, it will be used to "like" abusive posts, presumably over and over again.


 
Yes, I think so. A funny bit of abuse will be generally 'like'd but it is likely to be felt by the person being abused as being bullied by half the forum.


----------



## pinkmonkey (Jun 28, 2011)

killer b said:


> fwiw, while i think it's a bit shit and pointless, a like button doesn't really make a difference.
> 
> avatars, now...


 
Take it from me, the reported posts go up by the zillions, all of which are from users that don't like the fact that no one agrees with them.  You might need some extra help Mr Editor.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 28, 2011)

pinkmonkey said:


> Take it from me, the reported posts go up by the zillions, all of which are from users that don't like the fact that no one agrees with them.  You might need some extra help Mr Editor.


 
Like I said, if the feature causes trouble we'll turn it off.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 28, 2011)

I'm still waiting to hear back from Ed how implementing "like" buttons is gonna drive traffic. That is, unless you plan to integrate the site with FB?


----------



## Dan U (Jun 28, 2011)

It's a shame for the OP they didn't twig/use the noticeboard forum as the bunfight might not have happened 

It's a good idea that forum


----------



## peterkro (Jun 28, 2011)

Rushy said:


> Isn't this confusing the value of an individual human being with the monetary value of the skills any particular individual has acquired?



I don't think so.The monetary value of cleaning (leaving aside what the OP was talking about if you are able bodied and can't clean up your own shite [or not clean up your own shite if that's what you want] it makes you a lazy git,that aside cleaning is undervalued because it often doesn't take too much skill or experience. It is however a difficult and unpleasant job and most people wouldn't do it for the usual rate of pay if they had a choice.So ideally the jobs would be shared out on a part time basis or those that choose to do it full-time would be suitably rewarded.After all if all cleaners (non domestic) went on strike we'd be in far greater shit than if neurosurgeons went on strike.


----------



## editor (Jun 28, 2011)

Dan U said:


> It's a shame for the OP they didn't twig/use the noticeboard forum as the bunfight might not have happened
> 
> It's a good idea that forum


Indeed!


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 28, 2011)

two sheds said:


> Yes, I think so. A funny bit of abuse will be generally 'like'd but it is likely to be felt by the person being abused as being bullied by half the forum.



Yep.  It will turn the boards into a popularity contest.

Sounds like a lame attempt to Keep Up With The Kidz to me.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 28, 2011)

TruXta said:


> I'm still waiting to hear back from Ed how implementing "like" buttons is gonna drive traffic. That is, unless you plan to integrate the site with FB?


 
XF has two means of integrating with fb:

1. Users can choose to tie their facebook login to their urban identiy. This is purely a 'single-sign-in' system - ie. sign into facebook and you're autmotically logged in when you visit urban.

2. We can turn on a facebook like/share button. This creates a link on your fb wall, saying "Crispy likes the thread _Cleaner-for-Urban-75?_ on urban75 forums" or similar.

I'm personally against turning either of these options on, as fb is pretty aggressive about tracking your browsing habits via their cookies.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 28, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> Sounds like a lame attempt to Keep Up With The Kidz to me.


 
It's included in the software, and it's been fun when used in our trials so far. So we're being optomistic. But, like I said, will turn it off if it all goes sour.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 28, 2011)

Crispy said:


> The ones that are likely to post on urban would (as shown by the poll )


damn - good point!


----------



## TruXta (Jun 28, 2011)

Crispy said:


> XF has two means of integrating with fb:
> 
> 1. Users can choose to tie their facebook login to their urban identiy. This is purely a 'single-sign-in' system - ie. sign into facebook and you're autmotically logged in when you visit urban.
> 
> ...


 
Do that and I can pretty much guarantee you that you'll see a massive defection.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 28, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Do that and I can pretty much guarantee you that you'll see a massive defection.



Yes again.  Why the desperation to tie-in with Facebook?  To increase traffic?  But why does the volume of traffic on here even matter?


----------



## clandestino (Jun 28, 2011)

Crispy said:


> The forum's whole ethos would have to be turned around if we wanted to appeal to everyone in Brixton. Uncompromising bans for abuse, trolling, off-topic posts etc. are what people expect from mainstream bulletin boards. If urban75's bulletin boards were to become a broad-ranging community site, then they would stop being what they are now - a relative free-for-all.
> 
> I think there's scope in providing community services for the sort of people who already post here. The site could be a lot more popular in that respect, and the Noticeboard forum is a good step in that direction.



But I don't think improving Urban's use as a community site for Brixton necessarily means affecting the entire boards - just changing the way the Brixton sub forum(s) work. The addition of the extra forum doesn't seem to have had any negative impact at all, IMO. Surely the idea is that the Brixton bit becomes more useful for everyone in Brixton, and then if new people choose to join they have to fit in with the way things are done around here. 

I'm on a forum that has the likes thing, by the way, and it really isn't the end of the civilisation. It doesn't affect the position of a post in a thread, or move it upwards or downwards or give it any more prominence. There's just a bit under a post in a thread that says "x likes this". 

That said, that forum is populated by people who seem to be in a group but don't ever think as a group. Whereas I've never seen the level of hive-mind thinking that happens on Urban anywhere else. So maybe it would just exacerbate that.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 28, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> Yes again.  Why the desperation to tie-in with Facebook?  To increase traffic?  But why does the volume of traffic on here even matter?


 
What desperation?


----------



## TruXta (Jun 28, 2011)

ianw said:


> That said, that forum is populated by people who seem to be in a group but don't ever think as a group. Whereas I've never seen the level of hive-mind thinking that happens on Urban anywhere else. So maybe it would just exacerbate that.


 
Try reddit.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 28, 2011)

Crispy said:


> What desperation?


 
Disregard phil - you should know this by now.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 28, 2011)

ianw said:


> But I don't think improving Urban's use as a community site for Brixton necessarily means affecting the entire boards - just changing the way the Brixton sub forum(s) work. The addition of the extra forum doesn't seem to have had any negative impact at all, IMO. Surely the idea is that the Brixton bit becomes more useful for everyone in Brixton, and then if new people choose to join they have to fit in with the way things are done around here.



Well, the OP's original thread was a perfect case in point: Ask for local advice, on a topic disliked by the regulars, and receive a drubbing. That sort of thing can't happen if we want to attract anyone but the minority of people who share the opinions here or who is thick skinned enough not to care.

This incident makes me think that the boards might not even be the best place for such community services


----------



## editor (Jun 28, 2011)

TruXta said:


> I'm still waiting to hear back from Ed how implementing "like" buttons is gonna drive traffic. That is, unless you plan to integrate the site with FB?


I believe that the 'like' button along with the notification system will make the site 'stickier' and more compelling to users.. 

Certainly that was my own experience on the test site and here's what another board admin said about it: 



> What makes me go back to other XenForo forums is the ease to use of the software. XenForo also keeps you informed with the Alert system. And I absolutely love the Like button and Trophy system. It makes talking on forums fun again.
> http://www.theadminzone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85832


And a review:


> One of the most interesting additions is the ability to ‘Like’ a post. Forum software has had reputation, karma and rating systems for years, but they typically require too much effort to use and little incentive to do so. Although it initially seems like a superfluous novelty, XenForo’s Like system appears to be meaningful and effectively encourages widespread use, as only a single click is required.
> http://www.philipmorton.com/xenforo-forum-software-review/


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 28, 2011)

Crispy said:


> What desperation?



Urge then.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jun 28, 2011)

ianw said:


> But I don't think improving Urban's use as a community site for Brixton necessarily means affecting the entire boards - just changing the way the Brixton sub forum(s) work. The addition of the extra forum doesn't seem to have had any negative impact at all, IMO. Surely the idea is that the Brixton bit becomes more useful for everyone in Brixton, and then if new people choose to join they have to fit in with the way things are done around here.
> 
> I'm on a forum that has the likes thing, by the way, and it really isn't the end of the civilisation. It doesn't affect the position of a post in a thread, or move it upwards or downwards or give it any more prominence. There's just a bit under a post in a thread that says "x likes this".
> 
> That said, that forum is populated by people who seem to be in a group but don't ever think as a group. Whereas I've never seen the level of hive-mind thinking that happens on Urban anywhere else. So maybe it would just exacerbate that.



I guess the question is what changes you'd need. So for example would you delete posts/ban posters for giving B-Town grief on the cleaner thread? Or what about gentrification debates? The Brixton forum has already become a LOT less contentious than it used to be but I think that would still be a difficult thing to enforce.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 28, 2011)

editor said:


> I believe that the 'like' button along with the notification system will make the site 'stickier' and more compelling to users..


 
Well, there's only one way to find out I reckon. Notifications would be handy tho, thread subscription is a right PITA.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 28, 2011)

Crispy said:


> Well, the OP's original thread was a perfect case in point: Ask for local advice, on a topic disliked by the regulars, and receive a drubbing. That sort of thing can't happen if we want to attract anyone but the minority of people who share the opinions here or who is thick skinned enough not to care.



But do you really want to attract such people?

Seems to me you'd be sacrificing quality for quantity.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 28, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> Urge then.


 
What urge?


----------



## TruXta (Jun 28, 2011)

Urge Overkill, Crispy.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 28, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> But do you really want to attract such people?
> 
> Seems to me you'd be sacrificing quality for quantity.



Depends what we want to attract them for. I haven't really made my mind up on the subject yet.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 28, 2011)

Crispy said:


> What urge?



Impulse then.

Towards Facebookization.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 28, 2011)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Urban's role as a local community forum is relatively small compared to the overall site though. You might be right that the overall atmosphere in here compromises that element a little bit but I don't think compromising the boards as a whole in order to boost that element a little bit would be a great idea. And I'm pretty sure it wouldn't bring in a lot of new posters.


 
I appreciate that the local 'Brixton' forum is a small part of the overall site.  Some boards moderate different forums differently - e.g. you might expect a politics thread on immigration to be much more confrontational than the "where can I buy plants" thread. Implementing that might be quite complicated and a little confusing but without it I think the local threads are going to become less and less relevant.

I don't think that taking out the most aggressive, derailing, bullying posts from certain forums would compromise the boards too much but, as I said before, if that kind of post is U75's USP then it would be wrong to do so.


----------



## editor (Jun 28, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Do that and I can pretty much guarantee you that you'll see a massive defection.


You are aware that people (like me) have been sharing interesting threads on Twitter and Facebook for years on end, yes?


----------



## Crispy (Jun 28, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> Impulse then.
> 
> Towards Facebookization.


 
My urge?


----------



## TruXta (Jun 28, 2011)

editor said:


> You are aware that people (like me) have been sharing interesting threads on Twitter and Facebook for years on end, yes?


 
More power to you, guv, but I for one like my anonymity here.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 28, 2011)

Crispy said:


> Depends what we want to attract them for.



For their own sake maybe?  Just to have as many users as possible?

If that's the aim, then fair enough.  Seems like a strange aim for a site without advertizing though.


----------



## peterkro (Jun 28, 2011)

Winot said:


> And what rate should the cleaner pay if they want to employ B-Town?
> 
> Incidentally, I hope you top up the wages to your level of everyone who carries out a service for you.



I don't know what BT does but from his posts I wouldn't suggest anybody employ him.


----------



## editor (Jun 28, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> But do you really want to attract such people?
> 
> Seems to me you'd be sacrificing quality for quantity.


How does that work, phil?  Could you describe the difference in 'quality' between Facebook, Twitter and Google-sourced traffic, please?


----------



## Crispy (Jun 28, 2011)

editor said:


> You are aware that people (like me) have been sharing interesting threads on Twitter and Facebook for years on end, yes?


 
Manually, yes. I am dead against having a facebook button on urban that is just an include for facebook code (which the built-in button in Xenforo is). That means the button's code will detect your facebook cookie (if you have one) regardless of whether or not you've purposefully linked your urban account. If we can have a "share this" button that is dumb, that just passes the thread's URL along to facebook when you click it, then that would be ok I think.

Look at it this way - if we put a button on each thread that said "click this button to tell facebook that you visited this page" and made it mandatory to click it, we'd have a mutiny.


----------



## editor (Jun 28, 2011)

TruXta said:


> More power to you, guv, but I for one like my anonymity here.


You're free to remain as the internet entity known as TruXtra and none of the changes will alter that anonymity (unless you elect otherwise).


phildwyer said:


> For their own sake maybe?  Just to have as many users as possible?
> 
> If that's the aim, then fair enough.  Seems like a strange aim for a site without advertizing though.


For the record, I've always - and I mean _ALWAYS_ - pitched this site to attract as many different readers, opinions and users as I can.


----------



## editor (Jun 28, 2011)

Crispy said:


> Look at it this way - if we put a button on each thread that said "click this button to tell facebook that you visited this page" and made it mandatory to click it, we'd have a mutiny.


That would be a very, very strange thing to ask people to do.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 28, 2011)

editor said:


> You're free to remain as the internet entity known as TruXtra and none of the changes will alter that anonymity (unless you elect otherwise).
> For the record, I've always - and I mean _ALWAYS_ - pitched this site to attract as many different readers, opinions and users as I can.


 
But surely if my FB and Urban accounts are linked that'd give me away eventually? Or at least make it that much easier for people to find out who I am.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 28, 2011)

editor said:


> How does that work, phil?  Could you describe the difference in 'quality' between Facebook, Twitter and Google-sourced traffic, please?



I was responding to this:



Crispy said:


> That sort of thing can't happen if we want to attract anyone but the minority of people who share the opinions here or who is thick skinned enough not to care.



It seems to me that there is something to be said for only attracting the like-minded and thick-skinned.  It gives a site a particular ambience.  In the case of U75 it makes it sort of Leftie/Boho/Shouty.

If you try to attract the Gen-pop, that specific character may well be lost.

If you carried advertizing, I could understand the urge/impulse to attract the Gen-pop.  Since you don't, I don't.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 28, 2011)

editor said:


> That would be a very, very strange thing to ask people to do.


 
But Xenforo's built-in facebook "share" button does exactly that.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 28, 2011)

peterkro said:


> After all if all cleaners (non domestic) went on strike we'd be in far greater shit than if neurosurgeons went on strike.


 
The thread is about domestic, isn't it? The marketing company I used to work for was having cash flow problems so got rid of it's cleaning contracts. We all mucked in and kept the place presentable. I wouldn't say we were pleased to do so but it certainly wasn't hard or particularly unpleasant - just more of an inconvenience than anything else. If the computer programmers or illustrators or accountants had gone on strike, (or in your example, the neurosurgeons) then we would have been buggered.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 28, 2011)

TruXta said:


> But surely if my FB and Urban accounts are linked that'd give me away eventually? Or at least make it that much easier for people to find out who I am.


 
That would only be the case if you expressly made the choice to link your two accounts (which nobody in their right minds should do IMO)

The facebook-coded "share" button would tell facebook that you visit urban75 and that you visited this thread at this time, but not what your username is.


----------



## editor (Jun 28, 2011)

TruXta said:


> But surely if my FB and Urban accounts are linked that'd give me away eventually? Or at least make it that much easier for people to find out who I am.


Only if you CHOOSE to log in with your Facebook ID here. I certainly wouldn't. 

Surely people must be aware by now that I've always valued privacy on this site, so there is no way on earth I'm going to suggest anything that compromises that. But on the other hand, there is no way I'm going to ignore the very tools that this board needs to thrive on, based on what I think are irrational fears and misunderstandings of the technology.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 28, 2011)

Is this thread still about Brixton?


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 28, 2011)

Crispy said:


> Manually, yes. I am dead against having a facebook button on urban that is just an include for facebook code (which the built-in button in Xenforo is). That means the button's code will detect your facebook cookie (if you have one) regardless of whether or not you've purposefully linked your urban account. If we can have a "share this" button that is dumb, that just passes the thread's URL along to facebook when you click it, then that would be ok I think.
> 
> Look at it this way - if we put a button on each thread that said "click this button to tell facebook that you visited this page" and made it mandatory to click it, we'd have a mutiny.


 
What if there's two fb accounts on your PC. I'm confused here.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 28, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Is this thread still about Brixton?


 
No, the OP's first thread was. This one was made to complain about urban75, so we're ontopic


----------



## Crispy (Jun 28, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> What if there's two fb accounts on your PC. I'm confused here.


 
Whichever one was signed on most recently.


----------



## editor (Jun 28, 2011)

This is a fabulously intertwined thread by the way.


----------



## Santino (Jun 28, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Is this thread still about Brixton?


 
Your mum is still about Brixton.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 28, 2011)

Crispy said:


> That would only be the case if you expressly made the choice to link your two accounts (which nobody in their right minds should do IMO)
> 
> The facebook-coded "share" button would tell facebook that you visit urban75 and that you visited this thread at this time, but not what your username is.


 
But people are stupid, ffs look at what gets posted on FB using real names. A great enough number of shared links and I bet a pattern would emerge that would make it easy enough to make the link. If that's what people want, fine, but I will call you a stupid stupid so and so if you do. YMMV


----------



## TruXta (Jun 28, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Is this thread still about Brixton?


 
The Brixton of your nightmares.


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 28, 2011)

Crispy said:


> Whichever one was signed on most recently.


 Oh God what a total nightmare that could turn out to be, having family members registering.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 28, 2011)

TruXta said:


> The Brixton of your nightmares.


 
Otherwise known as "Brixton".


----------



## Crispy (Jun 28, 2011)

TruXta said:


> But people are stupid, ffs look at what gets posted on FB using real names. A great enough number of shared links and I bet a pattern would emerge that would make it easy enough to make the link. If that's what people want, fine, but I will call you a stupid stupid so and so if you do. YMMV


 
Hmm. I see the potential issue there.

Personally, I've never wanted to share a thread here on facebook and although I've got lots of urbanites on fb, I only ever see editor sharing links to urban.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 28, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> Oh God what a total nightmare that could turn out to be, having family members registering.


 
No, that wouldn't happen. Xenforo's "share" button phones home to facebook to say which facebook account that computer uses, but only facebook sees that information. If you want to click the share button, or link accounts, then you have to sign in to facebook properly.


----------



## ymu (Jun 28, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Well, there's only one way to find out I reckon. Notifications would be handy tho, thread subscription is a right PITA.


Why is it a pain? It's automatic. You might have to choose the right setting though ... dunno, always just worked for me AFAIK.


----------



## editor (Jun 28, 2011)

I'd like a Facebook share button that works like the one on my blog. Click on it and a pop up window appears inviting you to share that link on your wall. There would be no direct link between your user ID here and your Facebook ID.

http://www.urban75.org/blog/


----------



## Crispy (Jun 28, 2011)

ymu said:


> Why is it a pain? It's automatic. You might have to choose the right setting though ... dunno, always just worked for me AFAIK.


 
Xenforo has "watched threads" which works exactly like Subscriptions here. But it also has Alerts, which let you know when your posts have been quoted or liked (the alaerts system is customisable if you'd rather not know all the time).


----------



## TruXta (Jun 28, 2011)

ymu said:


> Why is it a pain? It's automatic. You might have to choose the right setting though ... dunno, always just worked for me AFAIK.


 
I dunno, it's just not very obvious to me.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 28, 2011)

TruXta said:


> I dunno, it's just not very obvious to me.


 
Go to your profile and tick the box that says something along the lines of "automatically subscribe to threads I post in"

Doing this revolutionised my urban habits.  And by "revolutionised", I mean "made it even harder for me to avoid clicking on threads all day like a rat being rewarded with a dopamine hit to the brain."


----------



## Crispy (Jun 28, 2011)

editor said:


> I'd like a Facebook share button that works like the one on my blog. Click on it and a pop up window appears inviting you to share that link on your wall. There would be no direct link between your user ID here and your Facebook ID.
> 
> http://www.urban75.org/blog/


 


> <iframe src="http://www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php etc...



That is an include of facebook code, which will detect your facebook cookie and let facebook servers know that you visited the page, even if you don't click the link. It doesn't reveal your urban identity on your facebook profile or anything, but it is unsolicited gathering of information and I don't want to support it.

EDIT: I notice the "tweet this" button that we already have probably does the same thing. Do not like.


----------



## editor (Jun 28, 2011)

Crispy said:


> Xenforo has "watched threads" which works exactly like Subscriptions here. But it also has Alerts, which let you know when your posts have been quoted or liked (the alaerts system is customisable if you'd rather not know all the time).


Yep. It's a brilliant system that makes the boards far more 'sticky.'


----------



## peterkro (Jun 28, 2011)

Crispy said:


> No, that wouldn't happen. Xenforo's "share" button phones home to facebook to say which facebook account that computer uses, but only facebook sees that information. If you want to click the share button, or link accounts, then you have to sign in to facebook properly.


It might try and "phone home" but at least on my computer Little Snitch will stop it.


----------



## editor (Jun 28, 2011)

Crispy said:


> That is an include of facebook code, which will detect your facebook cookie and let facebook servers know that you visited the page, even if you don't click the link. It doesn't reveal your urban identity on your facebook profile or anything, but it is unsolicited gathering of information and I don't want to support it.


Are you referring to the 'share' button that I mentioned or the entirely different 'like' button?


----------



## TruXta (Jun 28, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Go to your profile and tick the box that says something along the lines of "automatically subscribe to threads I post in"
> 
> Doing this revolutionised my urban habits.  And by "revolutionised", I mean "made it even harder for me to avoid clicking on threads all day like a rat being rewarded with a dopamine hit to the brain."


 
Fuck you, I'm bad enough as it is. Discovering the "today's posts" button was like crack.


----------



## B-Town (Jun 28, 2011)

killer b said:


> hey B-town! what's the most you'd spend on a pram?


 
I hope I am a long way off having to buy a pram! I have no idea how much one would cost...


----------



## Crispy (Jun 28, 2011)

editor said:


> Are you referring to the 'share' button that I mentioned or the entirely different 'like' button?


 
Anything that starts with <iframe src="http://www.facebook.com

That statement puts 3rd-party code directly into urban's pages, without any possible oversight from us.

The only difference between Like and Share is that Likes get added to your Profile, whereas Shares just get posted on your Wall.


----------



## killer b (Jun 28, 2011)

B-Town said:


> I hope I am a long way off having to buy a pram! I have no idea how much one would cost...


 
go on, have a stab at it.


----------



## editor (Jun 28, 2011)

Crispy said:


> Anything that starts with <iframe src="http://www.facebook.com
> 
> That statement puts 3rd-party code directly into urban's pages, without any possible oversight from us.
> 
> The only difference between Like and Share is that Likes get added to your Profile, whereas Shares just get posted on your Wall.


So not the share button then.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 28, 2011)

editor said:


> So not the share button then.


 
If the share button was coded differently, I'd have no problem. I don't know how to code, but something like:

button
get current page_url
on click goto link facebook.com/share.php?page_url
/button

Nothing gets sent to facebook unless the link is clicked


----------



## B-Town (Jun 28, 2011)

killer b said:


> go on, have a stab at it.


 
£100???


----------



## dessiato (Jun 28, 2011)

B-Town said:


> I hope I am a long way off having to buy a pram! I have no idea how much one would cost...



From about £300 to over £800 in Mothercare!


----------



## Dan U (Jun 28, 2011)

Ppfftt over a grand surely 

Won't someone think of the babyee


----------



## dessiato (Jun 28, 2011)

Dan U said:


> Ppfftt over a grand surely
> 
> Won't someone think of the babyee



http://www.mothercare.com/Bugaboo-Cameleon-Special-Pram-Pushchair/dp/B003P6DASA?ie=UTF8&ref=sr_1_11&nodeId=598238031&sr=1-11&qid=1309272595&pf_rd_r=175835B9DYAY5YZTF9WY&pf_rd_m=A2LBKNDJ2KZUGQ&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_i=598238031&pf_rd_p=231490867&pf_rd_s=related-tab-3-5


----------



## B-Town (Jun 28, 2011)

B-Town said:


> £100???


 
In my last meeting, I realised I would want a McClaren buggy. they look cool and i would feel like a racing driver - how much are they?


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 28, 2011)

B-Town said:


> In my last meeting, I realised I would want a McClaren buggy. they look cool and i would feel like a racing driver - how much are they?


 
You can get the basic ones  for under a hundred. But they're pushchairs, prams are damned expensive. Was forced to part with £300 for mothercare's cheapest last year and not one bit happy about it.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 28, 2011)

B-Town said:


> In my last meeting, I realised I would want a McClaren buggy. they look cool and i would feel like a racing driver - how much are they?


 
Look out for your fingers.

Note they were recalled in the US but not in the UK!


----------



## editor (Jun 28, 2011)

Crispy said:


> Nothing gets sent to facebook unless the link is clicked


Just so I understand you, what exactly are your concerns about 'stuff' being sent to Facebook when you're sharing a link?


----------



## killer b (Jun 28, 2011)

Rushy said:


> Look out for your fingers.
> 
> Note they were recalled in the US but not in the UK!


 
that's because british kids haven't had their finger amputated by them. i guess there may be a variation in design of the yank ones?


----------



## Crispy (Jun 28, 2011)

editor said:


> Just so I understand you, what exactly are your concerns about 'stuff' being sent to Facebook when you're sharing a link?


 
You don't even have to share a link, that's my concern. The button itself is an <iframe> which loads facebook's code into the page. That code accesses your facebook cookie, letting facebook know what URL you visited, without you having to do a thing. I don't want facebook building up a profile of which urban threads I read. I suspect that political activists would be even less keen on it.

But it's also a matter of principle - we're allowing 3rd party code onto our members computers, without us having any vetting on that code. Are facebook putting malicious code in their share button? Probably not, but they could, and they wouldn't have to tell anyone.


----------



## IC3D (Jun 28, 2011)

McClaren buggy's lol 2005 wants their pushchair back


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 28, 2011)

Crispy said:


> You don't even have to share a link, that's my concern. The button itself is an <iframe> which loads facebook's code into the page. That code accesses your facebook cookie, letting facebook know what URL you visited, without you having to do a thing. I don't want facebook building up a profile of which urban threads I read. I suspect that political activists would be even less keen on it.
> 
> But it's also a matter of principle - we're allowing 3rd party code onto our members computers, without us having any vetting on that code. Are facebook putting malicious code in their share button? Probably not, but they could, and they wouldn't have to tell anyone.


 
Not liking the sound of that much!


----------



## editor (Jun 28, 2011)

Crispy said:


> You don't even have to share a link, that's my concern. The button itself is an <iframe> which loads facebook's code into the page. That code accesses your facebook cookie, letting facebook know what URL you visited, without you having to do a thing. I don't want facebook building up a profile of which urban threads I read. I suspect that political activists would be even less keen on it.
> 
> But it's also a matter of principle - we're allowing 3rd party code onto our members computers, without us having any vetting on that code. Are facebook putting malicious code in their share button? Probably not, but they could, and they wouldn't have to tell anyone.


Seeing as Facebook buttons can be found on the biggest sites in the world - including the BBC - I'm pretty sure that the entire world would know in double quick time if Facebook suddenly decided to commit commercial suicide and insert malicious code. 

I'm still not entirely sure about why you think Facebook would want to be building up a profile of the urban threads you view or what they might do with it. In fact, I'm not even sure that the tracking is as focussed and as identifiable as you suggest:



> Facebook and Google reportedly store this data for a limited period of time — two weeks and 90 days, respectively — and, importantly, the data isn’t recorded in a way that can be tied back to a user (unless, of course, the user affirmatively decides to “like” a webpage). Twitter reportedly records browsing data as well, but deletes it “quickly.”
> 
> Assuming the companies effectively anonymize the data they glean from their social widgets, privacy-conscious users have little reason to worry. I’m not aware of any evidence that social widget data has been misused or breached. However, as Pete Warden reminded us in an informative O’Reilly Radar essay posted earlier this week, anonymizing data is harder than it sounds, and supposedly “anonymous” data sets have been successfully de-anonymized on several occasions. (For more on the de-anonymization of data sets, see Arvind Narayanan and Vitaly Shmatikov’s 2008 research paper on the topic).
> 
> While these social widgets may well pose no real threat to privacy, some especially privacy-sensitive users might be wary of the risk of being “tracked” by a social networking service, however small that risk may be. Such concerns aren’t totally unreasonable — if, say, the browsing data collected by Facebook or Google were to be breached and subsequently de-anonymized and tied to authenticated (logged-in) users by malicious actors, the resulting privacy harms could be quite serious.


Even if you were unhappy with this, you can turn it off completely:


> Fortunately for privacy-conscious users, there are several ways to stop social widgets from collecting data about your browsing habits. As the Journal points out, you can simply log out of your Twitter or Facebook account prior to visiting other websites. Other methods include clearing out your cookies or using your browser’s privacy mode when visiting social networking sites. And, of course, there’s always the “nuclear option” of deleting your social networking accounts entirely.
> 
> Perhaps the most convenient, slick way to avoid social widgets is to simply use a browser add-on that selectively disables cross-site requests from Facebook, Twitter, and Google. The WSJ profiled one such add-on, Disconnect, which is compatible with Chrome, Firefox, and Safari.
> 
> ...


----------



## clandestino (Jun 28, 2011)

Rushy said:


> I appreciate that the local 'Brixton' forum is a small part of the overall site.  Some boards moderate different forums differently - e.g. you might expect a politics thread on immigration to be much more confrontational than the "where can I buy plants" thread. Implementing that might be quite complicated and a little confusing but without it I think the local threads are going to become less and less relevant.
> 
> I don't think that taking out the most aggressive, derailing, bullying posts from certain forums would compromise the boards too much but, as I said before, if that kind of post is U75's USP then it would be wrong to do so.


 
Different forums on Urban are already moderated in a different way - or at least one is. Suburban. Mrs M - quite rightly - makes it clear that she will not tolerate bunfights, pointless slaggings etc in Suburban, and the forum's still an important part of the boards as a whole and has a character that fits in with Urban. 

I personally think the OP in this particular thread received a slagging because he wanted something without having offered anything first and when he didn't get what he wanted straight away - the second post in the thread was him going "come on..." very impatiently - in exactly the way that he wanted it then he added a post complaining. 

We've seen this kind of attitude time and again with spammers on Urban. All get a frosty reception. Some take it with good grace, and end up promoting their event/thing anyway (and perhaps even end up joining the boards). Others get all huffy and it ends in tears (usually theirs). 

I don't think there's anything wrong with offering something that's useful to Brixton, while retaining the character of the boards. Although I also think that the thread would have been better off in the Noticeboard forum, which should be moderated in a similar way to Suburban.


----------



## editor (Jun 28, 2011)

ianw said:


> I personally think the OP in this particular thread received a slagging because he wanted something without having offered anything first and when he didn't get what he wanted straight away - the second post in the thread was him going "come on..." very impatiently - in exactly the way that he wanted it then he added a post complaining.


That's what annoyed me. He arrived here wanting something from the community and then started complaining when it wasn't served up quickly. 

It's not surprising that he made such a poor impression.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 28, 2011)

editor said:


> That's what annoyed me. He arrived here wanting something from the community and then started complaining when it wasn't served up quickly.
> 
> It's not surprising that he made such a poor impression.


On top, I would argue that the fact he clearly hadn't taken the time or trouble to read the boards and get the 'vibe' of U75 did him no favours


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 28, 2011)

ymu said:


> Or just constantly having to choose which bills are going to get paid this month, and whether there's going to be money for the meter if you buy enough food to last the week..



That category of worry can apply to other people besides cleaners. You yourself took after hours work cleaning, even though you have a govt job as a scientist, apparently.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 28, 2011)

ymu said:


> Be reasonable, Santino. Cleaning is woman's work. They can hardly expect the same legal protections as afforded to 'real' workers. And they don't need the money because they have a husband or father paying the bills. And if they don't like it, some immigrant will happily agree to be exploited instead. There's really no need to get worked up about it. It's just the way the world is and there's no point trying to change it.


 
This is quite a long way from the original talking point, which was a discussion of the reasoning behind why a cleaner should get the same wages as the neurosurgeon whose house he or she is cleaning.

You've gone from that, to  sexism and denial of legal rights.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 28, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> and you think that is in everyone's best interest, or conducive to developing a high-skilled, educated populace?


 
No, I'd rather that someone else had paid for the whole thing. It's just what happened.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 28, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> Yeah, the point where ymu duffed your argument with an authoritative stat study, and you effectively said "yeah so what?"


 
Which argument: I've been a professional and a cleaner, and I consider the professional work to be more stressful. I still do.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 28, 2011)

editor said:


> How does that work, phil?  Could you describe the difference in 'quality' between Facebook, Twitter and Google-sourced traffic, please?


 
This thread keeps giving, in so many ways.


----------



## grit (Jun 28, 2011)

editor said:


> That's what annoyed me. He arrived here wanting something from the community and then started complaining when it wasn't served up quickly.
> 
> It's not surprising that he made such a poor impression.


 
Yes, however in a large amount of forums such venom isint returned at such a request. In fact a lot of forums I post in dont give a fuck if you have already contributed to the community, once you are not a spammer.


----------



## editor (Jun 28, 2011)

grit said:


> Yes, however in a large amount of forums such venom isint returned at such a request. In fact a lot of forums I post in dont give a fuck if you have already contributed to the community, once you are not a spammer.


We're not "a large amount of forums." We are UrbanZ.


----------



## grit (Jun 28, 2011)

editor said:


> We're not "a large amount of forums." We are UrbanZ.


 
Yes a very particular breed, granted 

It does demonstrate why the attitude is taken by so many new users, this place is sometimes too close knit for its own good.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 28, 2011)

editor said:


> We're not "a large amount of forums." We are UrbanZ.


 


editor said:


> For the record, I've always - and I mean _ALWAYS_ - pitched this site to attract as many different readers, opinions and users as I can.


 
Pick one.


----------



## gaijingirl (Jun 28, 2011)

killer b said:


> that's because british kids haven't had their finger amputated by them. i guess there may be a variation in design of the yank ones?


 
Same design but different legal systems!  In the US families of the kids who lost their fingers started to sue.  So Maclaren offered little covers for the hinges to them.  Later, due to bad press and various mums on the 6 o'clock news crying over their children's lost digits, they also offered them to UK consumers.  I know this because I ordered our Maclaren the day the amputating finger story broke, literally hours before - whilst pregnant and hormonal and was quite worried!  They sent us the hinge covers and so far our littl'un still has all her fingers.


----------



## leanderman (Jun 28, 2011)

grit said:


> Yes a very particular breed, granted
> 
> It does demonstrate why the attitude is taken by so many new users, this place is sometimes too close knit for its own good.


 
It's all a bit like this:

http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struggle_session


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 28, 2011)

grit said:


> Yes, however in a large amount of forums such venom isint returned at such a request. In fact a lot of forums I post in dont give a fuck if you have already contributed to the community, once you are not a spammer.


 
I would say that there was a combination of disagreement with a number of the specific views expressed, and an irritation that somebody would then claim that they were able to express an opinion on behalf of the community without actually being part of it or having interacting with it beyond said thread.

I think that there would be quite few social areas on the net with any sense of community where this wouldn't be the case.


----------



## editor (Jun 28, 2011)

Crispy said:


> Pick one.


Pick one _what?_


----------



## editor (Jun 28, 2011)

leanderman said:


> It's all a bit like this:
> 
> http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struggle_session


I'll just post up the picture from that page for no other reason than I like it.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 28, 2011)




----------



## Crispy (Jun 28, 2011)

editor said:


> Pick one _what?_


 
One attitude. We're either 

"not a large amount of forums. We are UrbanZ."
ie. this is a tight-knit community, where you'll find it hard if you don't fit in, and will get treated harshly if you don't make you first steps in just the right way, but if you make it through, you're one of us for life.

or we
"pitch this site to attract as many different readers, opinions and users as we can"
ie. this is a broad church and all are welcome.

The two are opposed and are difficult to reconcile.


----------



## editor (Jun 28, 2011)

Crispy said:


> One attitude. We're either
> 
> "not a large amount of forums. We are UrbanZ."
> ie. this is a tight-knit community, where you'll find it hard if you don't fit in, and will get treated harshly if you don't make you first steps in just the right way, but if you make it through, you're one of us for life.
> ...


Jesus. It was a joke. A throwaway comment.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 28, 2011)

Oh, ok. I take it all back.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 28, 2011)

grit said:


> Yes, however in a large amount of forums such venom isint returned at such a request. In fact a lot of forums I post in dont give a fuck if you have already contributed to the community, once you are not a spammer.


 
Yep. There are other sites I use on which the mods have started to bar users who repeatedly respond to first time posters that they should 'Google it' or trawl through previous threads or read the rules. It just derails threads and prevents them from becoming all that useful. Mildly entertaining perhaps from time to time. I have no problem with the OP's first post being a request for local info. I agree he was a little impatient in bumping the thread after only an hour or so but you'd think he had torn a kitten's head off in front of a class of nursery kids.

This site definitely has character of its own but *if* its aim genuinely is to attract as many different readers and opinions as possible then IMO a few tweaks might be needed.


----------



## ymu (Jun 28, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> That category of worry can apply to other people besides cleaners. You yourself took after hours work cleaning, even though you have a govt job as a scientist, apparently.


 
I was referring to low-paid workers in general, Johnny. I don't think anyone should be on poverty wages, in case that wasn't clear.

HTH


----------



## Crispy (Jun 28, 2011)

Crispy said:


> Oh, ok. I take it all back.


But still, this does apply:


Rushy said:


> This site definitely has character of its own but *if* its aim genuinely is to attract as many different readers and opinions as possible then IMO a few tweaks might be needed.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 28, 2011)

ymu said:


> I was referring to low-paid workers in general, Johnny. I don't think anyone should be on poverty wages, in case that wasn't clear.
> 
> HTH



What are poverty wages?


----------



## editor (Jun 28, 2011)

Crispy said:


> But still, this does apply:


If the bolded 'if' is aimed at me then I'm a bit perplexed.

Just about _everything_ I've been suggesting and doing here recently here has been with the aim of attracting new posters. 

Things like adding the Brixton Noticeboard, arguing for tighter Twitter/Facebook integration, Tweeting interesting threads on my own account, posting links on Facebook to threads here etc etc. I know for a fact that my Tweets have helped drive traffic here and I think it's a bit of a shame that more people don't do it really.

As for sorting out the welcome (or lack of one) that new posters get, well, that's down to everyone. I have to say that I've voiced my concerns about this in the past though and have been shouted down.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 28, 2011)

Rushy said:


> Yep. There are other sites I use on which the mods have started to bar users who repeatedly respond to first time posters that they should 'Google it' or trawl through previous threads or read the rules. It just derails threads and prevents them from becoming all that useful. .


I don't see anything wrong with people telling new posters to get up to speed or do their homework, and certainly not on an issue as sensitive as hiring a domestic drudge


----------



## Rushy (Jun 28, 2011)

editor said:


> If the bolded 'if' is aimed at me then I'm a bit perplexed.


 
Ed, the bold was mine. It was intended to suggest that I don't know whether that is the stated aim but *if* it is then IMO...


----------



## Crispy (Jun 28, 2011)

Criticisms of urban75 forums are not criticisms of yourself editor, have no fear.

All I'm trying to say is that aiming to attract new users is all well and good, but it is in conflict with urban's existing community and 'feel'. It's an insular place, with its own traditions and cliques and I think most regular posters like it that way: urban75 for urban75 things, facebook for the real world, and don't let the two mix too much. I know that's how I treat it.

And no, I don't know what the answer is, because I don't see how you steer something that's dug such comfortable ruts for itself.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 28, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> I don't see anything wrong with people telling new posters to get up to speed or do their homework, and certainly not on an issue as sensitive as hiring a domestic drudge


 
Fair enough. Equally though, I think it is pointless. Each to their own.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 28, 2011)

Rushy said:


> Yep. There are other sites I use on which the mods have started to bar users who repeatedly respond to first time posters that they should 'Google it' or trawl through previous threads or read the rules. It just derails threads and prevents them from becoming all that useful. Mildly entertaining perhaps from time to time. I have no problem with the OP's first post being a request for local info. I agree he was a little impatient in bumping the thread after only an hour or so but you'd think he had torn a kitten's head off in front of a class of nursery kids.
> 
> This site definitely has character of its own but *if* its aim genuinely is to attract as many different readers and opinions as possible then IMO a few tweaks might be needed.


 
Negative response to this poster was basically due to the pretty obnoxious attitudes that he displayed. Bumping the thread had little to do with it apart from just making things worse.


----------



## editor (Jun 28, 2011)

Rushy said:


> Ed, the bold was mine. It was intended to suggest that I don't know whether that is the stated aim but *if* it is then IMO...


Well, the site has never had a big Mission Statement flying above its portals, but I've always wanted it to be _popular_, and in the past have employed every trick in the book to get people to at least take a look here, starting from 'Slap A Spice Girl' onwards. 

Of course, it'll never be all things to all people, but I am aware that without new posters boards can stagnate fairly quickly, and the ways to attract new posters have changed over time.


----------



## editor (Jun 28, 2011)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Negative response to this poster was basically due to the pretty obnoxious attitudes that he displayed. Bumping the thread had little to do with it apart from just making things worse.


I think there's an argument to be had about how some new posters are treated, but I have very little sympathy for this character.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 29, 2011)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Negative response to this poster was basically due to the pretty obnoxious attitudes that he displayed. Bumping the thread had little to do with it apart from just making things worse.


 
I'm missing something. Apart from very clumsily bumping the thread, at what point was he unforgivably obnoxious before he was first called a lazy fecker? Or indeed before he was first referred to as a cunt?


----------



## editor (Jun 29, 2011)

Crispy said:


> Criticisms of urban75 forums are not criticisms of yourself editor, have no fear.
> 
> All I'm trying to say is that aiming to attract new users is all well and good, but it is in conflict with urban's existing community and 'feel'. It's an insular place, with its own traditions and cliques and I think most regular posters like it that way: urban75 for urban75 things, facebook for the real world, and don't let the two mix too much. I know that's how I treat it.


I think you've got this really wrong. 

I don't see Facebook and urban as being two separate worlds _at all_. There's folks posting both here and on Facebook and I don't see any difference in what they're saying or any huge character transformations going on.

They're just two parallel forms of communication, and Facebook is better for some things and urban is better for others - and there's plenty of examples of people mixing freely between both.

For example, I made the Refuseniks event page on Facebook and loads of urbans said they'd be attending on the page, but almost all the chat about the event was here. And chat is what we're good at because there's more of a community here.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 29, 2011)

Rushy said:


> I'm missing something. Apart from very clumsily bumping the thread, at what point was he unforgivably obnoxious before he was first called a lazy fecker? Or indeed before he was first referred to as a cunt?


 
I assume we're referring to his first thread before the second, but during the former he displayed miserable selfish penny-pinching superior attitudes which at least made me - and I'm hardly a militant anti-cleanerist - think "cunt".


----------



## TruXta (Jun 29, 2011)

editor said:


> I think you've got this really wrong.
> 
> I don't see Facebook and urban as being two separate worlds _at all_. There's folks posting both here and on Facebook and I don't see any difference in what they're saying or any huge character transformations going on.
> 
> ...


 
He's got it entirely right in my view. I don't want any more than is necessary to know the link between my RL and online life. Maybe that link has blurred for some people, but your experience is just that, one man's experience. FWIW I see a lot more wariness on U75 about having your identity exposed than people clamoring to hook their FB and urban avatars up.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 29, 2011)

editor said:


> I think you've got this really wrong.
> 
> I don't see Facebook and urban as being two separate worlds _at all_. There's folks posting both here and on Facebook and I don't see any difference in what they're saying or any huge character transformations going on.
> 
> ...


 
in terms of existing posters, you're absolutely right. But I don't think posting threads on Facebook is going to bring many new members here. Facebook is all about "hey look what I found" and then people have a quick fb comment thread on it and then they move on.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 29, 2011)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I assume we're referring to his first thread before the second, but during the former he displayed miserable selfish penny-pinching superior attitudes which at least made me - and I'm hardly a militant anti-cleanerist - think "cunt".


 
Yep. First thread. But at what point did he become the miserable git you describe? He was accused of being a lazy fecker after his second post (The Bump) and a cunt after his third post in which he was clearly being overly defensive about having being called a lazy fecker.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 29, 2011)

Crispy said:


> in terms of existing posters, you're absolutely right. But I don't think posting threads on Facebook is going to bring many new members here. Facebook is all about "hey look what I found" and then people have a quick fb comment thread on it and then they move on.


 
FB is good for event promos, organising shit with large groups and can to a limited extent be used as an email/chat client. Other than that it's nothing but a glorified Rolodex.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 29, 2011)

TruXta said:


> FB is good for event promos, organising shit with large groups and can to a limited extent be used as an email/chat client. Other than that it's nothing but a glorified Rolodex.


 
with extra surveillance


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 29, 2011)

Rushy said:


> Yep. First thread. But at what point did he become the miserable git you describe? He was accused of being a lazy fecker after his second post (The Bump) and a cunt after his third post in which he was clearly being overly defensive about having being called a lazy fecker.


 
The obnoxious attitudes were to do with attitudes to cleaners, poor people, lefties etc - nothing to do with having been called a lazy fecker.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 29, 2011)

Crispy said:


> in terms of existing posters, you're absolutely right. But I don't think posting threads on Facebook is going to bring many new members here. Facebook is all about "hey look what I found" and then people have a quick fb comment thread on it and then they move on.


 
All I see when I log on to FB these days is mums posting pictures of their kiddies birthday parties and links to articles about the latest face of Jesus turning up in a giant turnip


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 29, 2011)

Rushy said:


> Yep. First thread. But at what point did he become the miserable git you describe? He was accused of being a lazy fecker after his second post (The Bump) and a cunt after his third post in which he was clearly being overly defensive about having being called a lazy fecker.


but he wasn't called a 'lazy fecker'; Editor used that phrase whilst advising him to get clued up on the site's "vibe", and he threw a hissy fit shortly after


----------



## ymu (Jun 29, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> What are poverty wages?


A level of pay which would leave a full-time worker below the poverty level. 

Around a fifth of the UK population are living below the poverty level. Not something to be proud of. Or contribute to.


----------



## grit (Jun 29, 2011)

editor said:


> I think you've got this really wrong.
> 
> I don't see Facebook and urban as being two separate worlds _at all_. There's folks posting both here and on Facebook and I don't see any difference in what they're saying or any huge character transformations going on.


 
I think quite a few people would post differently on urban compared to fb tbh.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 29, 2011)

I have noticed quite a few new posters getting it in the neck in the last say 12 months on here. 

Usually they start a thread, almost as their first action. Often it is a hello thread which seems doomed to end in their demise. 

There was one case which I thought quite shocking, I almost made a point about it, it was a feeding frenzy and over such small things it was crazy. 

IIRC when I started here I just posted to other people's threads for a couple of months. I think that is an easier entry. If I was talking to someone thinking of joining in, I would recommend that way.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 29, 2011)

The majority of people who start "hello" threads are spammers.

This may not be immediately apparent, since when spammers get deleted, the "delete all posts and threads by this user" option will remove those as well, if that's selected.


----------



## editor (Jun 29, 2011)

grit said:


> I think quite a few people would post differently on urban compared to fb tbh.


Some, perhaps. But that doesn't mean that it can't be used as a way of attracting new posters here. Facebook is now _above_ Google in the urban75 referral log, so I know the difference it can make. 

In fact, it's now the #1 source of referrals to my blog, and has been for the last three months.


Crispy said:


> Facebook is all about "hey look what I found" and then people have a quick fb comment thread on it and then they move on.


I really think you're confusing your own personal experience with how many other people use/see Facebook. 

Why do you think so many huge companies have set up branded Facebook accounts? 
http://www.ignitesocialmedia.com/facebook-marketing/top-50-branded-facebook-pages/


----------



## editor (Jun 29, 2011)

Rushy said:


> All I see when I log on to FB these days is mums posting pictures of their kiddies birthday parties and links to articles about the latest face of Jesus turning up in a giant turnip


I think that's really down to the kind of friends you have on there!


----------



## editor (Jun 29, 2011)

TruXta said:


> I don't want any more than is necessary to know the link between my RL and online life.


For the last time: there is NO link being proposed. The only possible linkeage is if you decide - of your own violation - to publicly announce to everyone, "Hi I'm TruXta on the boards and Johnny McWafflePants on Facebook." 

If you decide not to do that there is no possible connection anyone can make between your board name and your Facebook profile. None. Nothing at all.  Zero.


----------



## grit (Jun 29, 2011)

editor said:


> Some, perhaps. But that doesn't mean that it can't be used as a way of attracting new posters here. Facebook is now _above_ Google in the urban75 referral log, so I know the difference it can make.
> 
> In fact, it's now the #1 source of referrals to my blog, and has been for the last three months.


 
Absolutely it could be used successfully to attract new posters, I think an official channel for want of a better description would be better than having current users linking urban threads on fb tho. There are plenty of threads I would link to facebook from here if it wasnt for my involvement in some forums such as drugs that I wouldn't no want linked to my real identity for obvious reasons.

I think other df users along with people involved with direct action have similar concerns which would negatively impact the generation of new users through facebook links


----------



## TruXta (Jun 29, 2011)

editor said:


> For the last time: there is NO link being proposed. The only possible linkeage is if you decide - of your own violation - to publicly announce to everyone, "Hi I'm TruXta on the boards and Johnny McWafflePants on Facebook."
> 
> If you decide not to do that there is no possible connection anyone can make between your board name and your Facebook profile. None. Nothing at all.  Zero.


 
Hang on, if you had it your way we would all link threads here on FB - as I said to Crispy earlier it doesn't take a genius to work out the connection if you link to enough threads where you yourself participate. Maybe I'm being paranoid, but unfortunately it seems we all have a reason to be a bit paranoid about online privacy.


----------



## editor (Jun 29, 2011)

grit said:


> Absolutely it could be used successfully to attract new posters, I think an official channel for want of a better description would be better than having current users linking urban threads on fb tho. There are plenty of threads I would link to facebook from here if it wasnt for my involvement in some forums such as drugs that I wouldn't no want linked to my real identity for obvious reasons.


And that's entirely your choice, but I've linked to several interesting threads here on Facebook, just like any other poster (or reader/visitor) is free to do and I've no doubt some of those posts have driven more traffic here. 

Despite linking to threads, most of my Facebook friends have no idea what my board name is here, and unless I go out of my way to tell them, I doubt if they'll ever know.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 29, 2011)

editor said:


> Why do you think so many huge companies have set up branded Facebook accounts?
> http://www.ignitesocialmedia.com/facebook-marketing/top-50-branded-facebook-pages/


 
Because they're immensely easily suckered by "the next big thing".


----------



## editor (Jun 29, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Hang on, if you had it your way we would all link threads here on FB - as I said to Crispy earlier it doesn't take a genius to work out the connection if you link to enough threads where you yourself participate.


Err, no. I've linked to many threads here I haven't participated.


TruXta said:


> Maybe I'm being paranoid, but unfortunately it seems we all have a reason to be a bit paranoid about online privacy.


Being on Facebook at all is probably not the greatest idea if you're "a bit paranoid about online privacy!"

Because of real life threats, I take my online privacy more seriously than most, but if you keep your Facebook account fully locked down, I'm not seeing any obvious threat from mentioning interesting, publicly available threads on my account. After all, the only people who are going to see me mentioning those threads are my friends.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 29, 2011)

ymu said:


> A level of pay which would leave a full-time worker below the poverty level.
> 
> Around a fifth of the UK population are living below the poverty level. Not something to be proud of. Or contribute to.


 
Whatever the problems with the current system, it is the current system. I can't see how refusing to employ a worker because their wages are low, is somehow supposed to be helping that worker.


----------



## editor (Jun 29, 2011)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Because they're immensely easily suckered by "the next big thing".


I could happily draw you in the direction of ample research that shows the quantifiable benefits of using Facebook as part of a campaign strategy. But I can't be arsed, tbh.


----------



## grit (Jun 29, 2011)

editor said:


> Despite linking to threads, most of my Facebook friends have no idea what my board name is here, and unless I go out of my way to tell them, I doubt if they'll ever know.


 
Link enough threads and I think anyone that knows a person reasonably well could figure out who the person is. I know several of my mates would cop my posting style quickly, that said I have less than 150 friends on facebook all whom I know well


----------



## editor (Jun 29, 2011)

grit said:


> Link enough threads and I think anyone that knows a person reasonably well could figure out who the person is. I know several of my mates would cop my posting style quickly, that said I have less than 150 friends on facebook all whom I know well


Then they could just as easily find out by viewing the forum, if they were so inclined.  

But, again, that connection could only possibly be made if _you_ decided to start posting those threads up on your Facebook wall. But seeing as no one is suggesting making that compulsory, the actual privacy risk to you remains zero.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 29, 2011)

editor said:


> Err, no. I've linked to many threads here I haven't participated.
> 
> Being on Facebook at all is probably not the greatest idea if you're "a bit paranoid about online privacy!"
> 
> Because of real life threats, I take my online privacy more seriously than most, but if you keep your Facebook account fully locked down, I'm not seeing any obvious threat from mentioning interesting, publicly available threads on my account. After all, the only people who are going to see me mentioning those threads are my friends.


 
I specifically said threads you yourself participated in, but whatever. As for your latter point - well, dude, I don't want all my mates to know about my online personas. Some do, the vast majority don't. There are good reasons for that, nothing dramatic, it's just the way I like it.


----------



## grit (Jun 29, 2011)

editor said:


> Then they could just as easily find out by viewing the forum, if they were so inclined.
> 
> But, again, that connection could only possibly be made if _you_ decided to start posting those threads up on your Facebook wall. But seeing as no one is suggesting making that compulsory, the actual privacy risk to you remains zero.


 
Yes, sorry I wasnt suggesting that its anything other than a personal choice, just that due to the eh... alternative nature of urban such social media promotion may not be as successful in other situations. 

I'm all for you doing integration in an attempt to drive traffic, I also think you should be generating revenue but we wont get into that


----------



## editor (Jun 29, 2011)

TruXta said:


> I specifically said threads you yourself participated in, but whatever. As for your latter point - well, dude, I don't want all my mates to know about my online personas. Some do, the vast majority don't. There are good reasons for that, nothing dramatic, it's just the way I like it.


That's fair enough and entirely your choice  - but there is nothing being suggested that will compromise anyone's real life ID in _any way at all_ - unless users specifically decide to do it themselves.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 29, 2011)

editor said:


> That's fair enough and entirely your choice  - but there is nothing being suggested that will compromise anyone's real life ID in _any way at all_ - unless users specifically decide to do it themselves.


 
If you build it they will come.... or maybe they won't. Try it out and see, I suppose.


----------



## ymu (Jun 29, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Whatever the problems with the current system, it is the current system. I can't see how refusing to employ a worker because their wages are low, is somehow supposed to be helping that worker.


 
The employer gets to choose the wage, Johnny. Anything wrong with them paying a decent rate?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 29, 2011)

ymu said:


> The employer gets to choose the wage, Johnny. Anything wrong with them paying a decent rate?


 
Do you pay the person who cuts your hair the same amount that others pay; or do you voluntarily double or triple the rate, out of concern for her/his economic welfare?


----------



## Rushy (Jun 29, 2011)

editor said:


> I think that's really down to the kind of friends you have on there!


 
One minute it was the Dogstar, Ibiza and festivals. Then I blinked and the next...


----------



## editor (Jun 29, 2011)

Rushy said:


> One minute it was the Dogstar, Ibiza and festivals. Then I blinked and the next...


----------



## ymu (Jun 29, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Do you pay the person who cuts your hair the same amount that others pay; or do you voluntarily double or triple the rate, out of concern for her/his economic welfare?


 
They're usually on PAYE, so their employer is doing all the tax, holiday and sick pay, pension, employment rights and so on. You can't expect someone to be self-employed on the same rate of pay.

I haven't been to a hairdresser for years, but at a guess you would be paying at least £25/hour there. Why would you expect to pay your cleaner £10/hour?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 29, 2011)

editor said:


> I could happily draw you in the direction of ample research that shows the quantifiable benefits of using Facebook as part of a campaign strategy. But I can't be arsed, tbh.


 
That's all right, no problem, it's late.

They used to set up Second Life areas as well.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 29, 2011)

ymu said:


> They're usually on PAYE, so their employer is doing all the tax, holiday and sick pay, pension, employment rights and so on. You can't expect someone to be self-employed on the same rate of pay.


 
Somehow I knew you'd say that you don't go to hair stylists.


----------



## grit (Jun 29, 2011)

ymu said:


> They're usually on PAYE, so their employer is doing all the tax, holiday and sick pay, pension, employment rights and so on. You can't expect someone to be self-employed on the same rate of pay.
> 
> I haven't been to a hairdresser for years, but at a guess you would be paying at least £25/hour there. Why would you expect to pay your cleaner £10/hour?


 
Cleaner is a less skilled job and thus attracts a lower rate of pay, thought that would be obvious.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 29, 2011)

ymu said:


> you would be paying at least £25/hour there. Why would you expect to pay your cleaner £10/hour?


 
Mainly because I can wash my own dishes if necessary. I can't cut my own hair. 

So I value the skills of the person more, economically speaking, if they're skills I need but don't posess personally.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 29, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Mainly because I can wash my own dishes if necessary. I can't cut my own hair.
> 
> So I value the skills of the person more, economically speaking, if they're skills I need but don't posess personally.


 
It's pretty easy to cut your own hair. I do it all the time.


----------



## editor (Jun 29, 2011)

This thread is like a whole forum condensed down.


----------



## ymu (Jun 29, 2011)

grit said:


> Cleaner is a less skilled job and thus attracts a lower rate of pay, thought that would be obvious.


Yeeeees. Now, how many contractors do you know that charge the same hourly rate as for PAYE?


----------



## grit (Jun 29, 2011)

ymu said:


> Yeeeees. Now, how many contractors do you know that charge the same hourly rate as for PAYE?


 
I dont assume to know every contractors personal situation, you shouldn't either. As a consumer if someone is self employed is of no relevance to me, why would it be?

/me ponders what the next personal attack will be.


----------



## ymu (Jun 29, 2011)

grit said:


> I dont assume to know every contractors personal situation, you shouldn't either. As a consumer if someone is self employed is of no relevance to me, why would it be?
> 
> /me ponders what the next personal attack will be.


 
OK. Well, contractors will typically charge 2-3 times the basic rate they could expect to earn from PAYE. 1.5x is just what it would cost the employer to pay them with salary and overheads (overheads come in at around 50%, 46% in my sector). But they're not paying holiday pay, so there's only 45 weeks to earn 52 weeks pay in (25 days annual leave plus bank holidays). But you can't be working for clients all that time, because you will be doing paperwork and taxes and touting for business, and that all needs to come within your 40 hour week and be paid for by clients. And you have no job security, so you need to be building up a safety net so you can survive the loss of a big client, because they won't be liable for a redundancy payout.

For a contractor turning up to do a two hour job every fortnight (high transit time and cost per hour worked), 3x PAYE is about right just to maintain parity with PAYE. Living wage in London is £8. So £24.


----------



## grit (Jun 29, 2011)

ymu said:


> OK. Well, contractors will typically charge 2-3 times the basic rate they could expect to earn from PAYE. 1.5x is just what it would cost the employer to pay them with salary and overheads (overheads come in at around 50%, 46% in my sector). But they're not paying holiday pay, so there's only 45 weeks to earn 52 weeks pay in (25 days annual leave plus bank holidays). But you can't be working for clients all that time, because you will be doing paperwork and taxes and touting for business, and that all needs to come within your 40 hour week and be paid for by clients. And you have no job security, so you need to be building up a safety net so you can survive the loss of a big client, because they won't be liable for a redundancy payout.
> 
> For a contractor turning up to do a two hour job every fortnight (high transit time and cost per hour worked), 3x PAYE is about right kust to maintain parity with PAYE. Living wage in London is £8. So £24.


 
Lol, i love how you are teaching me about contracting, thats cute


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 29, 2011)

FridgeMagnet said:


> It's pretty easy to cut your own hair. I do it all the time.


 
You're not negro.


----------



## ymu (Jun 29, 2011)

grit said:


> Lol, i love how you are teaching me about contracting, thats cute


 
You gave the impression that you had no way of knowing the answer to my question. Why did you not just give a sensible answer?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 29, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> You're not negro.


 
Like clippers are racist or something.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 29, 2011)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Like clippers are racist or something.


 
No. But tight curly hair is more difficult to cut than straight hair.


Also, I have a job where appearance is somewhat important.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 29, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> No. But tight curly hair is more difficult to cut than straight hair.
> 
> 
> Also, I have a job where appearance is somewhat important.


 
Right yeah, a #0 cut across your whole head is ethnically-specific. And don't diss my hair. You'll be saying I have an easy white beard to trim next.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 29, 2011)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Right yeah, a #0 cut across your whole head is ethnically-specific. And don't diss my hair. You'll be saying I have an easy white beard to trim next.



I could manage a 0 razor cut right across the head. But I don't want a 0 razor cut right across the head. Cutting the hair, and shaving oneself bald, are two different matters.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 29, 2011)

#0 as in, clippers without a comb on them, which is what I do normally. This is not razor-close.


----------



## grit (Jun 29, 2011)

ymu said:


> You gave the impression that you had no way of knowing the answer to my question. Why did you not just give a sensible answer?


 
Nope you read my answer the way you wanted it to read. I said as a consumer the vendors status had no relevance which comes back to there being no reason to pay more just because someone is self employed. 

If someone is charging twice what the current market rate is, they need to add a lot of value, im not just going to throw money at them based on their situation


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 29, 2011)

FridgeMagnet said:


> #0 as in, clippers without a comb on them, which is what I do normally. This is not razor-close.


 
Whatever: it's a uniform cut that simply involves you running a razor all over your head.  My hair isn't long, but just slightly more is involved when I get it cut. Scissors are involved. A comb.

That's the part I can't manage.


----------



## free spirit (Jun 29, 2011)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Right yeah, a #0 cut across your whole head is ethnically-specific. And don't diss my hair. *You'll be saying I have an easy white beard to trim next*.


FridgeMagnet earlier today...


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 29, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Whatever: it's a uniform cut that simply involves you running a razor all over your head.  My hair isn't long, but just slightly more is involved when I get it cut. Scissors are involved. A comb.
> 
> That's the part I can't manage.



You are basically a lazy exploiter of the working classes.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 29, 2011)

free spirit said:


> FridgeMagnet earlier today...


 
I am like


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 29, 2011)

FridgeMagnet said:


> You are basically a lazy exploiter of the working classes.


 
The guy who cuts my hair has his own shop, and he and his missus go to Maui or on a cruise twice a year. I don't go to Maui twice a year.

Who is exploiting who?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 29, 2011)

How is your kung fu?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 29, 2011)

FridgeMagnet said:


> How is your kung fu?


 
Better than yours. 

Grasshopper


----------



## free spirit (Jun 29, 2011)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I am like


tbf, that doesn't look like an easy white beard to cut... the bloke* looks like he'd batter the fuck out of anyone who tried.


*sorry, I mean fridgemagnet


----------



## ymu (Jun 29, 2011)

grit said:


> Nope you read my answer the way you wanted it to read. I said as a consumer the vendors status had no relevance which comes back to there being no reason to pay more just because someone is self employed.
> 
> If someone is charging twice what the current market rate is, they need to add a lot of value, im not just going to throw money at them based on their situation


But you are talking nonsense. The 'consumer' here is the employer (workers are people, not commodities, BTW). If they are employees on PAYE, then the employer incurs significantly higher costs and greater responsibilities. It's a massive great difference.

What unscrupulous employers can get away with is nothing to do with what is right.


----------



## Ms T (Jun 29, 2011)

At £25 an hour, all of those ladies who clean for cash in hand (including my mother) would be unemployed.  My Mum makes a hell of a lot more as a part-time cleaner than she did working in a café.


----------



## ymu (Jun 29, 2011)

Ms T said:


> At £25 an hour, all of those ladies who clean for cash in hand (including my mother) would be unemployed.  My Mum makes a hell of a lot more as a part-time cleaner than she did working in a café.


 
It strikes me as odd that someone who can afford to live in London and have a cleaner, cannot afford to pay the cleaner enough to live in London. Doesn't seem very sustainable without housing benefit, which yet again makes me ask, why are we paying housing benefit so that Londoners can afford to live in London?


----------



## Ms T (Jun 29, 2011)

ymu said:


> It strikes me as odd that someone who can afford to live in London and have a cleaner, cannot afford to pay the cleaner enough to live in London. Doesn't seem very sustainable without housing benefit, which yet again makes me ask, why are we paying housing benefit so that Londoners can afford to live in London?


 
The living wage is £8 an hour.  Most freelancers at my place of employment (highly skilled) don't get paid £25 an hour, which is the equivalent of more than 40K a year.  Are you really suggesting that cleaners should be paid that much?


----------



## ymu (Jun 29, 2011)

Ms T said:


> The living wage is £8 an hour.  Most freelancers at my place of employment (highly skilled) don't get paid £25 an hour, which is the equivalent of more than 40K a year.  Are you really suggesting that cleaners should be paid that much?


Are you really suggesting that people who are self-employed should be on the same hourly rate as someone on PAYE?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 29, 2011)

ymu said:


> Would you work down a sewer for your current pay?


 
I missed this last night in the shit storm.


The answer is 'hell yeah!' I've done labor work before. Every night, I could go home and forget about the job the minute the whistle blew. As you've said, a lot of the stress at the labor level, is economic, ie, not enough money to make ends meet. Pay the laborer a six figure income, and that economic stress is gone.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 29, 2011)

ymu said:


> Their employers and/or clients cover the cost of their professional indemnity insurance.


 
Many professionals are self-employed. They pay their own indemnity insurance.


----------



## Ms T (Jun 29, 2011)

ymu said:


> Are you really suggesting that people who are self-employed should be on the same hourly rate as someone on PAYE?


 
The hourly rate of someone on PAYE varies wildly, though, doesn't it?  I was on PAYE when I earned 12 grand a year.  I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 29, 2011)

I just looked it up. PAYE, just seems to be what we call 'source deduction' here. Here, by law, every employer must source deduct income tax from an employee's pay.

What does this have to do with anything?


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 29, 2011)

editor said:


> Just about _everything_ I've been suggesting and doing here recently here has been with the aim of attracting new posters.



Why do you want to attract new posters?


----------



## kabbes (Jun 29, 2011)

I am astonished how many people cannot grasp the simple difference between £10ph salary and £10ph contracting.

In the simplest possible terms for you: getting £10ph for some contract work, like cleaning, is worth *a whole lot less* than getting £10ph as your salary.

Do you think your salary-paying employer charges his customers £10ph to cover the work you do?  Of course he doesn't!  So why do you think that the customer in contract work should pay the exact labour cost and no more?

If you get £25 ph in your professional job then clients are being charged at LEAST £75ph for your services and probably quite a lot more.  Nobody is suggesting you pay your cleaner £75ph, which means the cleaner is getting a fuck of a lot less than the professional.

How is this so hard to understand?

And will people please stop saying "cash in hand" as if that justified anything.  We're talking about what constitutes a living salary for a full time worker here, not what somebody can eke out as pin money so long as they don't tell the taxman.  The fact that your money goes further if you don't declare it is hardly a startling revelation, nor is it relevant to this discussion.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 29, 2011)

kabbes said:


> In the simplest possible terms for you: getting £10ph for some contract work, like cleaning, is worth *a whole lot less* than getting £10ph as your salary..


 
Uh...........what was that again?


----------



## kabbes (Jun 29, 2011)

You don't read one blind word anybody says, do you Johnny?  Ymu has explained this a good dozen times already.

Is the contractor being paid for holidays?  Time between jobs?  Time taken to do paperwork?

Is the salaried employee getting paid for these things (or having somebody else do them for her)?

The contractor will have to do a whole lot more hours to get the same total sum of money in her pocket.  £10ph is not just £10ph.  How many other ways can we point out the same elementary fact of personal finance?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 29, 2011)

kabbes said:


> You don't read one blind word anybody says, do you Johnny?  Ymu has explained this a good dozen times already.


 
Then why did you bring it up again?


----------



## kabbes (Jun 29, 2011)

Another way of putting it:

Those employing a cleaner seem to want to pay as if they are an employer (literally just the salary cost) but only have the responsibilities of a customer.

If you are a customer then pay customer's rates, which includes allowance for overhead, tax and profit.  As a rough guide, this is about 3x pure labour cost.

If you are an employer then you have responsibilities about paying holidays, sick days, redundancy and so on.

You can't have it both ways!


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 29, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Is the contractor being paid for holidays?  Time between jobs?  Time taken to do paperwork?
> 
> Is the salaried employee getting paid for these things (or having somebody else do them for her)?


 
It will all depend on the agreement between the employer and the employee.

Obviously, if one has negotiated other non-wage benefits that are part of the compensation package, then by defnintion, the employee is getting more than ten per hour. 

But most contractors are aware that they can avail themselves of tax deductions for expenses etc, that aren't available to the salaried employee. That helps to level things out a little bit.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 29, 2011)

Also, contractors in business for themselves can incorporate, which brings further tax benefits not available to employees.

As well, contracting brings flexibility of hours etc, that can, depending on one's life situation, have some value for the individual.


----------



## killer b (Jun 29, 2011)

It's closer to 1.5 - 2 times labour costs in my industry kabbes. Job agencies (at least at the unskilled end of the market) seem about the same too.


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 29, 2011)

FridgeMagnet said:


> It's pretty easy to cut your own hair. I do it all the time.


 
I bloody can't do it. Mind you I just don't cut it.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 29, 2011)

killer b said:


> It's closer to 1.5 - 2 times labour costs in my industry kabbes. Job agencies (at least at the unskilled end of the market) seem about the same too.


 
Yeah, I'm more than happy to discuss the multiple.  If people have done the research and found that 1.5 - 2 is about right then great.  If a living wage is £8ph then the total rate would then, obviously, have to be £12-£15ph.  Or to target a pay of £10ph, we're looking at a fee of £15-£20ph.

No, my objection is with people who don't realise that the multiple needs to exist _at all_...


----------



## miss minnie (Jun 29, 2011)

kabbes said:


> I am astonished how many people cannot grasp the simple difference between £10ph salary and £10ph contracting.
> 
> In the simplest possible terms for you: getting £10ph for some contract work, like cleaning, is worth *a whole lot less* than getting £10ph as your salary.


Is that £10ph salary _before tax and NI_?


----------



## kabbes (Jun 29, 2011)

miss minnie said:


> Is that £10ph salary _before tax and NI_?


 
Yes, as is the £10ph contract work.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 29, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Do you think your salary-paying employer charges his customers £10ph to cover the work you do?  Of course he doesn't!  So why do you think that the customer in contract work should pay the exact labour cost and no more?



 A good indication of whether the market would tolerate £25/hr is the price charged by domestic contractor companies. If they could charge out a cleaner for £25/hr they would - but they seem to charge about £9-14 because otherwise there would be hardly any demand. It is pretty normal for freelancers to undercut agencies / contractor charge out rates in order to be competitive. I don't know any freelancers who charge out at their equivalent corporate rate (although I'm sure that it would be possible to find some examples).

So I understand your principle but isn't the reality that, if cleaners charged £25/hr most people who currently employ them would probably cease to do so because they could not afford (or would choose not to) pay someone £75-100/week for 3-4hrs of work. It is, for most, a luxury they could easily do away with. So a whole load of what are essentially unskilled jobs would disappear. Would that be a better alternative?


----------



## killer b (Jun 29, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Yeah, I'm more than happy to discuss the multiple.  If people have done the research and found that 1.5 - 2 is about right then great.  If a living wage is £8ph then the total rate would then, obviously, have to be £12-£15ph.  Or to target a pay of £10ph, we're looking at a fee of £15-£20ph.
> 
> No, my objection is with people who don't realise that the multiple needs to exist _at all_...


 
hm, i dunno - with job agencies and the like, there's managers, back office and dividends etc which take up the lions share of the multiplier. i'd say the real figure (to put the self employed person on the same financial level as the contract staff) would be much lower - depending on industry of course.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 29, 2011)

Rushy said:


> A good indication of whether the market would tolerate £25/hr is the price charged by domestic contractor companies. If they could charge out a cleaner for £25/hr they would - but they seem to charge about £9-14


 
Stop right there, that's absolutely balls.  When I looked into it last year, the agency I questioned were currently charging £18ph but warned me that their rates were going up a few months later to £20ph.  At killer b's 1.5-2x ratio, that's bang on the £10ph plus mark-up level.  And that's not even in London.

Can you point me to an agency that charges £9ph, because I just don't believe it.  I'm not even convinced about £14ph, but can just about see it from a really exploitative firm.


----------



## grit (Jun 29, 2011)

ymu said:


> But you are talking nonsense. *The 'consumer' here is the employer* (workers are people, not commodities, BTW). If they are employees on PAYE, then the employer incurs significantly higher costs and greater responsibilities. It's a massive great difference.
> 
> What unscrupulous employers can get away with is nothing to do with what is right.


 
Stop, think, the term is self employed. Now read it again and let it settle in, got it? good.

Christ, dont ever try to run your own business you will be eaten alive with that attitude. One of the greatest strengths of running your own show is being able to say no to customers you dont want (or you can always quote some ridiculous rate and see if they bite, thats always fun!).

Whenever I do a freelance gig, they are paying my rates because they dont want to have to deal with another employee, thats what makes it so attractive.


----------



## metal13 (Jun 29, 2011)

grit said:


> One of the greatest strengths of running your own show is being able to say no to customers you dont want (or you can always quote some ridiculous rate and see if they bite, thats always fun!).
> 
> Whenever I do a freelance gig, they are paying my rates because they dont want to have to deal with another employee, thats what makes it so attractive.


 
This, so much this. The whole point is that there is a market rate. The cleaner is under no obligation to accept the rate offered. The person hiring them is under no obligation to raise their rates. If the cleaner declines the work, and no one else will take that rate, then the rate has to go up, or they clean up their own stuff.

If the cleaner accepts, then it's sorted. I turn down jobs that are below my  rate in my employment. It's no different for a cleaner, or anyone really.


----------



## grit (Jun 29, 2011)

metal13 said:


> This, so much this. The whole point is that there is a market rate. The cleaner is under no obligation to accept the rate offered. The person hiring them is under no obligation to raise their rates. If the cleaner declines the work, and no one else will take that rate, then the rate has to go up, or they clean up their own stuff.
> 
> If the cleaner accepts, then it's sorted. I turn down jobs that are below my  rate in my employment. It's no different for a cleaner, or anyone really.


 
Obviously someone who has been self employed!

Just to add, its usually good for many reasons to reject low rate work, in addition to the obvious financial benefits. Most customers who are so price sensitive are usually completely unreasonable to deal with. Once you find a customer that understands where your value is added, both parties have a much better experience in the deal. The only situation where an employer relationship enters the dynamic is if I use sub contractors to assist in the delivery, even then its fuzzy as I am essentially their customer.


----------



## Dan U (Jun 29, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Another way of putting it:
> 
> Those employing a cleaner seem to want to pay as if they are an employer (literally just the salary cost) but only have the responsibilities of a customer.
> 
> ...



this is bobbins.

you and ymu are fixated on this idea of paying someone 3x standard cost, like being a cleaner is equivalent to a management consultancy firm charging their workers time or something.

if i employed a cleaner, as a member of staff, i would pay them £7, for example, that would cost me as an employer, £10 an hour. If i was charging a cleaner to a client, I would be charging at £13 per hour.

these aren't the margins of a management consultancy business. and the woman down the road who cleans my neighbours house doesn't have the overheads of one, so why on earth would you conflate the two. its bonkers.

£10 an hour might be low but £24 or 3x a normal hourly rate is just not realistic.

i am a consultant, i have various clients and i have time when i don't work. i don't charge 3x the normal rate or i would have no work whatsoever.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 29, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Stop right there, that's absolutely balls.  When I looked into it last year, the agency I questioned were currently charging £18ph but warned me that their rates were going up a few months later to £20ph.  At killer b's 1.5-2x ratio, that's bang on the £10ph plus mark-up level.  And that's not even in London.
> 
> Can you point me to an agency that charges £9ph, because I just don't believe it.  I'm not even convinced about £14ph, but can just about see it from a really exploitative firm.


 
I'm sorry that you think it is balls. I don't know in what capacity you were doing the research or how thorough it was but if you Google Domestic Cleaner the first one to come up is http://www.cleaninghouselondon.co.uk/cleaning-prices/. Regular cleaning prices rices from £9/hr to £11/hr (min 2hrs/week).

They are not the company I use but representative of them (mine doesn't post their prices online). Several times a year I have to employ domestic cleaners at short notice for 'one-off' cleans of accommodation. For 10hrs of cleaning including all materials and equipment hire (hoover, carpet and upholstery shampoo kit, towels, sprays and liquids) mine charges £160 plus VAT. They are not th cheapest but they have proven to be very reliable. The agency's short notice one-off cleans are charged at a higher rate than their regular rates though I don't know those off hand. Regular rates are subject to a 4hr minimum . They pass on parking costs but not travel costs/time. I don't use the service often enough to benefit from any kind of discounted rate and I am crap at haggling. Maybe whoever quoted you just "saw you coming".

I'd be happy to concede that the upper limits are probably higher but no one quoted me anything close to £20/hr and the price I went with was not extraordinarily low (or indeed the lowest) in comparison to other agencies. All of my enquiries were made via Google searches and flyers put through the door.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 29, 2011)

Dan U said:


> if i employed a cleaner, as a member of staff, i would pay them £7, for example, that would cost me as an employer, £10 an hour. If i was charging a cleaner to a client, I would be charging at £13 per hour.



So that's 1.5x to 2x then, which is what killer b said.  As I said, that doesn't sound unreasonable.  I'm less hung up on the precise multiple than the fact that there must *be* a multiple.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 29, 2011)

If there is an agency that charges £9 per hour in London there is no way they can be paying their cleaners anywhere NEAR a living wage, which is precisely what this whole argument was about in the first place.  Anybody that uses their services is engaging in exploitative practices.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 29, 2011)

kabbes said:


> If there is an agency that charges £9 per hour in London there is no way they can be paying their cleaners anywhere NEAR a living wage, which is precisely what this whole argument was about in the first place.  Anybody that uses their services is engaging in exploitative practices.



As you can see, them's the rates. The key thing here that you haven't responded to is that if £25/hr was the going rate loads of jobs would disappear because the vast majority of people would choose not to have a cleaner. Would that be better?


----------



## fractionMan (Jun 29, 2011)

yes, that's right.  You're doing them a favour by paying them less than a living wage.  They should think themselves lucky.


----------



## Dan U (Jun 29, 2011)

kabbes said:


> If there is an agency that charges £9 per hour in London there is no way they can be paying their cleaners anywhere NEAR a living wage, which is precisely what this whole argument was about in the first place.  Anybody that uses their services is engaging in exploitative practices.



they must work on ridiculously tight margins and obviously not paying any holiday or sickness and the employee getting near minimum wage

re the multliple, 1.5 - 2.0 is more realistic. recruitment agencies, for example generally charge around 30% - 50% on top


----------



## kabbes (Jun 29, 2011)

Rushy said:


> As you can see, them's the rates. The key thing here that you haven't responded to is that if £25/hr was the going rate loads of jobs would disappear because the vast majority of people would choose not to have a cleaner. Would that be better?


 
I don't think I've ever pushed £25 per hour, have I?  *Checks thread*  Nope, nothing like it.  I've just been posting in support of the idea that what somebody gets per hour as a contractor is very different to what they get as a salaried worker.  That there needs to be a multiple to compensate for things like holidays, sick leave and void periods.

Personally, I think that it's reasonable to pay a cleaner something in the region of £15 - £20 ph.  And I don't see that this is unachievable by any means.  We had a cleaner for a short while about three years ago and we paid her £16ph at that time (which even then I thought was a little on the low side).


----------



## Rushy (Jun 29, 2011)

fractionMan said:


> yes, that's right.  You're doing them a favour by paying them less than a living wage.  They should think themselves lucky.


 
Still avoiding the question and trying to make it personal. Would it be better if there was a rule that made £20-25 the minimum hourly rate for cleaners if the demand for their services was reduced by 75%?


----------



## kabbes (Jun 29, 2011)

Rushy said:


> Still avoiding the question and trying to make it personal. Would it be better if there was a rule that made £20-25 the minimum hourly rate for cleaners if the demand for their services was reduced by 75%?


 
What do you think of the concept of a minimum wage generally?  Because unless you agree with the concept of a minimum wage (regardless of level), we're so far apart conceptually that there's no point discussing the detail.


----------



## IC3D (Jun 29, 2011)

Where is this £10 an hr from I'm sure most cleaners now charge £15 and you can't ignore that domestically it is part time work and would never be a living wage, IME cleaners have been carers unable to work full time, students without work visas or young mums with only a few free hours a week. If I needed to get some quick money I wouldn't want to deal with anything more than cash end of.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 29, 2011)

kabbes said:


> I don't think I've ever pushed £25 per hour, have I?


 
Sorry, I hadn't managed to get a firm handle on exactly what it was that you were proposing. What you said was:



> If you are a customer then pay customer's rates, which includes allowance for overhead, tax and profit. As a rough guide, this is about 3x pure labour cost.



You also referred to the living wage of £8/hr so I assume that this is the minimum you would consider as labour cost. If the min pure labour cost is £8/hr living wage then that is £24/hr.  The plus or minus £1 is neither here nor there in terms of the general theory. Of course, that might not be the way you were thinking - it just wasn't clear to me.

I know plenty of people who currently employ a cleaner because at £30/hr for three hours a week they can just about afford it. At £60/week it would be a luxury they would choose to do without. In fact a few have decided to go without because they have less cash available at the moment, less job security themselves and are trying to save where they can. Having a cleaner just isn't all that essential for lots of people.

I think it is great that you paid £16/hr - even if it is not 3 x labour cost it is definitely more generous than the going rates. Why don't you any more?


----------



## Rushy (Jun 29, 2011)

kabbes said:


> What do you think of the concept of a minimum wage generally?  Because unless you agree with the concept of a minimum wage (regardless of level), we're so far apart conceptually that there's no point discussing the detail.


 
Just try and answer the question with a straight answer and then I'll do the same for you. Unless you are prepare to do that then this isn't even a discussion.


----------



## grit (Jun 29, 2011)

Rushy said:


> Just try and answer the question with a straight answer and then I'll do the same for you. Unless you are prepare to do that then this isn't even a discussion.


 
You are going to be waiting a while rushy.


----------



## fractionMan (Jun 29, 2011)

The question is beside the point.  It puts forward an extreme hypothetical situation and uses it as a false dichotomy.

What do you think about the concept of a minimum wage?


----------



## kabbes (Jun 29, 2011)

Rushy said:


> You also referred to the living wage of £8/hr so I assume that this is the minimum you would consider as labour cost. If the min pure labour cost is £8/hr living wage then that is £24/hr.  The plus or minus £1 is neither here nor there in terms of the general theory. Of course, that might not be the way you were thinking - it just wasn't clear to me.



I was using the 3x because it had been thrown around already.  To me, it wasn't about the precise figure so much as the concept involved.



> I know plenty of people who currently employ a cleaner because at £30/hr for three hours a week they can just about afford it. At £60/week it would be a luxury they would choose to do without. In fact a few have decided to go without because they have less cash available at the moment, less job security themselves and are trying to save where they can. Having a cleaner just isn't all that essential for lots of people.


I'm sorry, but the fact that you can't afford to pay somebody a living wage is no excuse for not paying them a living wage.  If you can't afford it, you can't afford it.

ymu's point is that if you pay less than a living wage then you are, in essence, demanding that somebody else make up the shortfall in order for that person to be able to live.  That's what "living wage" means.  In practice, that means that people have to claim benefits even though they are in work.  How can that be right?  You're able to get your work done for you on the cheap because the rest of us are subsidising your costs!



> I think it is great that you paid £16/hr - even if it is not 3 x labour cost it is definitely more generous than the going rates. Why don't you any more?


We actually would have paid more but the cleaner had her standard rate and wouldn't countenance taking more than she charged everybody else.  There are other ways of paying people more than is immediately apparent, though.

Why no more?  A host of reasons.  A combination of it being hard for her to do the job any more (so we would have had to found somebody else) and us never really liking having a cleaner.  It seemed like a good idea at the time but in practice it was a lot more trouble than it was worth.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 29, 2011)

fractionMan said:


> The question is beside the point.  It puts forward an extreme hypothetical situation and uses it as a false dichotomy.
> 
> What do you think about the concept of a minimum wage?


 
Yes, this.  Plus it was an excluded middle.  You might as well have asked whether we want Daddy or chips.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 29, 2011)

Ah, fuck it.  Here's my answer:



Rushy said:


> Still avoiding the question and trying to make it personal. Would it be better if there was a rule that made £20-25 the minimum hourly rate for cleaners if the demand for their services was reduced by 75%?


 
I'll go with: I would prefer it if there was a rule that made £50 the minimum hourly rate if the demand for their services was increased by 50%.

My version is as much based in reality as yours.


----------



## killer b (Jun 29, 2011)

i imagine we could usher in a new golden age for british manufacturing if we reduced the minimum wage to £1.50 an hour.


----------



## IC3D (Jun 29, 2011)

killer b said:


> i imagine we could usher in a new golden age for british manufacturing if we reduced the minimum wage to £1.50 an hour.


 
With free beer and hash for the workers there could be full employment.


----------



## fractionMan (Jun 29, 2011)

The hash might not make them the most productive, but hey.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 29, 2011)

fractionMan said:


> The question is beside the point.  It puts forward an extreme hypothetical situation and uses it as a false dichotomy.
> 
> What do you think about the concept of a minimum wage?



Thanks for the analysis of my question but what I was really looking for is an answer. Like I said, a straight answer and I'll reciprocate.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 29, 2011)

It's not a nice trick to ask a "when did you stop beating your wife" style question and then demand an answer before you go any further.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 29, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Ah, fuck it.  Here's my answer:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 


> It's not a nice trick to ask a "when did you stop beating your wife" style question and then demand an answer before you go any further.




Fair enough. But I've explained why I think there would be a reduction in demand if minimum wage for cleaners was set to £20-25 (even if I am not sure how much). Why do you think demand would go up 50% if minimum wages were raised to £50/hr? I am trying to take you seriously but on the face of it your reply seems a tad fatuous.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 29, 2011)

Seriously?  So where did you seriously get a reduction of 75% from?  Or was that actually just a speculative punt in order to lead a question?


----------



## Rushy (Jun 29, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Seriously?  So where did you seriously get a reduction of 75% from?  Or was that actually just a speculative punt in order to lead a question?


 
OK - I believe that implementing a minimum £20-25/hr wage for domestic cleaners would make demand go down for the reasons I have already stated. Do you think demand would go down, or up or stay the same?


----------



## kabbes (Jun 29, 2011)

I think demand would go down.

Now what?


----------



## B-Town (Jun 29, 2011)

What is the point in charging £25hr if no one will employ you? doesn't that just put an end to the cleaning industry? Thus forcing people to be employed rather than self employed?


----------



## B-Town (Jun 29, 2011)

You can get lap dances for less than £25 - lapdance or cleaner?  lapdance or cleaner?


----------



## kabbes (Jun 29, 2011)

B-Town said:


> You can get lap dances for less than £25 - lapdance or cleaner?  lapdance or cleaner?


 
Fuck off.


----------



## peterkro (Jun 29, 2011)

B-Town said:


> You can get lap dances for less than £25 - lapdance or cleaner?  lapdance or cleaner?



I suspected you'd be the sort of person who would know the "cost" of a lapdance.


----------



## B-Town (Jun 29, 2011)

peterkro said:


> I suspected you'd be the sort of person who would know the "cost" of a lapdance.


 
On the bright side it is a lot more than minimum wage! Good money! If I was female I would definitely do it! (not that I will be telling my daughters that!)


----------



## ddraig (Jun 29, 2011)

B-Town said:


> You can get lap dances for less than £25 - lapdance or cleaner?  lapdance or cleaner?


 
confirmed cunt


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 29, 2011)

B-Town said:


> If I was female I would definitely do it!



There are male lap dancers I believe.

What is stopping you from joining their number, if it is such good money and so non-exploitative?


----------



## kabbes (Jun 29, 2011)

B-Town said:


> On the bright side it is a lot more than minimum wage! Good money! If I was female I would definitely do it! (not that I will be telling my daughters that!)


 
Fuck off.


----------



## bosie (Jun 29, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Another way of putting it:
> 
> Those employing a cleaner seem to want to pay as if they are an employer (literally just the salary cost) but only have the responsibilities of a customer.
> 
> ...


 
But as a customer, which I am, I was given a price by the person who cleans for me and I chose to accept it. People don't get quotes/prices for plumbing/plastering/electrician services and then try to haggle _up_ do they, so why would this be any different?

My cleaner is intelligent and articulate and is perfectly capable of asking for more money, if she did I would pay it as I value what she does for me, she is reliable and hard-working but she is not a charity case and I am certainly not going to patronise her by offering her more money because I don't want her to be 'oppressed'.

As for other people, it would be up to their individual circumstances whether they could pay more but it is not like there is some sort of cartel of people with cleaners, meeting secretly in pubs, to drive down the market rate!


----------



## kabbes (Jun 29, 2011)

bosie said:


> But as a customer, which I am, I was given a price by the person who cleans for me and I chose to accept it. People don't get quotes/prices for plumbing/plastering/electrician services and then try to haggle _up_ do they, so why would this be any different?
> 
> My cleaner is intelligent and articulate and is perfectly capable of asking for more money, if she did I would pay it as I value what she does for me, she is reliable and hard-working but she is not a charity case and I am certainly not going to patronise her by offering her more money because I don't want her to be 'oppressed'.
> 
> As for other people, it would be up to their individual circumstances whether they could pay more but it is not like there is some sort of cartel of people with cleaners, meeting secretly in pubs, to drive down the market rate!


 
It is possible to take ethical factors into consideration other than "what is the immediate price in front of my face?"

And yes, people do "haggle up", if that's how you choose to put it.  When we had some work done last year, I paid the builder twice what he charged, on the grounds that he had been working considerably harder than he and I had anticipated when he first sized up the job.  He didn't ask for that money and was initially reluctant to take it.

Pay what you think somebody is really due.  If that's more than they are asking then that doesn't absolve you from your responsibilities.


----------



## grit (Jun 29, 2011)

kabbes said:


> It is possible to take ethical factors into consideration other than "what is the immediate price in front of my face?"
> 
> And yes, people do "haggle up", if that's how you choose to put it.  When we had some work done last year, I paid the builder twice what he charged, on the grounds that he had been working considerably harder than he and I had anticipated when he first sized up the job.  He didn't ask for that money and was initially reluctant to take it.
> 
> Pay what you think somebody is really due.  If that's more than they are asking then that doesn't absolve you from your responsibilities.


 
he should learn not to do fixed price jobs


----------



## kabbes (Jun 29, 2011)

grit said:


> he should learn not to do fixed price jobs


 
Doesn't mean I should just take advantage of him.


----------



## grit (Jun 29, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Doesn't mean I should just take advantage of him.


 
Paying what the man asked is not taking advantage. sure long term you have removed the lesson for him, so it could actually come back to bite him again. In fact if you want to be real philosophical it could be argued to did him a disservice 

Good judgement comes from experience, experience comes from bad judgement.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 29, 2011)

grit said:


> Paying what the man asked is not taking advantage.


 
If it's well below what he should be asking, why not? And if you're new to a job and don't know the rates...


----------



## B-Town (Jun 29, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Doesn't mean I should just take advantage of him.


 
I agree with Kabbes, as a society we should be willing to pay people their value not just what they initially charged. 

That said, cleaners still have a _market _value - but if mine stayed an extra couple of hours because she felt compelled to clean the oven I would be more than willing to pay her extra.


----------



## TopCat (Jun 29, 2011)

B-Town said:


> On the bright side it is a lot more than minimum wage! Good money! If I was female I would definitely do it! (not that I will be telling my daughters that!)


 
Anyone still defending this idiot?


----------



## Santino (Jun 29, 2011)

B-Town said:


> That said, cleaners still have a _market _value - but if mine stayed an extra couple of hours because she felt compelled to clean the oven I would be more than willing to pay her extra.


 
You're like Jesus, did you know that?


----------



## grit (Jun 29, 2011)

TruXta said:


> If it's well below what he should be asking, why not? And if you're new to a job and don't know the rates...


 
I dont suffer the same (what I assume is)  guilt as kabbes does. If you dont know the market rates you shouldnt be working for yourself, you are doing everyone involved in the deal a bad turn, not just yourself.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 29, 2011)

grit said:


> I dont suffer the same (what I assume is)  guilt as kabbes does from making money. If you dont know the market rates you shouldnt be working, you are doing everyone involved in the deal a bad turn, not just yourself.


 
Ah yes, so unless you know exactly what you go to you shouldn't be doing the work? You should spring fully formed from the forehead of Mammon? How many new businesses would start up if everyone thought like that? I'm guessing you're not one to go out of your way to do people favours.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 29, 2011)

The guy knows the market brilliantly -- he previously rebuilt half my house and is the best at his job that I have known.  We just both got unlucky on this occassion because some muppet had glued a water pipe directly onto the ceiling boards, which neither of us could have guessed.  And because he has an astonishing work ethic, he did 16-hour days to get it fixed and then only charged me for the number of days he had worked.  I couldn't accept that as reasonable because to me, he had done two days for every one he was claiming.

The details aren't really the point though.  The point is that you don't just gleefully rip people off because you happen to hold an advantage at that time.


----------



## bosie (Jun 29, 2011)

kabbes said:


> It is possible to take ethical factors into consideration other than "what is the immediate price in front of my face?"
> 
> And yes, people do "haggle up", if that's how you choose to put it.  When we had some work done last year, I paid the builder twice what he charged, on the grounds that he had been working considerably harder than he and I had anticipated when he first sized up the job.  He didn't ask for that money and was initially reluctant to take it.
> 
> Pay what you think somebody is really due.  If that's more than they are asking then that doesn't absolve you from your responsibilities.



But surely that is the point of being self employed, being able to charge what you think you are due? How am I to know what everyone is really due for everything I buy? As a customer I am presented with a range of different options and prices and I choose the one that best meets my needs, that is the same with everything we buy surely? If price is our main concern then we may choose the cheapest, if quality is the main concern then we may pay more but we can't really be expected to do loads of research into the 'value' of everything we buy. In my case I would rather pay more for a really good, thorough cleaner than for a slap-dash job.

In your example you chose to effectively pay him a 'tip', because he was doing more than you'd both aniticipated and it was a one-off. I have an arrangement that if the place is particuarly untidy that she will just charge more if the job is bigger up to a point as I wouldn't want her to be doing more than the two hours unpaid or breaking her nect trying to get everything done within the time. I also do give her extra sometimes, which she too is very reluctant to take. But really you shouldn't have to rely on 'tips' to make up your money.

Other than tipping, how would you, taking ethical factors into consideration, pay more than the immediate price and why should you do that for cleaners and not anyone else? E.g. do you go to the market and pay more for potatoes because you feel that maybe the market stall holder isn't making enough profit?

If I was employing a cleaner, properly employing them, then I would advertise at a rate that I felt was fair but I am not employing them so I am reliant on _them_ choosing a rate that is acceptable to them.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 29, 2011)

kabbes said:


> The guy knows the market brilliantly -- he previously rebuilt half my house and is the best at his job that I have known.  We just both got unlucky on this occassion because some muppet had glued a water pipe directly onto the ceiling boards, which neither of us could have guessed.  And because he has an astonishing work ethic, he did 16-hour days to get it fixed and then only charged me for the number of days he had worked.  I couldn't accept that as reasonable because to me, he had done two days for every one he was claiming.
> 
> The details aren't really the point though.  The point is that you don't just gleefully rip people off because you happen to hold an advantage at that time.


 
Tell that to grit.


----------



## grit (Jun 29, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Ah yes, so unless you know exactly what you go to you shouldn't be doing the work? You should spring fully formed from the forehead of Mammon? How many new businesses would start up if everyone thought like that? I'm guessing you're not one to go out of your way to do people favours.


 
Pretty much, if you are ignorant of the job you are doing you are not suitable to be doing it. This isint rocket surgery stuff a weekend doing research would reveal most of it. If you have a large amount of people charging rates they dont understand, everyone in the industry suffers because you artificially drive down the price, this exact thing has happened in freelance web development putting a lot of people out of work, its not nice.

Check threads in the computer forum of people pitching website design for 500 quid for a site, that wouldnt touch anyones expenses except the bottom of the barrell.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 29, 2011)

bosie said:


> But surely that is the point of being self employed, being able to charge what you think you are due? How am I to know what everyone is really due for everything I buy? As a customer I am presented with a range of different options and prices and I choose the one that best meets my needs, that is the same with everything we buy surely? If price is our main concern then we may choose the cheapest, if quality is the main concern then we may pay more but we can't really be expected to do loads of research into the 'value' of everything we buy. In my case I would rather pay more for a really good, thorough cleaner than for a slap-dash job.
> 
> In your example you chose to effectively pay him a 'tip', because he was doing more than you'd both aniticipated and it was a one-off. I have an arrangement that if the place is particuarly untidy that she will just charge more if the job is bigger up to a point as I wouldn't want her to be doing more than the two hours unpaid or breaking her nect trying to get everything done within the time. I also do give her extra sometimes, which she too is very reluctant to take. But really you shouldn't have to rely on 'tips' to make up your money.
> 
> ...


 
You do it by paying a cleaner a living wage.


----------



## grit (Jun 29, 2011)

kabbes said:


> The guy knows the market brilliantly --


 
But still doesnt have a fucking clue how to price a job.


----------



## Santino (Jun 29, 2011)

Basically, fuck people over if you can justify it. Can we dispense with the rest of the anecdotes and thought experiments?


----------



## kabbes (Jun 29, 2011)

grit said:


> But still doesnt have a fucking clue how to price a job.


 
I'm sure you've never overrun due to unexpected events.


----------



## grit (Jun 29, 2011)

kabbes said:


> I'm sure you've never overrun due to unexpected events.


 
Sure all the time, but its not an issue when billing per hour.

FWIW there are times when I've done cheap fixed priced jobs when its a charity or something (was actually a fellow urbanite I did the work for now that I think of it).


----------



## dessiato (Jun 29, 2011)

Re the building worker.

A friend of mine is a self employed builder. He always does jobs on the proviso that there could be unforeseen problems and that these might lead to reassessing the costs upwards. It seems perfectly proper to me that he does this. If he did a job at fixed price, which he does occasionally for a local charity, then he accepts that if the job over-runs, or he has underestimated the costs then it is his problem. He doesn't see himself as being exploited, but sees it as a situation where the two parties entered into an agreement and it is his responsibility to ensure that he doesn't work at a loss.

I believe that in any situation where two people, cleaners, doctors, whatever, enter into any form of contract then it is the responsibility of those two parties to accept that the agreed price is acceptable to both. If a cleaner is prepared to work for £10 an hour fine, no problem. There is no taking advantage because the price is agreed. If I was the cleaner I'd hold out for as much as possible, if I was the employer I'd want the price to be as low as possible, until some common ground was reached. The same applies whether I am buying a house, a car, a packet of cereal, or hiring someone to work for me.


----------



## Santino (Jun 29, 2011)

CHOICE


----------



## Lock&Light (Jun 29, 2011)

TopCat said:


> Anyone still defending this idiot?


 
There's no need. He's defending himself quite successfully.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 29, 2011)

The builder could have stuck to 8 hour days and left me in the shit overnight and with the job taking twice as long and charged twice the price.

Because he is a nice guy, he didn't do that and got it done within the originally estimated time frame.

Becasue I am a nice guy, I doubled the payment.

See how nice it is when everybody is nice?  Rather than just looking to fuck over the next man as much as possible?


----------



## kabbes (Jun 29, 2011)

Oh, and that means we can now trust eachother -- when I need another job done, I know he'll do it professionally and without ripping me off and he knows he can trust me to see him right if he has to go above and beyond.


----------



## grit (Jun 29, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Oh, and that means we can now trust eachother -- when I need another job done, I know he'll do it professionally and without ripping me off and he knows he can trust me to see him right if he has to go above and beyond.


 
None of which is unique to you be the oh so shiny white knight that you are.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 29, 2011)

It's called social capital, grit, and it's served me pretty damned well in my life to date.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 29, 2011)

So grit, say you come across a relative newbie in your line of work, who mightn't know all the ins and outs. Do you fleece him for all he's got or do you give him some advice as a more experienced guy?


----------



## metal13 (Jun 29, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Becasue I am a nice guy, I doubled the payment.
> 
> See how nice it is when everybody is nice?  Rather than just looking to fuck over the next man as much as possible?


 
Being nice is good. He added more value to the job, you compensated him. Fine. 

However, agreeing to a price, and sticking to that doesn't make either party not nice. It makes them honourable. The are honouring the original agreement. 

No one is pistol whipping these cleaners into taking a price below what they want.


----------



## grit (Jun 29, 2011)

kabbes said:


> It's called social capital, grit, and it's served me pretty damned well in my life to date.


 
Good for you 

I've managed to do the same without paying twice the price asked.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 29, 2011)

I thought they had to charge their price because that was the "market rate"?  Now you're telling me that they get the price they *want*?


----------



## grit (Jun 29, 2011)

TruXta said:


> So grit, say you come across a relative newbie in your line of work, who mightn't know all the ins and outs. Do you fleece him for all he's got or do you give him some advice as a more experienced guy?


 
I charge a price inline with the market rate and general standard of the services being provided, no more, no less. Not good business fucking people over, repeat business is the best kind as is word of mouth the best advertising you will ever get.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 29, 2011)

Sometimes it's paying the true value, grit.  Sometimes it's doing favours.  Other times it's giving something else.  Not everything is contractually put together, atomised and fuck everybody else.

But this is getting horribly off-topic.


----------



## grit (Jun 29, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Sometimes it's paying the true value, grit.  Sometimes it's doing favours.  Other times it's giving something else.  Not everything is contractually put together, atomised and fuck everybody else.
> 
> But this is getting horribly off-topic.


 
I'm not suggesting anyone should be getting fucked, I'm suggesting that all parties that enter a business agreement do so with the required skills and knowledge along with upholding their responsibility in the agreement, its not complex stuff.

As I've said I dont charge a charity trying to get on its feet the same as a profitable private enterprise, it doesnt make sense.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 29, 2011)

metal13 said:


> No one is pistol whipping these cleaners into taking a price below what they want.


 
To be trite with the answer: no one is, everyone is


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 29, 2011)

grit said:


> I'm not suggesting anyone should be getting fucked, I'm suggesting that all parties that enter a business agreement do so with the required skills and knowledge along with upholding their responsibility in the agreement, its not complex stuff.
> 
> As I've said I dont charge a charity trying to get on its feet the same as a profitable private enterprise, it doesnt make sense.


 
In your worldview, do you think it is ok or not-ok that the builders who constructed the Burj Khalifa in Dubai, built for some of the richest people in the world, were paid $4 per day? 

After all, that's what the 'market' said that they were worth.


----------



## grit (Jun 29, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> In your worldview, do you think it is ok or not-ok that the builders who constructed the Burj Khalifa in Dubai, built for some of the richest people in the world, were paid $4 per day?
> 
> After all, that's what the 'market' said that they were worth.


 
Thats a really lame attempt. You want me to claim that exploitation doesn't occur right?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 29, 2011)

grit said:


> Thats a really lame attempt. You want me to claim that exploitation doesn't occur right?


 
How is it exploitation when both parties agree to it?

The point is that you may pay a particular sum for a job, and the person you're paying may be genuinely pleased to have the job and be paid that sum, but that doesn't mean it isn't exploitation. Anyone who hides behind 'market forces' in order not to do the right thing is, imo, acting dishonestly.


----------



## grit (Jun 29, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> How is it exploitation when both parties agree to it?


 
Oh I see, sorry I misunderstood, I didn't realise you want to completely dismiss all the environmental variables when discussing this. Context sure is a waste of time.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 29, 2011)

A lot of the arguments being put here are the exact same arguments made against the existance of a minimum wage.

Those arguments don't make sense in that context and they don't make sense here.  Saying that people have a choice is missing umpteen layers of social dynamics.


----------



## peterkro (Jun 29, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> How is it exploitation when both parties agree to it?



Because one party doesn't have a choice.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 29, 2011)

grit said:


> Oh I see, sorry I misunderstood, I didn't realise you want to completely dismiss all the environmental variables when discussing this. Context sure is a waste of time.


 
What environmental variables?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 29, 2011)

peterkro said:


> Because one party doesn't have a choice.


 
Well, they have a choice of taking that job or doing something even worse, yes. Obviously this is a more extreme example than anything in this country, but the rather obvious point is that while everyone has choices, not everyone has the same choices.


----------



## grit (Jun 29, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What environmental variables?


 
You are really trying arent you 

I think kabbes used the term social dynamics which seems like a reasonably good fit.

FWIW I think the minimum wage should actually be higher it might motivate people to work better.


----------



## Santino (Jun 29, 2011)

If they don't like the money on offer, they can always mutter under their breath, or starve.


----------



## dessiato (Jun 29, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> In your worldview, do you think it is ok or not-ok that the builders who constructed the Burj Khalifa in Dubai, built for some of the richest people in the world, were paid $4 per day?
> 
> After all, that's what the 'market' said that they were worth.


 
I really don't see a problem with that. I do have a problem with the richest people being expected to pay more for a service just because they are rich. It would seem to me that being rich should not automatically mean that you have to spend the money paying more for a service than any one else should. that would lead to market inflation, wouldn't it? People would refuse to work for the poorer sectors because they get paid more by the rich, This in turn would require the less rich to inflate their prices, or they couldn't get the work done.

I do believe in a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. I would love to think that everyone, bankers to cleaners got paid what they had really earned.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 29, 2011)

dessiato said:


> I really don't see a problem with that. I do have a problem with the richest people being expected to pay more for a service just because they are rich. It would seem to me that being rich should not automatically mean that you have to spend the money paying more for a service than any one else should. that would lead to market inflation, wouldn't it? People would refuse to work for the poorer sectors because they get paid more by the rich, This in turn would require the less rich to inflate their prices, or they couldn't get the work done.
> 
> I do believe in a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. I would love to think that everyone, bankers to cleaners got paid what they had really earned.


 
Is $4 per day a fair day's pay, then? 

What do you mean by 'really earned'? How much does any banker 'really earn?


----------



## grit (Jun 29, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Is $4 per day a fair day's pay, then?



Id say it probably is dependent on the relative costs of living? Kind of like the way that london wages are generally higher to factor in the increased costs of being in the city.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 29, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> How much does any banker 'really earn?


Negative two trillion pounds, last time I checked.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 29, 2011)

grit said:


> Id say it probably is dependent on the relative costs of living?


 
Some costs of living are relative, others aren't. Someone on $4 per day will not be sending their child to secondary school, let alone university. They will have no or only very basic access to healthcare. They may have a mobile phone, but that will be probably be the only piece of technology they can afford. This from an employer who lives in mansions, owns a pad in Knightsbridge and jets around the world first class. Yet somehow the employer does not consider that it is right for the children of his employees to even have the possibility of any of the privileges his children enjoy.


----------



## ymu (Jun 29, 2011)

B-Town said:


> On the bright side it is a lot more than minimum wage! Good money! If I was female I would definitely do it! (not that I will be telling my daughters that!)


 
And you wonder why people think you're a cunt? Get a grip. 



grit said:


> Stop, think, the term is self employed. Now read it again and let it settle in, got it? good.
> 
> Christ, dont ever try to run your own business you will be eaten alive with that attitude. One of the greatest strengths of running your own show is being able to say no to customers you dont want (or you can always quote some ridiculous rate and see if they bite, thats always fun!).
> 
> Whenever I do a freelance gig, they are paying my rates because they dont want to have to deal with another employee, thats what makes it so attractive.


 
My clients pay what I charge or I don't do the work for them. And yes, I have massive price differentials to weed out the clients I don't want to work for.



Rushy said:


> A good indication of whether the market would tolerate £25/hr is the price charged by domestic contractor companies. If they could charge out a cleaner for £25/hr they would - but they seem to charge about £9-14 because otherwise there would be hardly any demand. It is pretty normal for freelancers to undercut agencies / contractor charge out rates in order to be competitive. I don't know any freelancers who charge out at their equivalent corporate rate (although I'm sure that it would be possible to find some examples).
> 
> So I understand your principle but isn't the reality that, if cleaners charged £25/hr most people who currently employ them would probably cease to do so because they could not afford (or would choose not to) pay someone £75-100/week for 3-4hrs of work. It is, for most, a luxury they could easily do away with. So a whole load of what are essentially unskilled jobs would disappear. Would that be a better alternative?


 
Should we tolerate a situation where employers can exploit low-skilled workers to the extent that we have to pay benefits to people in full-time work?

How fast do you want this race to the bottom to be run? Because downward pressure on wages at the bottom means downward pressure on wages at the top. It's only the top 0.1% that get the benefit. The bottom 99% have had no real-terms pay-rise in 30 years - it's all gone to the stateless uber-rich.







Anyone who isn't the stateless uber-rich arguing for this status quo is a mug. You've been had. Sort it out, for fuck's sake.


----------



## grit (Jun 29, 2011)

ymu said:


> And you wonder why people think you're a cunt? Get a grip.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Yup, your clients! 

Agreed the game is rigged and we are all their drones, it sucks, I'm just trying to make my way through and provide the best possible standard of living for my family.


----------



## leanderman (Jun 29, 2011)

Much as I am enjoying reading this entertaining and educational thread, I really have to clean the kitchen.

Will bill my wife £25 an hour. And refer her to this forum, if she complains.


----------



## metal13 (Jun 29, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> In your worldview, do you think it is ok or not-ok that the builders who constructed the Burj Khalifa in Dubai, built for some of the richest people in the world, were paid $4 per day?
> 
> After all, that's what the 'market' said that they were worth.


 
Really? You're comparing London with Dubai? The workers got $4/day because the government disallows strikes, protests, and their general refusal to work. Not to mention the general fraud, and recruitment charges. Last I checked, this cleaner still had the right to say no.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 29, 2011)

ymu said:


>



Whilst that's a good graph, it's only half the story, because it always has to sum to 100%, which means that there will always be winners and losers.

I think it also needs to be accompanied by the below US-based graph (the UK is more extreme, IIRC), showing that in real terms, the wages of the bottom 60% have not increased since 1975 apart from the barest margin, with the next 20% only just having shown real progress.  That only leaves the top 20% who have really demonstrably gained from the last 35 years of "progress" of GDP growth.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 29, 2011)

kabbes said:


> The builder could have stuck to 8 hour days and left me in the shit overnight and with the job taking twice as long and charged twice the price.
> 
> Because he is a nice guy, he didn't do that and got it done within the originally estimated time frame.
> 
> ...


 
I'm not sure I getting the parallels here? You doubled the payment because he did double the work because of unexpected complications on your job which he could not have reasonably foreseen when preparing his estimate. That was definitely the reasonable thing to do.  I'm not saying everyone would, but it would most definitely be unreasonable not to. I don't think it necessarily makes you nice. Nice would be to ask how his family was doing and offer him a cup of tea and some biscuits. Which I am sure you did too.

His doing 16hr days so as not to get you in the shit because of something that was not his fault was beyond considerate. I personally would have probably insisted he go home at a reasonable time and let the job run over a bit. 16hrs a day is not fair or healthy for a person - particularly in the case of manual labour - especially if they have a family or social life. An exhausted builder puts himself and others' safety at risk.

If someone were employing cleaners at a mutually agreed rate and then making them work overtime for free when the house is dirtier than expected that would be pretty bloody unreasonable. But I don't think anyone is suggesting otherwise.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 29, 2011)

Rushy said:


> His doing 16hr days so as not to get you in the shit because of something that was not his fault was beyond considerate. I personally would have probably insisted he go home at a reasonable time and let the job run over a bit. 16hrs a day is not fair or healthy for a person - particularly in the case of manual labour - especially if they have a family or social life. An exhausted builder puts himself and others' safety at risk.


I totally agree with you.  But you can't physically force somebody to leave.  Well, you can, but you know what I mean.  Plus he's bigger than me.


----------



## grit (Jun 29, 2011)

Rushy said:


> I personally would have probably insisted he go home at a reasonable time and let the job run over a bit. 16hrs a day is not fair or healthy for a person - particularly in the case of manual labour - especially if they have a family or social life.* An exhausted builder puts himself and others' safety at risk*.



Excellent point, is there also not legal issues with working 16 hours a day?


----------



## Rushy (Jun 29, 2011)

grit said:


> Excellent point, is there also not legal issues with working 16 hours a day?


 
No. Not if you are self employed. Like a domestic builder or a cleaner. Or someone who has to opt out of the legislation to get a job, such as a solicitor.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 29, 2011)

kabbes said:


> I totally agree with you.  But you can't physically force somebody to leave.  Well, you can, but you know what I mean.  Plus he's bigger than me.


 
Ok.


----------



## grit (Jun 29, 2011)

Rushy said:


> No. Not if you are self employed. Like a domestic builder or a cleaner. Or someone who has to opt out of the legislation to get a job, such as a solicitor.


 
Ah yes you are right, I remember a chef telling me how its impossible to work in the industry if you dont sign such a waiver.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 29, 2011)

Now I come to think of it, by "bigger", I might mean "more working class".









Oh come on, that was a joke.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 29, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Fuck off.


 
You might find it distasteful, but real people in the real world can find themselves facing those sorts of choices, for economic and other reasons.


----------



## ymu (Jun 29, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Now I come to think of it, by "bigger", I might mean "more working class".
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I agree with you on the graph kabbes, but it is a right fucker getting hold of what you want. I really want one that splits out the top 1% from the other quintiles, because it would have the middle-classes rioting, but I can only find that on US data, not UK. I might FOIA ONS for this at some point, unless you have any leads.

People need to know how badly they're being screwed over by this before they stop propagandising for the system that is robbing them blind.

Actually, would you help me with the FOIA? I want to make sure we get what we need and you are way stronger on financial data than I am.


----------



## grit (Jun 29, 2011)

ymu said:


> People need to know how badly they're being screwed over by this before they stop propagandising for the system that is robbing them blind.



I think actually most people know, its the feeling of powerlessness in being able to affect change.


----------



## ymu (Jun 29, 2011)

grit said:


> I think actually most people know, its the feeling of powerlessness in being able to affect change.


 
There's more of us than there are of them.


----------



## grit (Jun 29, 2011)

ymu said:


> There's more of us than there are of them.


 
If only that was enough.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 29, 2011)

ONS is very difficult to FOI for stats, because data which isn't available on its site is sold.


----------



## ymu (Jun 29, 2011)

grit said:


> If only that was enough.


It would be, if only there weren't so many cuntish collaborators looking out for their short-term interests whilst selling us and themselves down the river. I mean, what kind of cap-doffing twat argues for lower wages on the basis of 'market forces'?


----------



## ymu (Jun 29, 2011)

Maurice Picarda said:


> ONS is very difficult to FOI for stats, because data which isn't available on its site is sold.


Then we'll get an MP on the warpath. I want those stats, cos I want the middle-classes rioting.


----------



## grit (Jun 29, 2011)

ymu said:


> It would be, if only there weren't so many cuntish collaborators looking out for their short-term interests whilst selling us and themselves down the river. I mean, what kind of cap-doffing twat argues for lower wages on the basis of 'market forces'?


 
Any small business owner desperately trying to keep the company afloat and their employees employed.


----------



## ymu (Jun 29, 2011)

grit said:


> Any small business owner desperately trying to keep the company afloat and their employees employed.


 
We are all forced to live in a shit system. None of us are forced to propagandise for it.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jun 29, 2011)

ymu said:


> We are all forced to live in a shit system. None of us are forced to propagandise for it.


 
We are the system. We have more power as individuals than at any time in human history, and yet we carry on with our lives as best we can in this system.


----------



## ymu (Jun 29, 2011)

goldenecitrone said:


> We are the system. We have more power as individuals than at any time in human history, and yet we carry on with our lives as best we can in this system.


 
Yeah. And people who propagandise for the system are collaborators. They can be pragmatic without pretending to like it.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jun 29, 2011)

ymu said:


> Yeah. And people who propagandise for the system are collaborators. They can be pragmatic without pretending to like it.


 
Collaborators? I asked some students the other day what they like about the UK, I teach mainly refugees by the way, and one guy from Sudan said he liked the fairness of it. A collaborator?


----------



## leanderman (Jun 29, 2011)

ymu said:


> Yeah. And people who propagandise for the system are collaborators. They can be pragmatic without pretending to like it.


 
When I hear the word 'collaborator' I reach for my gun.

However, I agree it is depressing how people fail to understand they are getting screwed by a narrow elite. How more and more of the country's wealth is concentrated in fewer hands. How top careers are now practically hereditary.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jun 29, 2011)

leanderman said:


> When I hear the word 'collaborator' I reach for my gun.
> 
> However, I agree it is depressing how people fail to understand they are getting screwed by a narrow elite. How more and more of the country's wealth is concentrated in fewer hands. How top careers are now practically hereditary.


 
When has Britain never been a rip-off. It's not new, it's fucking centuries old.


----------



## ymu (Jun 29, 2011)

goldenecitrone said:


> Collaborators? I asked some students the other day what they like about the UK, I teach mainly refugees by the way, and one guy from Sudan said he liked the fairness of it. A collaborator?


 
Yeah. If you know how shit the system is, and you propagandise for it anyway, you are a collaborator. What the fuck else is it?

If you're propagandising in ignorance, then you just lack the skills or integrity to check the facts for yourself.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 29, 2011)

leanderman said:


> When I hear the word 'collaborator' I reach for my gun..


 
When I hear the word 'gringo', I ride - for the High Chaparral!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 29, 2011)

ymu said:


> I agree with you on the graph kabbes, but it is a right fucker getting hold of what you want. I really want one that splits out the top 1% from the other quintiles, because it would have the middle-classes rioting, but I can only find that on US data, not UK. I might FOIA ONS for this at some point, unless you have any leads.
> 
> People need to know how badly they're being screwed over by this before they stop propagandising for the system that is robbing them blind.
> 
> Actually, would you help me with the FOIA? I want to make sure we get what we need and you are way stronger on financial data than I am.


people have rioted about a lot of things. but i have yet to find a riot which occurred because someone produced some statistics.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 29, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> people have rioted about a lot of things. but i have yet to find a riot which occurred because someone produced some statistics.


 
We had a riot in vancouver over these statistics: Bruins 4; Vancouver 0


----------



## grit (Jun 29, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> people have rioted about a lot of things. but i have yet to find a riot which occurred because someone produced some statistics.


 
That and the middle class are no where near a tipping point regarding their standard of living.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 29, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> We had a riot in vancouver over these statistics: Bruins 4; Vancouver 0


 
no, that's the score in a game. it is not something which a team of boffins has produced from the analysis of data.


----------



## ymu (Jun 29, 2011)

grit said:


> That and the middle class are no where near a tipping point regarding their standard of living.


 
They are. I know a double income childless couple with the high earner on around £50k (so he's a top 10% earner). They're moving out of Bath because they have to cut costs, and they don't have a massively extravagant lifestyle.

The question is, how long will they keep trying to blame people who have less, and start to look up at the people who seem to have become even richer whilst we were getting poorer.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 29, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> no, that's the score in a game. it is not something which a team of boffins has produced from the analysis of data.


Team scores aren't statistics?


----------



## Hollis (Jun 29, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> people have rioted about a lot of things. but i have yet to find a riot which occurred because someone produced some statistics.


 


Seem to remember it getting close with the money supply figures in 81.  Great fuckin' news that was.. bizaree tbh.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 29, 2011)

Hollis said:


> Seem to remember it getting close with the money supply figures in 81.  Great fuckin' news that was.. bizaree tbh.


 
yes, i can well remember seeing people in the bookies and in the dives in brixton studying the m3 money supply figures


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 29, 2011)

ymu said:


> The question is, how long will they keep trying to blame people who have less, and start to look up at the people who seem to have become even richer whilst we were getting poorer.


why do you think people who seem to have become even richer at a time like this should be looked up to?


----------



## ymu (Jun 29, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> why do you think people who seem to have become even richer at a time like this should be looked up to?


Why is your reading comprehension so piss poor?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 29, 2011)

ymu said:


> Why is your reading comprehension so piss poor?


 
why is your writing so crap? after all, you had what i didn't - the advantage of an oxbridge education. yet you say in some cases the opposite of what you mean. or you reveal traits in yourself which show you in a rather poor light, such as your ageist outburst the other night.


----------



## Hollis (Jun 29, 2011)

See its interesting how news production happens - the money supply figures use to be headline news.  Not only that, but they use to discuss different definitions of the money supply like the 'general public' gave a fuck. Interesting.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 29, 2011)

Hollis said:


> See its interesting how news production happens - the money supply figures use to be headline news.  Not only that, but they use to discuss different definitions of the money supply like the 'general public' gave a fuck. Interesting.


 
it's interesting how dumbed down the news has become in the last couple of decades - it can't all be down to murdoch - can it?


----------



## grit (Jun 29, 2011)

ymu said:


> They are. I know a double income childless couple with the high earner on around £50k (so he's a top 10% earner). They're moving out of Bath because they have to cut costs, and they don't have a massively extravagant lifestyle.
> 
> The question is, how long will they keep trying to blame people who have less, and start to look up at the people who seem to have become even richer whilst we were getting poorer.



Where can I find more stats about salary spreads in the UK, I'm genuinely surprised by 50k being top 10%.

Making a decision (as in not being forced) to move to a different area (I have no idea if Bath is expensive) is no where close to get people out in the streets causing mayhem.
If you have 50%+ of the middle class losing their homes and perhaps living on benefits you might be getting close to it. Its also important to not underestimate the pride aspect  .


----------



## kabbes (Jun 29, 2011)

grit said:


> Where can I find more stats about salary spreads in the UK, I'm genuinely surprised by 50k being top 10%.
> 
> Making a decision (as in not being forced) to move to a different area (I have no idea if Bath is expensive) is no where close to get people out in the streets causing mayhem.
> If you have 50%+ of the middle class losing their homes and perhaps living on benefits you might be getting close to it. Its also important to not underestimate the pride aspect  .


 
Here you go.  £45,000 was the 90th percentile in 2007/8.


----------



## B-Town (Jun 29, 2011)

Do I get kudos for creating a long thread? Surely that means I have provoked debate and challenged existing thinking right? 

And if that is the case then maybe there is a desire to be more inclusive and move away class based acceptance?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 29, 2011)

B-Town said:


> Do I get kudos for creating a long thread?


 no


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 29, 2011)

B-Town said:


> Do I get kudos for creating a long thread?


 
Nope.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 29, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Nope.


 
little sir echo


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 29, 2011)




----------



## B-Town (Jun 30, 2011)

ymu said:


> We are all forced to live in a shit system. None of us are forced to propagandise for it.


 
Can you name a better system? From what I can see capitalism appears to be the bedrock of most strong societies. What would you rather? A communist society where the people who do the least get heavy bail outs from those who do the most? 

Whilst you claim the rich are getting richer, which I don't dispute - they are also paying more tax (50% if you earn over £150K). Now to me that is a lot of money to give away out of your salary, and personally I don't believe a Robin Hood approach is the best way to address the challenges with economic deprivation.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 30, 2011)

oh dear. you're going to regret that ill-conceived post.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 30, 2011)

B-Town said:


> Can you name a better system? From what I can see capitalism appears to be the bedrock of most strong societies. *What would you rather? A communist society where the people who do the least get heavy bail outs from those who do the most?
> *


 
Is that what happens under communism?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 30, 2011)

Sounds like a description of the bank bailout more than anything.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 30, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> oh dear. you're going to regret that ill-conceived post.


 
Onarchy mk2?


----------



## B-Town (Jun 30, 2011)

I'm kind of interested, I agree today's society does not seem to work perfectly. But I think that is more failings within the system than with the system itself...


----------



## TruXta (Jun 30, 2011)

B-Town said:


> I'm kind of interested, I agree today's society does not seem to work perfectly. But I think that is more failings within the system than with the system itself...


----------



## grit (Jun 30, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Is that what happens under communism?


 
It doesn't appear to have a great track record so far, not suggesting that capitalism is much better though. I've always had a lot of time for the idea put forth in this video


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 30, 2011)

B-Town said:


> I'm kind of interested, I agree today's society does not seem to work perfectly. But I think that is more failings within the system than with the system itself...


 
Okay, what about answering the question I asked you in post #680?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 30, 2011)

B-Town said:


> I'm kind of interested, I agree today's society does not seem to work perfectly. But I think that is more failings within the system than with the system itself...


 
what, the system's perfect but humans are fallible? you've got things a bit fucked there. bet you're a bit of a whig at heart, that there's been progress in society since the industrial revolution and that history only moves forward towards a better tomorrow.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 30, 2011)

We are NOT having the "well it's the best system we've got" argument on this vital and on-topic thread


----------



## B-Town (Jun 30, 2011)

It is probably closer to Socialism, often mistaken for comunism. Given that we have never trully had comunism it is hard to comment. I fear I may be about to enter into a ring with a collection of hardcore Marxists proletaria...


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 30, 2011)

Now look - I don't want to see any "but what was wrong with them they could have turned out to be wonderful" posts next time next time a new poster gets banned for being a troll, all right?


----------



## B-Town (Jun 30, 2011)

Do you think I am a Troll?


----------



## weltweit (Jun 30, 2011)

B-Town said:


> Do you think I am a Troll?


 
I don't even know what a troll is. 

What is a troll B-Town?


----------



## peterkro (Jun 30, 2011)

B-Town said:


> Do you think I am a Troll?



I certainly think you are a troll.


----------



## B-Town (Jun 30, 2011)

I believe it is someone who is booted from the site who comes back under a different name... 

Was my answer to what a troll is closer to what my answer to what comunism is?


----------



## weltweit (Jun 30, 2011)

For me, a troll will always be a grumpy animal that lives under a stone bridge which the three Billy Goats Gruff must cross to get to greener fields.


----------



## peterkro (Jun 30, 2011)

weltweit said:


> For me, a troll will always be a grumpy animal that lives under a stone bridge which the three Billy Goats Gruff must cross to get to greener fields.



Wasn't it a rickity rackity bridge,which suggests it was wooden?

I'm a troll trolldy ooh and I'll eat you for my supper.
Don't be clip clop clip clopiting over my rickity bridge.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 30, 2011)

B-Town said:


> It is probably closer to Socialism, often mistaken for comunism. Given that we have never trully had comunism it is hard to comment. I fear I may be about to enter into a ring with a collection of hardcore Marxists proletaria...



Probably best to learn to spell "communism" before trying to discuss it here tbh.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 30, 2011)

Capitalism is by design a flawed system.  Its iniquities and problems are both endemic and inevitable.  It's not a good system that is being undermined by bad people.  What is happening is the direct result of the nature of the game.

And no, I'm not a proletariat.  In fact, I'm willing to be I do a great deal better out of capitalism than you do.  But just because I learnt how to play the game and engaged with it to survive, doesn't mean I like the game or think it's the best game in town.


----------



## B-Town (Jun 30, 2011)

but you don't suggest an alternative which is what the question was...


----------



## kabbes (Jun 30, 2011)

The alternatives have been discussed in depth on this message board.  If I had the slightest belief that you were genuine in your apparent interest, I'd discuss them with you too, plus point you to numerous contemporary works by psychologists, economists and sociologists that do the same.  

But I can spot disinguity when I see it.  You are fundamentally a cunt and so prefer a cunt's world.  I'm not going to waste my effort.

If you are really interested, read some of the tens of thousands of words already written about the subject on this message board and then come back with something that shows you understood it and are ready to engage.  "There is no alternative" does neither.


----------



## B-Town (Jun 30, 2011)

Kabbes - why be such a twat? because I don't have a 100 posts you are unwilling to accept me. It is sad that post counts are the equivalent to the big kid in the play ground. 

I have an A level in sociology and a degree which focussed on consumers in society (so psychologists, economists and sociologists) but your right i'm probable not genuine in any apparent interest.


----------



## ymu (Jun 30, 2011)

B-Town said:


> Kabbes - why be such a twat? because I don't have a 100 posts you are unwilling to accept me. It is sad that post counts are the equivalent to the big kid in the play ground.
> 
> I have an A level in sociology and a degree which focussed on consumers in society (so psychologists, economists and sociologists) but your right i'm probable not genuine in any apparent interest.


You didn't even bother to read his post.

Fuck off. If you're not a deliberate trolling cunt, you are a natural trolling cunt. If you want to have a grown-up conversation on an important topic, do your homework. Pantomiming back and forth is for empty-headed cunts. Fill your brain up and formulate a response with new and well-informed content, and you might get treated with respect.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 30, 2011)

OK, you want alternatives?  Here's a first simple step on the roadmap to more substantive change: eliminate limited liability corporations.  The existance of entities with rights but no responsibilities and the breaking of the link between ownership and management facilitates institutionally psychopathic and sociopathic behavior by the institutions themselves and those that work within them.


----------



## ymu (Jun 30, 2011)

Bill employers for the cost of housing benefit and tax credits for their employees or contractors. Watch the jobs flood back out of London and the SE, watch commuting times and costs halve, watch the regions regenerate and thrive, and disposable incomes rocket as housing costs fall so more money circulates and keeps more people in work.

No one who approves of free markets could object to that plan.


----------



## grit (Jun 30, 2011)

ymu said:


> Bill employers for the cost of housing benefit and tax credits for their employees or contractors.


 
Isint that already the case with businesses paying taxes?


----------



## Santino (Jun 30, 2011)

grit said:


> Isint that already the case with businesses paying taxes?


 
No, all their taxes go on paying public sector gold-plated pensions, sending juvenile delinquents on holiday and flatscreen TVs for the unemployed.


----------



## grit (Jun 30, 2011)

kabbes said:


> OK, you want alternatives?  Here's a first simple step on the roadmap to more substantive change: eliminate limited liability corporations.  The existance of entities with rights but no responsibilities and the breaking of the link between ownership and management facilitates institutionally psychopathic and sociopathic behavior by the institutions themselves and those that work within them.


 
That would make it a even more dangerous decision to go out and start a company, which would have obvious knock on effects?


----------



## Crispy (Jun 30, 2011)

Even by asking questions about alternatives, btown raises himself above the majority. I'm sure calling him a cunt will do wonders for convincing him that it's a question worth asking.


----------



## ymu (Jun 30, 2011)

grit said:


> Isint that already the case with businesses paying taxes?


 
No, don't be silly.

If I set up a new business in Newcastle, and was cunt enough to pay minimum wage, few if any would have to claim HB. My business plan is sound.

But if I set up in London instead, I can use exactly the same business plan with massively higher costs attached to the same output, and get the taxpayers to make up the difference. So selfish employers who want to live in London get the state to subsidise their business, services and housing bubbles, whilst the rest of the country is starved of jobs.

No sane person would come up with such a system. If you cannot afford to pay your employees enough to live where they work, you do not have a viable business. Handing out an automatic subsidy to any old cunt who fanciies setting up business in the Home Countries is ludicrous. Adam Smith would be turning in his grave, and he's supposed to be a fucking hero for the right.

You're being mugged off.


----------



## Santino (Jun 30, 2011)

grit said:


> That would make it a even more dangerous decision to go out and start a company, which would have obvious knock on effects?


 
If by dangerous you mean people would be more responsible for the consequences of their actions, then yes.


----------



## grit (Jun 30, 2011)

ymu said:


> No, don't be silly.
> 
> If I set up a new business in Newcastle, and was cunt enough to pay minimum wage, few if any would have to claim HB. My business plan is sound.
> 
> ...


 
First I'm not being mugged anything, it was a fucking honest question, nice to see you still manage to get a jab personally in somewhere  

If you are anything, you are at least consistent I'll give you that. So I'll ask another straight forward honest simple question and try not to foam at the mouth so much.

If I started a business paying minimum wage in London, what subsidies would I or my employees be automatically entitled to.

Now remember, thats a fair question with no venom, I'm honestly trying to learn more.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 30, 2011)

grit said:


> That would make it a even more dangerous decision to go out and start a company, which would have obvious knock on effects?


 
How many people do you think go out and start a limited liability corporation?  It takes years to get to the point where you can float.

By all means keep limited liability partnerships, albeit under stricter rules than exist as present.  Most are sole traders, which aren't even that, though.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 30, 2011)

grit said:


> If I started a business paying minimum wage in London, what subsidies would I or my employees be automatically entitled to.



In a way, that is what a substantial portion of this thread is about.  Minimum wage is not a living wage in London.  If you do not receive a living wage then you must, by definition, be receiving other funds in order to live.  These other funds are a subsidy.  

So then the question is: why is this a subsidy to the employer rather than the employee?  And the answer is: you can only pay minimum wage _because _somebody else is picking up the tab for this subsidy.  If there was no subsidy, people couldn't afford to live in that region and receive minimum wage, so you would have no employees.


----------



## grit (Jun 30, 2011)

Santino said:


> If by dangerous you mean people would be more responsible for the consequences of their actions, then yes.


 
Setting up a small business is a scary prospect for a bunch of reasons. LTD companies provide at least a division between my personal assets such as the home my family lives in. If the end game of every failed small business (and the majority do fail) is for the owner to lose everything, you are not going to have a hope of stimulating new businesses.

I'm not claiming that such a division cant be abused when the company is bigger, however when reading and taking part in these threads I always first look at it from the point of view of lets say two guys starting out doing a window cleaning business or something.

In an environment where the economy needs to create jobs making the penalties so so harsh for failure is going to stop a lot of people who have the potential to build great companies from trying.


----------



## ymu (Jun 30, 2011)

grit said:


> First I'm not being mugged anything, it was a fucking honest question, nice to see you still manage to get a jab personally in somewhere
> 
> If you are anything, you are at least consistent I'll give you that. So I'll ask another straight forward honest simple question and try not to foam at the mouth so much.
> 
> ...


 
Your employees would be entitled to claim up to £20k* in housing benefit each year, and whatever tax credits applied to their circumstances.

www.entitledto.com and see for yourself how much automatic subsidy is available per underpaid employee.


*once the Tory cuts and cap have been imposed - they have very wisely delayed them because, I suspect, the employers and landlords of the Home Counties have gone apoplectic with rage.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 30, 2011)

grit said:


> Setting up a small business is a scary prospect for a bunch of reasons. LTD companies provide at least a division between my personal assets such as the home my family lives in. If the end game of every failed small business (and the majority do fail) is for the owner to lose everything, you are not going to have a hope of stimulating new businesses.
> 
> I'm not claiming that such a division cant be abused when the company is bigger, however when reading and taking part in these threads I always first look at it from the point of view of lets say two guys starting out doing a window cleaning business or something.
> 
> In an environment where the economy needs to create jobs making the penalties so so harsh for failure is going to stop a lot of people who have the potential to build great companies from trying.


 
Yeah, probably there would be no jobs at all if there was no such thing as a limited liability corporation.


----------



## grit (Jun 30, 2011)

kabbes said:


> If you do not receive a living wage then you must, by definition, be receiving other funds in order to live.  These other funds are a subsidy.


 
So if someone is working minimum wage in London they are entitled to benefits? Sorry I'm not following, there is this talk of what seems to be a  subsidy without people exactly stating what it is. If someone is making minimum wage in London the assumption that they are magically getting money from somewhere else seems.... odd.

Edit: ymu's post above clarified.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 30, 2011)

There is virtually no connection whatsoever between some guys windowcleaning and a massive multinational corporation.  Not legally, not structurally, not in terms of their terms of trade or business ethics.  If you are controlling the latter by considering the former, you're doomed to be stuck forever with an institutionally psychopathic system.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 30, 2011)

grit said:


> So if someone is working minimum wage in London they are entitled to benefits? Sorry I'm not following, there is this talk of what seems to be a  subsidy without people exactly stating what it is. If someone is making minimum wage in London the assumption that they are magically getting money from somewhere else seems.... odd.


 


ymu said:


> Your employees would be entitled to claim up to £20k in housing benefit each year, and whatever tax credits applied to their circumstances.
> 
> www.entitledto.com and see for yourself how much automatic subsidy is available per underpaid employee..


 
.


----------



## grit (Jun 30, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Yeah, probably there would be no jobs at all if there was no such thing as a limited liability corporation.


 
Seems reasonable to assume that raising the stakes of starting a small business is going to lead to a decrease in them no?


----------



## ymu (Jun 30, 2011)

grit said:


> So if someone is working minimum wage in London they are entitled to benefits? Sorry I'm not following, there is this talk of what seems to be a  subsidy without people exactly stating what it is. If someone is making minimum wage in London the assumption that they are magically getting money from somewhere else seems.... odd.
> 
> Edit: ymu's post above clarified.



Of course they are! How does someone earning £12k manage to pay £16k in rent?

Excluding pensioners and those who cannot work at all, 70-80% of HB claimants are in work.


----------



## grit (Jun 30, 2011)

kabbes said:


> There is virtually no connection whatsoever between some guys windowcleaning and a massive multinational corporation.  Not legally, not structurally, not in terms of their terms of trade or business ethics.  If you are controlling the latter by considering the former, you're doomed to be stuck forever with an institutionally psychopathic system.


 
I would assume, that the window cleaners first act would be to register a LTD company? Same for anyone else starting out?

I'm beginning to wonder if the UK LTD company concept has differences from what I've come across previously as legally a 2 man window cleaning business would be legally the same thing if both are LTD?


----------



## grit (Jun 30, 2011)

ymu said:


> Of course they are! How does someone earning £12k manage to pay £16k in rent?
> 
> Excluding pensioners and those who cannot work at all,* 70-80% of HB claimants are in work*.


 
AH, that makes more sense, thank you.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 30, 2011)

grit said:


> Seems reasonable to assume that raising the stakes of starting a small business is going to lead to a decrease in them no?


 
Removing the concept of shareholders doesn't affect the creation of small businesses in the slightest.  Small businesses don't start off with a floatation on AIM.

Limited liability companies were only invented by the Companies Act in 1855, incidentally, and then only took their current form from the late 19th century onwards.  How do you think people coped before that?


----------



## kabbes (Jun 30, 2011)

grit said:


> I would assume, that the window cleaners first act would be to register a LTD company? Same for anyone else starting out?
> 
> I'm beginning to wonder if the UK LTD company concept has differences from what I've come across previously.


 
No, the window cleaners would register as a sole trader or a partnership.  Frankly, the accounting requirements alone would tend to be a massive barrier to entry for most small businesses interested in becoming a limited company.


----------



## grit (Jun 30, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Removing the concept of shareholders doesn't affect the creation of small businesses in the slightest.  Small businesses don't start off with a floatation on AIM.


 
I was more thinking about the division of the company and personal assets of the founders. Thanks for the posts what Ymu has suggested now makes more sense.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 30, 2011)

I've realised that I do need to clarify one thing: it is possible to be a limited company with a single shareholder, who is the manager of the business, and which is not floated on any market.  This is done for various reasons but could, with tweaks, be simply reorganised as a limited liability partnership instead.  

The problem I have is with the company as a legal entity in its own right, which allows for -- in fact _encourages_ -- widespread unethical practices*.  I further have a massive problem with distributed ownership, which exacerbates the problem.  I don't necessarily have a problem with the concept of limited liability itself.


*For example, it is nearly impossible to get a conviction for "corporate manslaughter".  Companies can indulge in practices that result in the deaths of thousands with virtually no comeback other than a financial penalty, which is a risk that may be acceptable in a cost-benefit analysis.


----------



## ymu (Jun 30, 2011)

It was a popular tax dodge for a while because of that invidious Brown budget (could have been pre-election 2005 maybe) that was full of tax loopholes. £10k tax free for small companies had millions registering with Companies House. 500,000 registered companies paid no tax last year...

That loophole has now been closed and it is not advisable. Richard Murphy has blogged about it.


----------



## grit (Jun 30, 2011)

kabbes said:


> I've realised that I do need to clarify one thing: it is possible to be a limited company with a single shareholder, who is the manager of the business, and which is not floated on any market.  This is done for various reasons but could, with tweaks, be simply reorganised as a limited liability partnership instead.
> 
> The problem I have is with the company as a legal entity in its own right, which allows for -- in fact _encourages_ -- widespread unethical practices*.  I further have a massive problem with distributed ownership, which exacerbates the problem.  I don't necessarily have a problem with the concept of limited liability itself.
> 
> ...


 
See thats what was in my mind when speaking about LTD, a small single owner, floating didnt come into it.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 30, 2011)

Well, separate the two.  You can have limited liability without needing to create a legal entity that has rights in law but fuck-all responsibilities short of making as much profit as possible.


----------



## metal13 (Jun 30, 2011)

kabbes said:


> In a way, that is what a substantial portion of this thread is about.  Minimum wage is not a living wage in London.  If you do not receive a living wage then you must, by definition, be receiving other funds in order to live.  These other funds are a subsidy.
> 
> So then the question is: why is this a subsidy to the employer rather than the employee?  And the answer is: you can only pay minimum wage _because _somebody else is picking up the tab for this subsidy.  If there was no subsidy, people couldn't afford to live in that region and receive minimum wage, so you would have no employees.


 
I hadn't heard about the housing benefits. I went through the calculator you linked to in another post, and someone of my age, in my current location in Brixton, and making minimum wage would qualify for about £5500/year in housing benefit. That equates to a rate of about £8.57/hr.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 30, 2011)

metal13 said:


> I hadn't heard about the housing benefits. I went through the calculator you linked to in another post, and someone of my age, in my current location in Brixton, and making minimum wage would qualify for about £5500/year in housing benefit. That equates to a rate of about £8.57/hr.


 
That ymu linked to, to be fair.  Credit her, not me.

But yes, that's the point -- employers paying minimum wage rely on their staff receiving heavy subsidies as part of their business strategy.  In short, the taxpayer is paying for these companies to get rich.


----------



## grit (Jun 30, 2011)

kabbes said:


> That ymu linked to, to be fair.  Credit her, not me.
> 
> But yes, that's the point -- employers paying minimum wage rely on their staff receiving heavy subsidies as part of their business strategy.  In short, the taxpayer is paying for these companies to get rich.


 
Playing devil's advocate for a moment, if the subsidies werent there you would essentially be driving people out of London right?


----------



## Kizmet (Jun 30, 2011)

Or holding rents down.


----------



## grit (Jun 30, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Or holding rents down.


 
Yes, but if I recall correctly there was outtrage on urban during discussions regarding social housing where one of the main points people were angry about were the changes that would be breaking up London communities, this appears on the surface to cause the same problem?

In addition it looks like it would just import the unemployment issues the rest of the UK is suffering into London, just moving the problem around.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 30, 2011)

The argument goes: If you're going to subsidise housing in London, build council housing or impose rent controls - more efficient, and prevents the accumulation of wealth in landlords' hands.


----------



## Kizmet (Jun 30, 2011)

Not necessarily a problem. London could do with less people.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 30, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Not necessarily a problem. London could do with less people.


 
This too. Although the relocation of so many people and jobs would be very disruptive.


----------



## Kizmet (Jun 30, 2011)

Crispy said:


> The argument goes: If you're going to subsidise housing in London, build council housing or impose rent controls - more efficient, and prevents the accumulation of wealth in landlords' hands.


 
If you do that you don't need to subsidise housing.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 30, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> If you do that you don't need to subsidise housing.


 
Yeah sorry, should have said "if you want to make the minimum wage bearable in london by lowering housing cost to the tennant, then..." but I was being lazy


----------



## grit (Jun 30, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Not necessarily a problem. London could do with less people.


 
I'm sure the Londoners being forced out of their homes wouldnt share the view 

I'm starting to think ymu's solution is not as clear cut as we would like


----------



## Kizmet (Jun 30, 2011)

Crispy said:


> This too. Although the relocation of so many people and jobs would be very disruptive.


 
Not 'so many' nowadays. Seems as good a time as any.


----------



## grit (Jun 30, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Not 'so many' nowadays. Seems as good a time as any.


 
So tough shit basically if you have to leave your community?


----------



## Kizmet (Jun 30, 2011)

grit said:


> I'm sure the Londoners being forced out of their homes wouldnt share the view


 
Times are hard.


----------



## Kizmet (Jun 30, 2011)

grit said:


> So tough shit basically if you have to leave your community?


 
Aye.


----------



## grit (Jun 30, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Times are hard.


 
Sounds quite Tory-like


----------



## Kizmet (Jun 30, 2011)

Are times just hard for tories?


----------



## kabbes (Jun 30, 2011)

The succession of neo-capitalists running this country for the past 30 years have created this problem by systematically removing the barriers to entry for setting up your business in London rather than elsewhere in the country.  In doing so, they have created an overcrowded south-east and hit the rest of the country incredibly hard in the process.

So yes, it will be very painful to unwind it.  But it's already incredibly painful as it is.  And it's getting more painful by the day so long as we continue to prop up the south-east employers in this manner.

You could ease the path by taking the living subsidy and using it to incentivise relocation.


----------



## grit (Jun 30, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Are times just hard for tories?


 
Dunno, I'm not aware that I know any, just sounds like one of their lines along with being in this together etc.


----------



## grit (Jun 30, 2011)

kabbes said:


> You could ease the path by taking the living subsidy and using it to incentivise relocation.


 
That sounds a lot more workable.


----------



## Kizmet (Jun 30, 2011)

grit said:


> Dunno, I'm not aware that I know any, just sounds like one of their lines along with being in this together etc.


 
That's the interesting thing about language... it often requires a context to be understood. Otherwise it's often not.


----------



## grit (Jun 30, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> That's the interesting thing about language... it often requires a context to be understood. Otherwise it's often not.


 
I understood what you meant, it was just quite amusing.


----------



## Kizmet (Jun 30, 2011)

kabbes said:


> The succession of neo-capitalists running this country for the past 30 years have created this problem by systematically removing the barriers to entry for setting up your business in London rather than elsewhere in the country.  In doing so, they have created an overcrowded south-east and hit the rest of the country incredibly hard in the process.
> 
> So yes, it will be very painful to unwind it.  But it's already incredibly painful as it is.  And it's getting more painful by the day so long as we continue to prop up the south-east employers in this manner.
> 
> You could ease the path by taking the living subsidy and using it to incentivise relocation.


 
Nice idea... except the living subsidy usually remains within the councils local economy... relocation funds disappear.


----------



## Kizmet (Jun 30, 2011)

grit said:


> I understood what you meant, it was just quite amusing.


 
Well, since I'm opposing a subsidy that enables both the landowner and employer to profit greatly at the expense of the public rather than each other... your understanding of what a Tory is may need a bit of a wipe down. You laughed so hard I think you may have dribbled on it.


----------



## grit (Jun 30, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Well, since I'm opposing a subsidy that enables both the landowner and employer to profit greatly at the expense of the public rather than each other... your understanding of what a Tory is may need a bit of a wipe down. You laughed so hard I think you may have dribbled on it.


----------



## B-Town (Jun 30, 2011)

So today I think I have learnt something, the points made by kabbes and ymu are quite interesting and are things I was oblivious to before. That said, i still do not understand why it has to be aimed and presented with such aggression and contempt which is why I started this thread in the first place.


----------



## tufty79 (Jun 30, 2011)

B-Town said:


> That said, i still do not understand why it has to be aimed and presented with such aggression and contempt which is why I started this thread in the first place.


 
this. is. urbans.


----------



## London_Calling (Jun 30, 2011)

B-Town said:


> So today I think I have learnt something, the points made by kabbes and ymu are quite interesting and are things I was oblivious to before. That said, i still do not understand why it has to be aimed and presented with such aggression and contempt which is why I started this thread in the first place.


It's like the real world except you can't filter people out as easily. Just pick up what you can and ignore the keyboard heroes.


----------



## ymu (Jun 30, 2011)

grit said:


> I'm sure the Londoners being forced out of their homes wouldnt share the view
> 
> I'm starting to think ymu's solution is not as clear cut as we would like


 
They're not being forced out of their homes. Their employers are being forced to pay the full economic cost of employing them. The jobs will move out, and most of the people going with them will not be native Londoners - they'll be the mobile middle-classes who have always chased jobs all over the country because they get paid enough to upsticks and go, and to pay for a childminder if the grandparents aren't around the corner.

We would have to buy up any housing that people needed shot of. And employers could repay us with equity if they didn't have ready cash. But something like this has to happen. It is breaking us.


----------



## grit (Jun 30, 2011)

ymu said:


> They're not being forced out of their homes. Their employers are being forced to pay the full economic cost of employing them. The jobs will move out, and most of the people going with them will not be native Londoners - they'll be the mobile middle-classes who have always chased jobs all over the country because they get paid enough to upsticks and go, and to pay for a childminder if the grandparents aren't around the corner.
> 
> We would have to buy up any housing that people needed shot of. And employers could repay us with equity if they didn't have ready cash. But something like this has to happen. It is breaking us.


 
I'm not so sure about the assumption that it would not be native londoners. And anyway even if they are not native, seems bad to treat them differently.


----------



## Kizmet (Jun 30, 2011)

Lesser of two evils.


----------



## ymu (Jun 30, 2011)

B-Town said:


> So today I think I have learnt something, the points made by kabbes and ymu are quite interesting and are things I was oblivious to before. That said, i still do not understand why it has to be aimed and presented with such aggression and contempt which is why I started this thread in the first place.


This is not a board for delicate flowers. If harsh words upset you, don't post here. You would have known that if you had read for a while before posting.

It was your attitude that got you called a cunt. That's all. Read your original thread again, and you might spot why.

We don't hold grudges. If you engage with what people are saying in response to you - not just the hurtful words they used to express their anger - you'll get a better reception. Especially as a new poster. That's true of all boards, BTW. You're moving into a community, you need to check out how it operates before getting cheeky.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 30, 2011)

ymu said:


> They're not being forced out of their homes. Their employers are being forced to pay the full economic cost of employing them. The jobs will move out, and most of the people going with them will not be native Londoners - they'll be the mobile middle-classes who have always chased jobs all over the country because they get paid enough to upsticks and go, and to pay for a childminder if the grandparents aren't around the corner.


 
That doesn't make sense. The subsidy we're talking about is Housing Benefit, which doesn't go to mobile middle class workers.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 30, 2011)

ymu said:


> We don't hold grudges.


 
Oh come now


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 30, 2011)

Crispy said:


> That doesn't make sense. The subsidy we're talking about is Housing Benefit, which doesn't go to mobile middle class workers.


 
You're right esp as the original premise was about paying the min wage in Newcastle. (Plenty of people would still need subsidies in HB on that even there, even if not as much as London tho).


----------



## kabbes (Jun 30, 2011)

I hold grudges.  But the good news is that over the course of the last four-and-a-bit years (is it really that long??), _every single person _on this board has given me cause to be angry with them, meaning that I hold grudges equally against each and every one of them.


----------



## tufty79 (Jun 30, 2011)

wtf did i do?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 30, 2011)

Crispy said:


> That doesn't make sense. The subsidy we're talking about is Housing Benefit, which doesn't go to mobile middle class workers.


 
I think the idea is that without housing benefit to help poorer workers in London, employers would have to pay more to get workers and services would go up in price, making London a less attractive place for everyone else too. 

The idea is full of holes, imo, and just plain wrong, in fact, but that is the idea.


----------



## ymu (Jun 30, 2011)

Crispy said:


> That doesn't make sense. The subsidy we're talking about is Housing Benefit, which doesn't go to mobile middle class workers.


 
And how are the mobile middle-class workers going to live in London when their employers can't afford cleaners, security or reception? How are they going to survive the price hikes when their local shops have to pay £10/hour on PAYE?

It's the jobs that will be moving. The workers will follow, and the workers that will follow will be the middle-class ones, because it is normal to move for a high paid job and very abnormal to move for a low paid one.


----------



## tufty79 (Jun 30, 2011)

so does that mean that all the jobs will move out of london and the dolescum will inherit the capital? :hopeful:


----------



## kabbes (Jun 30, 2011)

tufty79 said:


> wtf did i do?


 
Failed to capitalised the word "I".


----------



## ymu (Jun 30, 2011)

I think London would have plenty of shops and hotels and theatres providing work, and if we ever got a sane policy like that implemented, there would be no dolescum. We'd put the share of GDP paid out as wages up to where it was 30 years ago (and ideally much higher). This would allow us all to have an instant 10% payrise AND drop our hours 10% to create enough jobs for everyone.

I dare you to tell me that wouldn't work.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 30, 2011)

ymu said:


> And how are the mobile middle-class workers going to live in London when their employers can't afford cleaners, security or reception? How are they going to survive the price hikes when their local shops have to pay £10/hour on PAYE?
> 
> It's the jobs that will be moving. The workers will follow, and the workers that will follow will be the middle-class ones, because it is normal to move for a high paid job and very abnormal to move for a low paid one.


 
And, ultimately, London prices will come into line with the rest of the country.  Because why shouldn't they be?


----------



## grit (Jun 30, 2011)

ymu said:


> The workers will follow, and the workers that will follow will be the middle-class ones, because it is normal to move for a high paid job and very abnormal to move for a low paid one.


 
Eh kinda, at the same time someone in a high paid job has a lot more options for work and thus the pressure to move can be less.


----------



## ymu (Jun 30, 2011)

kabbes said:


> And, ultimately, London prices will come into line with the rest of the country.  Because why shouldn't they be?


 
Can't argue with the free market. 

Kinda makes you wonder why we don't have one, when it comes to London ...


----------



## ymu (Jun 30, 2011)

grit said:


> Eh kinda, at the same time someone in a high paid job has a lot more options for work and thus the pressure to move can be less.


 
If employers are forced out of London, where are these extra options for work in London coming from?

I'm not familiar with all sectors, but my job is too specialised - and being in the right department critical. I wouildn't think twice, because I can't afford to.

It's ridiculous and it's crippling us ('UK Plc') financially. Huge wastage in benefits to keep jobs in the SE, and huge benefits to keep people on the dole elsewhere. Housing crisis in the SE, houses going for a tenner in the north (literally, in some cases).


----------



## grit (Jun 30, 2011)

ymu said:


> If employers are forced out of London, where are these extra options for work in London coming from?
> 
> I'm not familiar with all sectors, but my job is too specialised - and being in the right department critical. I wouildn't think twice, because I can't afford to.
> 
> It's ridiculous and it's crippling us ('UK Plc') financially. Huge wastage in benefits to keep jobs in the SE, and huge benefits to keep people on the dole elsewhere. Housing crisis in the SE, houses going for a tenner in the north (literally, in some cases).


 
There would be plenty of businesses making enough money not to move from London, its not cheap to move a company and many are tied to long term ish leases. If you plan happened I'd be pretty confident of being able to stay, and I'd imagine many others would as well.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 30, 2011)

Give us a specific proposal, then, ymu. One that will do as you intend here, because otherwise none of what you are saying is worth much.

A comparison with other cities with sky-high rents and property prices but without a housing benefit system like ours might be pertinent too. New York perhaps, or Paris. Or Moscow. Or Tokyo.


----------



## ymu (Jun 30, 2011)

grit said:


> There would be plenty of businesses making enough money not to move from London, its not cheap to move a company and many are tied to long term ish leases. If you plan happened I'd be pretty confident of being able to stay, and I'd imagine many others would as well.


 
Yes, there would be plenty remaining. But there would still be fewer jobs. Where are all these jobs for them to stay in London for coming from?


----------



## ymu (Jun 30, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Give us a specific proposal, then, ymu. One that will do as you intend here, because otherwise none of what you are saying is worth much.
> 
> A comparison with other cities with sky-high rents and property prices but without a housing benefit system like ours might be pertinent too. New York perhaps, or Paris. Or Moscow. Or Tokyo.


 
I have. You can read my posts if you want to.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 30, 2011)

Londoners are understandably protective.  But you have to understand that this bleeding away of jobs is _exactly_ what has already happened to many other parts of the country.  This is just an aim to redress the balance and undo the damage of the last 30 years.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 30, 2011)

I don't see anything workable. I also don't see anything that acknowledges the role of the iniquitous patterns of land ownership, the destruction of social housing, the abandonment of fair rents, the upwards pressure housing benefit has on rents, the role housing benefit fraud plays, the fact that most people working full-time in london on minimum wage don't claim any housing benefit at all. I certainly don't see cross-city comparisons to see what might happen.

You attack the social injustice that is caused by high London rents by forcing landlords by law to reduce their rents. That is the problem and that is what needs attacking. Otherwise, you simply exacerbate differences, for instance differences between those in social housing and those not. If you consider that too much of the economy is concentrated in the SE, that is an entirely separate problem to be attacked from other directions - move government ( the whole of it) to Birmingham, for instance.


----------



## nick h. (Jun 30, 2011)

Could somebody summarise this thread for me pls? I've read the first few pages but I CBA with the rest. I have been called a cunt and I have cleaning experience if that helps.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 30, 2011)

nick h. said:


> Could somebody summarise this thread for me pls? I've read the first few pages but I CBA with the rest. I have been called a cunt and I have cleaning experience if that helps.


 
That's all you need to know tbh. Cunty newbie gone on a Tory rant, likely fellas step up to learn him a lesson or two.


----------



## tufty79 (Jun 30, 2011)

bunfight and politix, nick h.

i also has cleaning skillz (in places other than my own ),  and competitive rates. minimum wage + chocolate and/or coffee. just coffee if you want it all done superfast.

apply within


----------



## ymu (Jun 30, 2011)

There is no doubt that it would be painful. Which is why the state would offer to buy/accept assets to help people through it. But it has to happen, or we will just keep getting poorer and poorer and poorer.

It's our equivalent of US healthcare. Healthcare costs cripple small businesses there, and damage their global competiveness all around. But the power-brokers own the health insurers and the drug companies. So they pay $2-3 for every $1 in the average 'rich' nation. And get the worst health outcomes in the world, primarily because no fucker is willing to pay for preventative healthcare (eg '5 a day') and there are almost no regulations on food quality, so eating shit food out is cheaper than eating good food in. Fills you up but leaves your body yearning for nutrition.

We have to end this idiocy. They want free markets, they can give us free markets.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 30, 2011)

There is and can be no such thing as a free market when some people own land and others don't. Why not advocate a bit of socialism instead?


----------



## weltweit (Jun 30, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There is and can be no such thing as a free market when some people own land and others don't. Why not advocate a bit of socialism instead?


 
Land isn't the great asset it once was. 

And anyhow why could there not be a free market in Land?


----------



## B-Town (Jun 30, 2011)

tufty79 said:


> bunfight and politix, nick h.
> 
> i also has cleaning skillz (in places other than my own ),  and competitive rates. minimum wage + chocolate and/or coffee. just coffee if you want it all done superfast.
> 
> apply within


 
It wasn't a tory rant - it was a belief that ppl can control their own destiny and that opportunities are available to all. The key factor to success is ambition - not education, class, gender or postcode.


----------



## B-Town (Jun 30, 2011)

It wasn't a tory rant - it was a belief that ppl can control their own destiny and that opportunities are available to all. The key factor to success is ambition - not education, class, gender or postcode.


----------



## B-Town (Jun 30, 2011)

TruXta said:


> That's all you need to know tbh. Cunty newbie gone on a Tory rant, likely fellas step up to learn him a lesson or two.


 
3rd time lucky - challenges of being a cunty newbie!

It wasn't a tory rant - it was a belief that ppl can control their own destiny and that opportunities are available to all. The key factor to success is ambition - not education, class, gender or postcode.


----------



## Kizmet (Jun 30, 2011)

There is no key factor to success. Anyone telling you different is selling something.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 30, 2011)

B-Town said:


> It wasn't a tory rant - it was a belief that ppl can control their own destiny and that opportunities are available to all. The key factor to success is ambition - not education, class, gender or postcode.


 
I think the complaint oft heard on this site is that yes : 

People are equal - they can control their own destiny .. 

But some people are more equal than others!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 30, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Land isn't the great asset it once was.
> 
> And anyhow why could there not be a free market in Land?


 
Why do some people own land and others not? All land ownership is the result of an 'original sin' at some point in history.  A dirty, violent, iniquitous original sin.


----------



## metal13 (Jun 30, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There is and can be no such thing as a free market when some people own land and others don't. Why not advocate a bit of socialism instead?


 
This makes no sense.


----------



## ymu (Jun 30, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There is and can be no such thing as a free market when some people own land and others don't. Why not advocate a bit of socialism instead?


 
Because there's damage to undo before that is sellable to enough numbers to achieve.

I think we need to start by exposing the economic myths before we can build enough numbers for real change.


----------



## Kizmet (Jun 30, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Why do some people own land and others not? All land ownership is the result of an 'original sin' at some point in history.  A dirty, violent, iniquitous original sin.


 
Because.

You answered your own question.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 30, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Why do some people own land and others not? All land ownership is the result of an 'original sin' at some point in history.  A dirty, violent, iniquitous original sin.


 
A lot of people build up a lot of equity in their London house while they are working and then as they near or get to retirement, they buy a house and some land in the sticks and gentrify. 

No original sin in that? 

Plus, in my own small way I was a land owner, I had a house with a garden!


----------



## TruXta (Jun 30, 2011)

B-Town said:


> It wasn't a tory rant - it was a belief that ppl can control their own destiny and that opportunities are available to all. The key factor to success is ambition - not education, class, gender or postcode.


 
That is a tory rant by any definition and a spectacularly uninformed one at that. Your view is a persistent myth undermined by all manner of research. Get educated or get to fuck.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 30, 2011)

weltweit said:


> A lot of people build up a lot of equity in their London house while they are working and then as they near or get to retirement, they buy a house and some land in the sticks and gentrify.
> 
> No original sin in that?
> 
> Plus, in my own small way I was a land owner, I had a house with a garden!


 


LBJ doesn't mean "why do people right now own some land".  He means "how come somebody -- anybody -- got to own this land in the first place".

You owned your house because you bought it from someone who bought it from someone who bought it from someone and so on.  But at some point, somebody _didn't_ buy it from anybody.  They just took it.  In a way, you were doing no more than buying stolen goods.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 30, 2011)

kabbes said:


> LBJ doesn't mean "why do people right now own some land".  He means "how come somebody -- anybody -- got to own this land in the first place".
> 
> You owned your house because you bought it from someone who bought it from someone who bought it from someone and so on.  But at some point, somebody _didn't_ buy it from anybody.  They just took it.  In a way, you were doing no more than buying stolen goods.


 
Wait, what? Are you arguing that personal property is theft? What has happened to you?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 30, 2011)

kabbes said:


> LBJ doesn't mean "why do people right now own some land".  He means "how come somebody -- anybody -- got to own this land in the first place".
> 
> You owned your house because you bought it from someone who bought it from someone who bought it from someone and so on.  But at some point, somebody _didn't_ buy it from anybody.  They just took it.  In a way, you were doing no more than buying stolen goods.


 
Yes, that is exactly my point. And I'm not saying that I think everyone who now owns land should have it taken off them, particularly if they paid money for it. The issue of land ownership is, worldwide, probably the most fundamental cause of inequality and the trickiest of all problems to sort out because it is so embedded in everyone's thinking and the reason the concept exists in the first place is all too easily forgotten. An equitable solution that takes into account the fact that people have paid real money for said stolen goods needs a lot of thought.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 30, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Wait, what? Are you arguing that personal property is theft? What has happened to you?


 
I've been a Marxist intellectually if not always in practice for some time now.

Or, to put it less grandly, butchersapron convinced me of some stuff.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 30, 2011)

kabbes said:


> I've been a Marxist intellectually if not always in practice for some time now.
> 
> Or, to put it less grandly, butchersapron convinced me of some stuff.


 
He got to you too..... When can we expect you to blow up your offices in the name of revolution then?


----------



## kabbes (Jun 30, 2011)

TruXta said:


> He got to you too..... When can we expect you to blow up your offices in the name of revolution then?


 
Hey, I'm just as hypocritical and self-serving as the next guy.  And the next guy is you, so that's both of us fucked.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 30, 2011)

kabbes said:


> You owned your house because you bought it from someone who bought it from someone who bought it from someone and so on.  But at some point, somebody _didn't_ buy it from anybody.  They just took it.  In a way, you were doing no more than buying stolen goods.


 
I don't really buy that. It MAY have been like that, or it may have been that the original occupiers effectively owned the land. Who were the initial occupiers anyhow, how far back do you want to go?


----------



## weltweit (Jun 30, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes, that is exactly my point. And I'm not saying that I think everyone who now owns land should have it taken off them, particularly if they paid money for it. The issue of land ownership is, worldwide, probably the most fundamental cause of inequality and the trickiest of all problems to sort out because it is so embedded in everyone's thinking and the reason the concept exists in the first place is all too easily forgotten. An equitable solution that takes into account the fact that people have paid real money for said stolen goods needs a lot of thought.


 
If land was not sold, how would it be fairly distributed?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 30, 2011)

weltweit said:


> I don't really buy that. It MAY have been like that, or it may have been that the original occupiers effectively owned the land. Who were the initial occupiers anyhow, how far back do you want to go?


 
Ah, well this is the problem, isn't it? The original occupiers in most cases, and particularly so in the UK, are not those that came to own the land. Current patterns of land ownership have their roots in feudal relations.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 30, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ah, well this is the problem, isn't it? The original occupiers in most cases, and particularly so in the UK, are not those that came to own the land. Current patterns of land ownership have their roots in feudal relations.


 
It's oppression all the way down, give up this meaningless search for an ur-society where property didn't exist. Even animals lay claim to territories.


----------



## ymu (Jun 30, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes, that is exactly my point. And I'm not saying that I think everyone who now owns land should have it taken off them, particularly if they paid money for it. The issue of land ownership is, worldwide, probably the most fundamental cause of inequality and the trickiest of all problems to sort out because it is so embedded in everyone's thinking and the reason the concept exists in the first place is all too easily forgotten. An equitable solution that takes into account the fact that people have paid real money for said stolen goods needs a lot of thought.


 
Adam Smith was a big fan of land tax to fund government, for the following reasons:

1. Automatically gets passed on to tenants and their customers only so far as they can afford to pay higher rents/prices.

2. Cannot be hidden or expatriated.

3. Owning land is unproductive. Rentiers are parasites who hinder the economy by charging people to use it to make useful things. So the burden must be placed on those who earn most for doing least. 

4. The higher the rents, the higher the tax, so regional concentrations of wealth are balanced by paying a proportionate amount of tax according to the size of the local 'bubble'. The wealthier it gets, the more tax they pay on the land there.

This is Adam Smith, the right-wing hero, not  me. This is a right-wing policy.

Ford was a right-wing cunt too. The right always forget one of his tenets - if you want to make money selling cheap consumer goods, you have to pay your workers enough to buy cheap cionsumer goods. This is also why the New Deal/Post War Consensus brought in collective bargaining and benefits - to make sure the workers would be paid enough that the economy didn't grind to a halt.

The right are terribly sloppy. I am finding it very hard to believe this Cabinet sat their own finals.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 30, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ah, well this is the problem, isn't it? The original occupiers in most cases, and particularly so in the UK, are not those that came to own the land. Current patterns of land ownership have their roots in feudal relations.


 
There are a lot of oddities where it comes to land. 

Prima Genitia (sp) for example where the whole of the land goes to the eldest so that the land is not broken up. And the opposite where the land is split amongst all offspring eventually leading to uneconomic farms. 

And then the mass of people who will never be able to afford any land even if they would like to.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 30, 2011)

TruXta said:


> It's oppression all the way down, give up this meaningless search for an ur-society where property didn't exist. Even animals lay claim to territories.


 
I'm not sure we want to model our idea society on animals.  Although I do like the idea of fattening up the queen to twenty times her current size and making her lay eggs all day long.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 30, 2011)

kabbes said:


> I'm not sure we want to model our idea society on animals.  Although I do like the idea of fattening up the queen to twenty times her current size and making her lay eggs all day long.


 
That's not what I said. By all means argue for a society without private property, but leave out the appeals to "original occupiers". We haven't much of a clue who they were or how they viewed issues of propert if at all.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 30, 2011)

TruXta said:


> That's not what I said. By all means argue for a society without private property, but leave out the appeals to "original occupiers". We haven't much of a clue who they were or how they viewed issues of propert if at all.


 
Where did I mention original occupiers or make any such appeal?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 30, 2011)

TruXta said:


> That's not what I said. By all means argue for a society without private property, but leave out the appeals to "original occupiers". We haven't much of a clue who they were or how they viewed issues of propert if at all.


 
Nobody is talking about 'original occupiers'. The issue is 'original owners', and we know _exactly_ who they are - very often right down to names and dates. In the UK, they are mostly the military aristocracy that took England by force in 1066.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 30, 2011)

TruXta said:


> That's not what I said. By all means argue for a society without private property, but leave out the appeals to "original occupiers". We haven't much of a clue who they were or how they viewed issues of propert if at all.


 
Have to say, if I was thinking of a fairer society, I would limit gifts of money during life and institute a 100% inheritance tax so that rich people could not pass their wealth on to their children. 

It would mean that you had to spend your money while you were alive because otherwise it would simply repatriate back to the state.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 30, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Where did I mention original occupiers or make any such appeal?


 
lbj did, I didn't see you disagree.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 30, 2011)

TruXta said:


> lbj did, I didn't see you disagree.


 
No I didn't.


----------



## Kizmet (Jun 30, 2011)

It belonged to the druids before then....


----------



## Ms T (Jun 30, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Nobody is talking about 'original occupiers'. The issue is 'original owners', and we know _exactly_ who they are - very often right down to names and dates. In the UK, they are mostly the military aristocracy that took England by force in 1066.


 
The French, then.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 30, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Nobody is talking about 'original occupiers'. The issue is 'original owners', and we know _exactly_ who they are - very often right down to names and dates. In the UK, they are mostly the military aristocracy that took England by force in 1066.


 
Interesting. Do their descendants still own the same property, or are they at least over-represented in the upper classes?


----------



## Kizmet (Jun 30, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Have to say, if I was thinking of a fairer society, I would limit gifts of money during life and institute a 100% inheritance tax so that rich people could not pass their wealth on to their children.
> 
> It would mean that you had to spend your money while you were alive because otherwise it would simply repatriate back to the state.


 
How is that fair?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 30, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Interesting. Do their descendants still own the same property, or are they at least over-represented in the upper classes?


 
Oh yes. Very much so.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 30, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> It belonged to the druids before then....


 
No. The conception of land ownership was very different before the Norman invasion. There was a great deal of common land, a tiny amount of which still remains. 

Each country has its own version of this particular original sin. This is ours.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 30, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Why do some people own land and others not? All land ownership is the result of an 'original sin' at some point in history.  A dirty, violent, iniquitous original sin.


 


littlebabyjesus said:


> No I didn't.


 
Your first quote very much looks like you assume as much. Can't have an original sin of land theft without original occupiers can you?


----------



## TruXta (Jun 30, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No. The conception of land ownership was very different before the Norman invasion. There was a great deal of common land, a tiny amount of which still remains.
> 
> Each country has its own version of this particular original sin. This is ours.


 
What, the Romans didn't do private property?


----------



## weltweit (Jun 30, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> How is that fair?


 
It is more meritocratic. 

No money that you have not earnt yourself.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 30, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Your first quote very much looks like you assume as much. Can't have an original sin of land theft without original occupiers can you?


 
Come on. Read what I am writing here. I'm not talking about occupation. I'm talking about ownership in its modern sense and the origins of _current patterns of ownership_.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 30, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Come on. Read what I am writing here. I'm not talking about occupation. I'm talking about ownership in its modern sense.


 
Given that you seem to think that all modern ownership is unlawful occupation, I fail to see your point.


----------



## Kizmet (Jun 30, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No. The conception of land ownership was very different before the Norman invasion. There was a great deal of common land, a tiny amount of which still remains.
> 
> Each country has its own version of this particular original sin. This is ours.


 
Doesn't sound very original, then.

The land may have been common in name but disputes over it were just as common. And often more bloodthirsty. Let's not harken back to days made glorious by distance.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 30, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Let's not harken back to days made glorious by distance.


 
If you think that is what I am doing, you have not understood what I have been saying. I am talking about the explanation for current patterns of land ownership. I'm not harkening back to the past. I am attempting to adequately explain the present.

If you think you can talk about land ownership rights and what to do about them without reference to the Norman invasion of England in 1066, you are mistaken - you are not thinking things through properly.


----------



## Kizmet (Jun 30, 2011)

weltweit said:


> It is more meritocratic.
> 
> No money that you have not earnt yourself.


 
Nice in theory. Were we all to be drones with no connection to each other... but sadly for you parents don't just die when their offspring are born and thus will influence your idea of meritocracy to the point it becomes laughable again. Sorry.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 30, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Nice in theory. Were we all to be drones with no connection to each other... but sadly for you parents don't just die when their offspring are born and thus will influence your idea of meritocracy to the point it becomes laughable again. Sorry.


 
Well, the known problem with the idea of 100% inheritance taxes is that the rich are very mobile and unless every country in the west institute the tax they will simply relocate to countries which do not have the tax so that their offspring can inherit. 

But I like the idea, despite inheriting something from my parents when they passed away, it would reduce the amount of transmitted privelige which exists in Britain.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 30, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Given that you seem to think that all modern ownership is unlawful occupation, I fail to see your point.


 
You've done it again, confusing ownership with occupation. The fact that much of the land is very specifically _not_ owned by its occupiers is a very large part of the problem.


----------



## Kizmet (Jun 30, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> If you think that is what I am doing, you have not understood what I have been saying. I am talking about the explanation for current patterns of land ownership. I'm not harkening back to the past. I am attempting to adequately explain the present.
> 
> If you think you can talk about land ownership rights and what to do about them without reference to the Norman invasion of England in 1066, you are mistaken - you are not thinking things through properly.



You made your point comfortably without needing to go back to a significant, but arbitrary, point in history.

Territory has been an issue since apes worked out the bit about hitting with stick. Territory and hotties.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 30, 2011)

It isn't arbitrary. When you are trying to explain the present, what you do is identify the important points in the past which provide those explanations. Patterns of land ownership under the Romans, for instance, are not relevant when explaining current patterns of land ownership - because since that time, a new military power has stepped in to claim the land for itself.

And if you don't think 1066 is relevant to today, all you need to do to disabuse yourself of that notion is to look at the way in which surnames are still correlated with wealth. On average, those with Norman names are richer than those with Anglo-Saxon names. 1066 is at the very heart of the UK's current class system.


----------



## Kizmet (Jun 30, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Well, the known problem with the idea of 100% inheritance taxes is that the rich are very mobile and unless every country in the west institute the tax they will simply relocate to countries which do not have the tax so that their offspring can inherit.
> 
> But I like the idea, despite inheriting something from my parents when they passed away, it would reduce the amount of transmitted privelige which exists in Britain.


 
There's nothing wrong with transmitted privileges. Just like there is nothing wrong with inheritance. Where there is inequality it comes from lack of opportunity... not privileges.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 30, 2011)

Forget the country in question or the specific history.  The fact is that for there to be land ownership, somebody at some point must have laid claim to some land and declared that they now _own_ it.  That's not harkening back to anything, it's a simple statement of fact.

The right by which they declared that they own it basically came down to force.  They were able to defend that land from those who wanted to disagree with their establishment of property rights.

Time has sanitised this process and the ownership has now been institutionalised.  This is more to do with pragmatism than anything else though.  The principle that something was taken and retained by force is still open to question.


----------



## Kizmet (Jun 30, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It isn't arbitrary.


 
Only because your argument hinges on it.


----------



## Kizmet (Jun 30, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Forget the country in question or the specific history.  The fact is that for there to be land ownership, somebody at some point must have laid claim to some land and declared that they now _own_ it.  That's not harkening back to anything, it's a simple statement of fact.
> 
> The right by which they declared that they own it basically came down to force.  They were able to defend that land from those who wanted to disagree with their establishment of property rights.
> 
> Time has sanitised this process and the ownership has now been institutionalised.  This is more to do with pragmatism than anything else though.  The principle that something was taken and retained by force is still open to question.


 
The strongest thrive?


----------



## weltweit (Jun 30, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> There's nothing wrong with transmitted privileges. Just like there is nothing wrong with inheritance. Where there is inequality it comes from lack of opportunity... not privileges.


 
What? there is everything wrong with transmitted privileges - they are fundamentally unfair!


----------



## Crispy (Jun 30, 2011)

This thread's not really about Brixton is it?


----------



## Kizmet (Jun 30, 2011)

weltweit said:


> What? there is everything wrong with transmitted privileges - they are fundamentally unfair!


 
What is fair? That I can't work hard to make life easier for my children?


----------



## Kizmet (Jun 30, 2011)

Crispy said:


> This thread's not really about Brixton is it?


 
It's keeping half if it off the street.


----------



## killer b (Jun 30, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Or, to put it less grandly, butchersapron convinced me of some stuff.


 
butchersapron: the revolution, one cunt at a time.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 30, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You've done it again, confusing ownership with occupation. The fact that much of the land is very specifically _not_ owned by its occupiers is a very large part of the problem.


 
Maybe I am confused. It's been a very confusing week on Urban.... Okay, so now you're saying that you do think private ownership isn't a bad idea, as long as the right people get to have it? Right being whatever you see fit - current occupiers, ancestors of the people whose land the Normans robbed, whatevs.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 30, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Forget the country in question or the specific history.  The fact is that for there to be land ownership, somebody at some point must have laid claim to some land and declared that they now _own_ it.  That's not harkening back to anything, it's a simple statement of fact.
> 
> The right by which they declared that they own it basically came down to force.  They were able to defend that land from those who wanted to disagree with their establishment of property rights.
> 
> Time has sanitised this process and the ownership has now been institutionalised.  This is more to do with pragmatism than anything else though.  The principle that something was taken and retained by force is still open to question.


 
Good summary. But any redistribution of land ownership must by virtue of current ownership patterns involve force. Unless you think they'll all become communists and give it away.


----------



## ymu (Jun 30, 2011)

killer b said:


> butchersapron: the revolution, one cunt at a time.


 
He is by far the most effective poster at imparting ideas, and making you think. A little less brevity would be welcome, but he is miles ahead of anyone else on impact factor adjusted for word count (highest of one per post, lowest of the other ).

He can't half be a cunt sometimes. But hey, look who's talking. 

Also my #1 influence, although I know he will hate me for saying that.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 30, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Okay, so now you're saying that you do think private ownership isn't a bad idea, as long as the right people get to have it?


 No. I am saying exactly the same thing as right at the start - that the origins of the inequality in the world are mostly to be found in a study of the history of land ownership. Personally, I would transfer all land rights to the state. A person could have a 999-year lease on the land and buy and sell that lease along with the stuff built on that land, but the lease would always be with the collective and by agreement with the collective. For starters... But I also said that sorting out the problem is a big task. Before you can sort out a problem, you need to understand what that problem is, though, and my comment was a reaction to ymu's proposal, which, imo, misunderstands the nature of the problem that needs to be sorted.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 30, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No. I am saying exactly the same thing as right at the start - that the origins of the inequality in the world are mostly to be found in a study of the history of land ownership. Personally, I would transfer all land rights to the state. A person could have a 999-year lease on the land and buy and sell that lease along with the stuff built on that land, but the lease would always be with the collective and by agreement with the collective. For starters... But I also said that sorting out the problem is a big task. Before you can sort out a problem, you need to understand what that problem is, though, and my comment was a reaction to ymu's proposal, which, imo, misunderstands the nature of the problem that needs to be sorted.


 
OK, gotcha, didn't read that far back.


----------



## Kizmet (Jun 30, 2011)

ymu said:


> He is by far the most effective poster at imparting ideas, and making you think. A little less brevity would be welcome, but he is miles ahead of anyone else on impact factor adjusted for word count (highest of one per post, lowest of the other ).
> 
> He can't half be a cunt sometimes. But hey, look who's talking.
> 
> Also my #1 influence, although I know he will hate me for saying that.


 
It's a bit like grooming. Except you're supposed to be adults. Maybe it's more like Muslim terrorist recruitment only involving more beer and cake.


----------



## Kizmet (Jun 30, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> the origins of the inequality in the world are mostly to be found in a study of the history of land ownership.


 
There are many many ways in which inequality manifests and manipulates the world. Land ownership is just one. Symptom rather than cause.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 30, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> There are many many ways in which inequality manifests and manipulates the world. Land ownership is just one. Symptom rather than cause.


 
When you are talking about inequality within societies - why some are rich and others are poor - the issue of land tenure is fundamental. I can't think of anywhere that this is not true. As I said before, in the UK, it is at the very heart of the country's class system.


----------



## ymu (Jun 30, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> It's a bit like grooming. Except you're supposed to be adults. Maybe it's more like Muslim terrorist recruitment only involving more beer and cake.


 
It's more like stocking the fridge. So that when you come to make a decision about what to eat, you(r brain) has a really good set of options to choose from.

If you only ever live in your own little bubble, you cannot possibly understand the world around you. And if you are always right, you can never learn anything.


----------



## Kizmet (Jun 30, 2011)

Stock it with less cake and more vegetables. Better for you.


----------



## TopCat (Jun 30, 2011)

ymu said:


> If you only ever live in your own little bubble, you cannot possibly understand the world around you. And if you are always right, you can never learn anything.


 
You should tattoo this on your forearm.


----------



## ymu (Jun 30, 2011)

TopCat said:


> You should tattoo this on your forearm.


 
It's true. My life experience is woefully lacking.


----------



## ymu (Jun 30, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Stock it with less cake and more vegetables. Better for you.


Was that a dig at a fat woman about her weight?

Really?


----------



## Kizmet (Jun 30, 2011)

You chose the analogy about stocking fridges. Not me.


----------



## ymu (Jun 30, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> You chose the analogy about stocking fridges. Not me.


 
And you chose to make a bigoted joke about it. If you spent a little more time trying to stock your brain, and a little less time trying to needle people on the internet, you'd look an awful lot less stupid. But if you really are too idle to help yourself, here's a quick tip: make sure you pick on a post that is obviously wrong before you try and make yourself look smart dismissing it.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 30, 2011)

It's because he's a baldie, ymu. He's jealous of your hair.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 30, 2011)

ymu, go to bed.


----------



## Kizmet (Jun 30, 2011)

ymu said:


> And you chose to make a bigoted joke about it. If you spent a little more time trying to stock your brain, and a little less time trying to needle people on the internet, you'd look an awful lot less stupid. But if you really are too idle to help yourself, here's a quick tip: make sure you pick on a post that is obviously wrong before you try and make yourself look smart dismissing it.


 
I wanna be just like you, ymu.

There was no bigoted joke. Just you looking for one and me giving you some rope.

I first mentioned beer and cake in the post above yours. I was just carrying it on. The advice is sensible.

What Butchersapron offers is tempting sweets for minds inclined that way. Vegetables are not as tempting but better for you.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 30, 2011)

ymu said:


> And you chose to make a bigoted joke about it. If you spent a little more time trying to stock your brain, and a little less time trying to needle people on the internet, you'd look an awful lot less stupid. But if you really are too idle to help yourself, here's a quick tip: make sure you pick on a post that is obviously wrong before you try and make yourself look smart dismissing it.



You're starting to make a fool of yourself. Please step away from the internet for your own sake.


----------



## ymu (Jun 30, 2011)

kabbes said:


> ymu, go to bed.


 
I am, sorry. I'm on a final warning. He's been rolling me spliffs more or less continuously for a while now...


----------



## Laughing Toad (Jun 30, 2011)

Hey B-Town! Bernadette cleans houses.

Call her: 077 4558 1698. 

She charges £9 per hour.

She's the sort of person who gets off her backside and puts cards through letterboxes to get work, so most of the fatalistic drivel on here doesn't apply to her. She's probably self employed too.

Also she irons shirts.


----------



## peterkro (Jun 30, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> Hey B-Town! Bernadette cleans houses.
> 
> Call her: 077 4558 1698.
> 
> ...



Hopefully she'll also steal you blind and burn your house down.Typhoid Mary FTW.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 30, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> What is fair? That I can't work hard to make life easier for my children?


 
So the children of rich parents have an easier life than those of poor parents? How is that fair or meritocratic?


----------



## peterkro (Jun 30, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> What is fair? That I can't work hard to make life easier for my children?



You're severely misinformed if you think working harder is going to make life easier for your children.You'd be better off buying a lottery ticket occasionally than working your arse off for some or other faceless capitalist, although there's virtually no chance of winning it's still more likely than you becoming one of the tiny minority who have expropriated the vast majority of the wealth.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 30, 2011)

It is my right to push other children off of the swing to make room for my child.


----------



## Corax (Jun 30, 2011)

Okay, I got to page 15 before the fawning over FB got too much to bear.  Are there any other bits I should read?


----------



## kabbes (Jun 30, 2011)

Who or what is FB?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 30, 2011)

Some Winklevoss invention or other.


----------



## Corax (Jun 30, 2011)

Some new-fangled technology all the kids are into apparently.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 30, 2011)

So you _did_ mean Facebook?  What was the fawning then?  I don't remember anybody fawning over facebook.


----------



## marty21 (Jun 30, 2011)

wow, a cleaner thread - nearly 900 posts - that's a surprise


haven't read it mind


----------



## Corax (Jun 30, 2011)

kabbes said:


> So you _did_ mean Facebook?  What was the fawning then?  I don't remember anybody fawning over facebook.


 
'Fawning' might be a bit strong, but editor does seem (to me) to cite its popularity whenever a proposed change receives an unfavourable response.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 30, 2011)

Oh, right.  

Man, did the discussion ever move on from there!


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 30, 2011)

What do _you_ pay your cleaner, Kabbes?


----------



## innit (Jun 30, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Who or what is FB?


 
I briefly wondered if it might be fogbat, before dismissing the idea.


----------



## TruXta (Jun 30, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Oh, right.
> 
> Man, did the discussion ever move on from there!


 
Thread of the year so far.


----------



## Corax (Jun 30, 2011)

Dammit, you're such teases!  

Page number...?


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 1, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> It is my right to push other children off of the swing to make room for my child.



If it's that important to you then you could make your own. 
Unless that idea would be too much like hard work. Easier to share the one someone else made, isn't it.


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 1, 2011)

peterkro said:


> You're severely misinformed if you think working harder is going to make life easier for your children.You'd be better off buying a lottery ticket occasionally than working your arse off for some or other faceless capitalist, although there's virtually no chance of winning it's still more likely than you becoming one of the tiny minority who have expropriated the vast majority of the wealth.


 
I wonder... with an attitude like that do you also look at your girlfriend/boyfriend and wonder why they are not a supermodel?

I wouldn't be surprised.... you seem to have limitless ambition to compare yourself to the superwealthy. One hopes you have similarly limitless talents to get you there.

Otherwise I fear you will find life most disappointing.

Better to have more reasonable ambitions... just a little bit of work and forward planning will help make life a little easier for the next generation. I'm afraid that offers no actual benefit to you other than a warm glow of fulfilled destiny. I'm not sure that'll be enough.


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 1, 2011)

weltweit said:


> So the children of rich parents have an easier life than those of poor parents? How is that fair or meritocratic?


 
Why switch the focus of the question to the children? Is it their fault?

Explain how it's right that you should tell me what I can do or not for my children?


----------



## peterkro (Jul 1, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> I wonder... with an attitude like that do you also look at your girlfriend/boyfriend and wonder why they are not a supermodel?
> 
> I wouldn't be surprised.... you seem to have limitless ambition to compare yourself to the superwealthy. One hopes you have similarly limitless talents to get you there.
> 
> ...



I have no idea what you are wittering on about.If you think I'm motivated by jealousy or envy of the rich you couldn't be further from the truth, the only interest I have in them is to help expropriate the wealth they have expropriated from those who create the wealth (workers) so it may be returned and shared out amongst all.As for the idea that I'd judge men or woman by the frankly preposterous ideas of the corporate media about attractiveness,well I'm not even going to go there.The point of my post is that those I see who work the hardest are those who are rewarded the least.Unfortunately a number of people believe if they study/work apply themselves with all their energy they'll achieve some sort success by climbing up the greasy pole,truth is no matter how hard you work you'll always be a prole,maybe you'll get to order a few others about and get a few extra pennies in your wages but that's it.Real wealth is restricted to those who inherit it or lie,steal and backstab their fellow humans to accumulate enough to be in that tiny percentage of the "rich".


----------



## metal13 (Jul 1, 2011)

peterkro said:


> .Unfortunately a number of people believe if they study/work apply themselves with all their energy they'll achieve some sort success by climbing up the greasy pole,truth is no matter how hard you work you'll always be a prole,maybe you'll get to order a few others about and get a few extra pennies in your wages but that's it.Real wealth is restricted to those who inherit it or lie,steal and backstab their fellow humans to accumulate enough to be in that tiny percentage of the "rich".


 
Are you kidding me? Hard work is exactly what my parents put in, specifically to make my life better. And they succeeded, my life is considerably easier then my parents because of that. The difference is more then a few extra pennies.


----------



## grit (Jul 1, 2011)

Kizmet said:
			
		

> you seem to have limitless ambition


 
Nothing wrong with that at all.


----------



## kabbes (Jul 1, 2011)

metal13 said:


> Are you kidding me? Hard work is exactly what my parents put in, specifically to make my life better. And they succeeded, my life is considerably easier then my parents because of that. The difference is more then a few extra pennies.


 
Do you know how many people put in masses of hard work and _don't_ manage to make their own or anybody else's lives easier?  (Except for the capital owner they are working for, of course).

Just because some succeed, doesn't mean anyone will succeed if they just try hard enough.


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 1, 2011)

grit said:


> Nothing wrong with that at all.


 
It's a sign of mental imbalance.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 1, 2011)

Who is winning this thread? I have lost track


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 1, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Do you know how many people put in masses of hard work and _don't_ manage to make their own or anybody else's lives easier?  (Except for the capital owner they are working for, of course).


 
How does anyone manage to work hard and yet achieve nothing?

It's not possible.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 1, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> How does anyone manage to work hard and yet achieve nothing?


 
Ask a banker. They work hard and achieve less than nothing.


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 1, 2011)

peterkro said:


> I have no idea what you are wittering on about.If you think I'm motivated by jealousy or envy of the rich you couldn't be further from the truth


 
Except that's exactly how it sounds. And worse you seem to use it to justify inactivity on your part.


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 1, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ask a banker. They work hard and achieve less than nothing.


 
They definitely achieved something. Just not for us.


----------



## Santino (Jul 1, 2011)

Has Kizmet always been a simplistic right-wing troll?


----------



## grit (Jul 1, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> It's a sign of mental imbalance.


 
What a depressing outlook on life you have


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 1, 2011)

Santino said:


> Has Kizmet always been a simplistic right-wing troll?


Sometimes he's a sex case too.


----------



## peterkro (Jul 1, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Except that's exactly how it sounds. And worse you seem to use it to justify inactivity on your part.



Do fuck off.Just because I'm not part of the rat race doesn't mean I'm inactive,in fact each day doesn't have enough time in it to get done what I need to get done.I can see your parents on their death beds thinking, we worked our fingers and brains to the bone to give little Kizmety the best start in life and look at the little shit,I wish we lived our lives the way we wanted to and let the creep fend for himself.


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 1, 2011)

Well, it doesn't seem to be working. Do something else.


----------



## peterkro (Jul 1, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Well, it doesn't seem to be working. Do something else.



It's working fine thank you.Wish I hadn't wasted that ten years in my early years making money for other shitbags and had spent the time productively as I do now.


----------



## ymu (Jul 1, 2011)

Santino said:


> Has Kizmet always been a simplistic right-wing troll?


 
Yes. And a nasty one too. I went out of my way to boost his ego on the nekkid thread the other day cos I dislike him intensely. Yesterday, he saw fit to aim a fat girl joke at me. It's not that easy to upset me, but it is a very easy way to mark himself out as a total cunt. FWIW.

I don't normally cross-thread (please double-check before you dispute this), but this is an anything goes thread, so I will. Might have been on this thread anyway ...


----------



## weltweit (Jul 1, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Why switch the focus of the question to the children? Is it their fault?
> 
> Explain how it's right that you should tell me what I can do or not for my children?


 
If I am not mistaken it was not me that first mentioned children. 

But this idea that you should be able to do your best for your children I don't have a problem with. 

However that is not to say that as a result some children will have an easier time than others and one could say that that might be unfair. 

I certainly as a child of middle class parents had an easier time than many working class children and I was helped a lot to get to the stage where I could get a degree which set me up for relatively good work opportunities. These opportunities I had were simply not available for all. For that I am grateful, but also slightly embarrassed.

What would a fair society look like? 
How would it be organised?
Would some children get significantly better opportunities than others?


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 1, 2011)

Santino said:


> Has Kizmet always been a simplistic right-wing troll?


 
Only to simple people.


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 1, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Sometimes he's a sex case too.


 
One day, when you finally meet a lady desperate enough to have kids with you I hope that when they are old enough one of them dates a black person.

I think the shock would kill you.


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 1, 2011)

ymu said:


> Yes. And a nasty one too. I went out of my way to boost his ego on the nekkid thread the other day cos I dislike him intensely. Yesterday, he saw fit to aim a fat girl joke at me. It's not that easy to upset me, but it is a very easy way to mark himself out as a total cunt. FWIW.
> 
> I don't normally cross-thread (please double-check before you dispute this), but this is an anything goes thread, so I will. Might have been on this thread anyway ...


 
I'm sorry you took it as a fat girl joke. It wasn't.

I do think you were looking for an excuse to play the victim in that argument... and I gave you one to see if you'd take it.

Sadly you did.


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 1, 2011)

peterkro said:


> It's working fine thank you.Wish I hadn't wasted that ten years in my early years making money for other shitbags and had spent the time productively as I do now.


 
Just because you wasted your time doesn't mean other people have too.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 1, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> One day, when you finally meet a lady desperate enough to have kids with you I hope that when they are old enough one of them dates a black person.
> 
> I think the shock would kill you.


 
Ok.

You're so in control here.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 1, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> One day, when you finally meet a lady desperate enough to have kids with you I hope that when they are old enough one of them dates a black person.
> 
> I think the shock would kill you.


 
one day, when you finally meet someone desperate enough to have kids with you, i think you'll pop your clogs from shock.


----------



## TruXta (Jul 1, 2011)

Oh kizmet, was the loss of hair really so bad that you had to prove you were a man by making loadsadosh?


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 1, 2011)

weltweit said:


> If I am not mistaken it was not me that first mentioned children.
> 
> But this idea that you should be able to do your best for your children I don't have a problem with.
> 
> ...


 
There can never be a fair society until the world is fair.

All we can do is make it 'fairer' while still being able to deal with the fact that unfair things happen.

Right now I bet the Japanese don't think it's a very fair world.

It's good to note that you are grateful for the opportunities given to you. In a world where children die every second if you are one of the lucky few to get the chance to even get the chance to fulfill your dreams.... grab it with both hands.


----------



## kabbes (Jul 1, 2011)

What the fuck happened to my beautiful thread?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 1, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> One day, when you finally meet a lady desperate enough to have kids with you I hope that when they are old enough one of them dates a black person.
> 
> I think the shock would kill you.


 
Damn you, you know my one weakness - black people!


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 1, 2011)

A circle speaks:



> There can never be a fair society until the world is fair.


----------



## TruXta (Jul 1, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> A circle speaks:


 
Nice one kizmet. I'm guessing you have problems with roundabouts too?


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 1, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Ok.
> 
> You're so in control here.


 
It's not about control. It's about your latent insecurities.

Most folk are aware of the 'black brute' stereotype created by insecure white supremacists intent on labelling younger, stronger black men as sexual predators to create hatred and fear. Often with made up or circumstantial evidence.

It still goes on today. As you so ably demonstrate.


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 1, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> one day, when you finally meet someone desperate enough to have kids with you, i think you'll pop your clogs from shock.


 
Pay attention, boy.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 1, 2011)

kabbes said:


> What the fuck happened to my beautiful thread?


 
I was hoping for 1,000 posts but fear it may lock before that milestone


----------



## TruXta (Jul 1, 2011)

Where the fuck is this coming from Kizmet? What has this to do with your political philosophy? OK, there's a bit of pisstaking going on, but are you suggesting butchers is a racist?


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 1, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Oh kizmet, was the loss of hair really so bad that you had to prove you were a man by making loadsadosh?


 
Was making loadsadosh that made me lose my hair!


----------



## kabbes (Jul 1, 2011)

This is a most unexpected turn of events.  Who could have predicted this direction three pages ago?


----------



## ymu (Jul 1, 2011)

Has anyone ever seen this tosser post anything of value?

Kizmet, obv.


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 1, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Where the fuck is this coming from Kizmet? What has this to do with your political philosophy? OK, there's a bit of pisstaking going on, but are you suggesting butchers is a racist?


 
Back your horse up there a minute, cowboy. How is it that Butchers prior post remains un-commented upon?


----------



## Santino (Jul 1, 2011)

I once had to point out his inability to explain how an analysis of syntax could prove something about human nature.


----------



## TruXta (Jul 1, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Back your horse up there a minute, cowboy. How is it that Butchers prior post remains un-commented upon?


 
The sex case? You're reacting exactly like you accused ymu of doing, so you back up your fucking horses.


----------



## TruXta (Jul 1, 2011)

Santino said:


> I once had to point out his inability to explain how an analysis of syntax could prove something about human nature.


 
That sounds good. What was it? FWIW you _can_ say something interesting about social attitudes using syntax, but that's not for this thread.


----------



## Santino (Jul 1, 2011)

TruXta said:


> That sounds good. What was it? FWIW you _can_ say something interesting about social attitudes using syntax, but that's not for this thread.


 
He thought that the syntax of the word 'selfless' meant there was no such thing as selflessness.


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 1, 2011)

TruXta said:


> The sex case? You're reacting exactly like you accused ymu of doing, so you back up your fucking horses.


 
Erm no. Ymu and I have never argued before. There was no reason for her to think that I was making a specific comment about her.

Butch pulls out this shit every time he feels threatened. And he brings a few people along to bend the truth to help him.


More worrying it seems to be ok to call someone a sex case, but not to point out general accepted and widely known bigoted behaviour. Go figure.


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 1, 2011)

Santino said:


> He thought that the syntax of the word 'selfless' meant there was no such thing as selflessness.


 
Did I?

Doesn't sound like me.. considering I run a charitable organisation.


----------



## TruXta (Jul 1, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Erm no. Ymu and I have never argued before. There was no reason for her to think that I was making a specific comment about her.
> 
> Butch pulls out this shit every time he feels threatened. And he brings a few people along to bend the truth to help him.


 
He does? Shouldn't be a problem pointing me to where that has happened then I take it. Go on, substantiate it. And re the ymu comment, you said yourself that you put it out there to see if she would take the bait. Don't be a dick.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 1, 2011)

He bit the wrong hook. 

_This fish fights back._


----------



## ymu (Jul 1, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Erm no. Ymu and I have never argued before. There was no reason for her to think that I was making a specific comment about her.
> 
> Butch pulls out this shit every time he feels threatened. And he brings a few people along to bend the truth to help him.


 
Yes, we have. On just about every thread we've interacted on. You are always a pointless time-waster, going in fucking circles and never adding anything of value. I've had you marked as a cunt since the thought police thread. 

Butch can be a cunt, but he adds value. You give nothing except cuntery.


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 1, 2011)

TruXta said:


> That sounds good. What was it? FWIW you _can_ say something interesting about social attitudes using syntax, but that's not for this thread.


 
Syntax and semantics are also a large part of what makes memes work... and so affect deeply how societies are encouraged to think.


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 1, 2011)

TruXta said:


> He does? Shouldn't be a problem pointing me to where that has happened then I take it. Go on, substantiate it. And re the ymu comment, you said yourself that you put it out there to see if she would take the bait. Don't be a dick.


 
Fuck you. Putting pressure on me to respond when Butch appeared mid argument with a personal slur.... which you now want me to go back and search for and relive each time.


----------



## ymu (Jul 1, 2011)

It's also worth pointing out that he did it after I made this post on a thread he was active on and posted on shortly afterwards.

I call that the mark of a cunt.

A lying cunt.


----------



## TruXta (Jul 1, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Syntax and semantics are also a large part of what makes memes work... and so affect deeply how societies are encouraged to think.


 
Don't. You honestly don't know what the fuck you're on about. You think you do. But you don't. Syntax + semantics = language. Nothing to do with that meme bullshit.


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 1, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> He bit the wrong hook.
> 
> _This fish fights back._


 
You fight dirty. I can't respect that.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 1, 2011)

Only room for one fisherman on this bank.

_ How dare you use a hook and line._


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 1, 2011)

ymu said:


> Yes, we have. On just about every thread we've interacted on. You are always a pointless time-waster, going in fucking circles and never adding anything of value. I've had you marked as a cunt since the thought police thread.
> 
> Butch can be a cunt, but he adds value. You give nothing except cuntery.


 
This would be so much more cutting if you didn't have your tongue up his bum.


----------



## TruXta (Jul 1, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> You fight dirty. I can't respect that.


 
By your own standards you do the same. So fuck you too.


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 1, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Don't. You honestly don't know what the fuck you're on about. You think you do. But you don't. Syntax + semantics = language. Nothing to do with that meme bullshit.


 
Make another thread. we'll see what's bullshit. You're a good fella. Don't get dragged into an old fight thats been going on 10 years.

Butch Is a nasty bully sometimes. And he always brings enough backup.


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 1, 2011)

TruXta said:


> By your own standards you do the same. So fuck you too.


 
I'm sorry you think so. I think you'll find that hard to prove.


----------



## TruXta (Jul 1, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Make another thread. we'll see what's bullshit. You're a good fella. Don't get dragged into an old fight thats been going on 10 years.
> 
> Butch us a nasty bully sometimes. And he always brings enough backup.


 
I don't care about your fossilised bun-fights, I read the words in front of me. And right now all your posts spell B U L L S H I T.


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 1, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Only room for one fisherman on this bank.
> 
> _ How dare you use a hook and line._


 
Difference is, old boy, I ain't selling anything.


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 1, 2011)

TruXta said:


> I don't care about your fossilised bun-fights


 
Then I don't care what you think about it.


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 1, 2011)

ymu said:


> It's also worth pointing out that he did it after I made this post on a thread he was active on and posted on shortly afterwards.
> 
> I call that the mark of a cunt.
> 
> A lying cunt.


 
My god is there no depth you won't sink to? We were both posting on a number of threads simultaneously.

You'll use anything you can make up to win your argument, won't you?

So much for your intellectual integrity.


----------



## Dan U (Jul 1, 2011)

i love this thread. everytime i check back its on a new tangent.


----------



## TruXta (Jul 1, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Then I don't care what you think about it.


 
Good, this isn't a popularity contest after all.


----------



## ymu (Jul 1, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> My god is there no depth you won't sink to? We were both posting on a number of threads simultaneously.
> 
> You'll use anything you can make up to win your argument, won't you?
> 
> So much for your intellectual integrity.



You don't read the threads you post on?

It's water off a duck's back to me, but do you realise the effect of your words on people who struggle with their weight? When every time there's a picture of a fat woman, for any reason, there have to be comments from insecure men who feel the need to declare that she's not good enough for them? Or one-liners about cake or other snide remarks?

What kind of person feels the need to post that kind of degrading shit? It says a fuck of a lot more about you than it does about them.


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 1, 2011)

This isn't even a contest.


----------



## TruXta (Jul 1, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> This isn't even a contest.


 
If it were you'd be losing badly.


----------



## ddraig (Jul 1, 2011)

Dan U said:


> i love this thread. everytime i check back its on a new tangent.


 ace init!


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 1, 2011)

ymu said:


> You don't read the threads you post on?
> 
> It's water off a duck's back to me, but do you realise the effect of your words on people who struggle with their weight? When every time there's a picture of a fat woman, for any reason, there have to be comments from insecure men who feel the need to declare that she's not good enough for them? Or one-liners about cake or other snide remarks?
> 
> What kind of person feels the need to post that kind of degrading shit? It says a fuck of a lot more about you than it does about them.


 
I absolutely realise the effect. And I thought long and hard before I posted.

The analogy that I used referred to beer and cake that butch offers to prospective targets. You extended it to talk about options in the fridge 

The logical extension if that analogy is that you should make sure your fridge has more healthy options than unhealthy ones. More vegetable than cake.... to use your analogy.

But I paused to think before I posted... precisely because of your issues. I eventually decided that I should behave no differently to you as if I had no prior knowledge of any personal issues because that's the only honest way to debate.

So I posted it with no additions, slurs or prior references. Figuring that if you had a problem with me personally you would use it as an excuse to start a fight. And if not you would carry on the analogy.

And bingo... here we are.


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 1, 2011)

TruXta said:


> If it were you'd be losing badly.


 
I am heavily outnumbered.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 1, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> I absolutely realise the effect. And I thought long and hard before I posted.
> 
> The analogy that I used referred to beer and cake that butch offers to prospective targets. You extended it to talk about options in the fridge
> 
> ...


 
Psst, check the chronology...Kizmet can see into the future, he knows whose going to post at a later date and so bases his posts on what they will say in the future. And they say astronomy doesn't work.


----------



## ymu (Jul 1, 2011)

But why choose something that might be offensive? Your analogy was not at all clear, and if you had actually thought long and hard about it there is no chance you would have chosen those words, because they make no sense.

What you thought long and hard about was making a dig that you could pretend was innocent.

Because no one keeps cake in a fridge. That's how I know what a lying cunt you are.


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 1, 2011)

Not that I am complaining. I'd rather have some folk as enemies than friends who would stab you in the back.


----------



## Idaho (Jul 1, 2011)

Sorry - haven't had time to read the thread - but can anyone recommend me a cleaner in the Brixton area?


----------



## ymu (Jul 1, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Not that I am complaining. I'd rather have some folk as enemies than friends who would stab you in the back.


 
I'm a back-stabber now, am I?

Care to substantiate that, cunt?


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 1, 2011)

ymu said:


> But why choose something that might be offensive? Your analogy was not at all clear, and if you had actually thought long and hard about it there is no chance you would have chosen those words, because they make no sense.
> 
> What you thought long and hard about was making a dig that you could pretend was innocent.
> 
> Because no one keeps cake in a fridge. That's how I know what a lying cunt you are.


 
Why should it be offensive?

And what on earth do you mean no-one... how can you know that? How odd.


----------



## ymu (Jul 1, 2011)

Fridges dry stuff out. No one puts cake in the fridge, it ruins it. Cheese cake yes.

Your claim to have thought about it is ridiculous. You are a lying nasty cunt who never misses an opportunity to be a lying nasty cunt and I'm fucking fed up with your content-free sniping all over the fucking place, whether I'm involved in it or not. Maybe there's forums where you have a point and I've missed it. If so, just stick to them cos you're a waste of time any time I've seen you.


----------



## TruXta (Jul 1, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> I am heavily outnumbered.


 
Numbers do no enter into it.


----------



## kabbes (Jul 1, 2011)

"Heavily outnumbered" as in "everybody is on one side and I am on the other".  Which has to raise at least a small possibility that you are, well, _wrong_?


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 1, 2011)

ymu said:


> I'm a back-stabber now, am I?
> 
> Care to substantiate that, cunt?


 
Actually I wasn't thinking of you when I wrote that, but since you ask...



ymu said:


> You are always a pointless time-waster, going in fucking circles and never adding anything of value. I've had you marked as a cunt since the thought police thread.





ymu said:


> I went out of my way to boost his ego on the nekkid thread the other day cos I dislike him intensely.



And there was me thinking you meant it. I had no idea we were fighting.


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 1, 2011)

kabbes said:


> "Heavily outnumbered" as in "everybody is on one side and I am on the other".  Which has to raise at least a small possibility that you are, well, _wrong_?


 
Yep. I certainly am wrong to those on the other side.


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 1, 2011)

ymu said:


> Fridges dry stuff out. No one puts cake in the fridge, it ruins it. Cheese cake yes.
> 
> Your claim to have thought about it is ridiculous. You are a lying nasty cunt who never misses an opportunity to be a lying nasty cunt and I'm fucking fed up with your content-free sniping all over the fucking place, whether I'm involved in it or not. Maybe there's forums where you have a point and I've missed it. If so, just stick to them cos you're a waste of time any time I've seen you.


 
Whatever I really don't care that much about cake. Put me on ignore.


----------



## ymu (Jul 1, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Whatever I really don't care that much about cake. Put me on ignore.


Why would I ignore your cuntery when I'd rather call you out on it?


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 1, 2011)

Ok, do that then. It might impress your mates for a bit... but it'll only make you look stupid in the end. Because, actually, I'm not a cunt at all. Can't be bothered with it. Only bad to bad people.


----------



## Gerry1time (Jul 1, 2011)

This thread's too long to read properly, but did the chap succeed in getting the details of a cleaner in the end? Only I'm after one myself, preferably one of them illegals, cos I've not got much cash but have got a cellar they could live in.


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 1, 2011)

... and I've learned a bit about proper cake storage. So not all a waste of time.


----------



## Dan U (Jul 1, 2011)

somewhere in the middle there was a debate about embedding facebook like options


----------



## Lock&Light (Jul 1, 2011)

My wife often keeps cakes in the fridge.


----------



## Crispy (Jul 1, 2011)

I'm considering locking it at post 1000, as it's become one of those multi-tentacled threads that chokes out smaller sprouting ones, like knotweed.


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 1, 2011)

Yeah. I did too. Shows how much I know.


----------



## kabbes (Jul 1, 2011)

Crispy said:


> I'm considering locking it at post 1000, as it's become one of those multi-tentacled threads that chokes out smaller sprouting ones, like knotweed.


 
You've done it now...


----------



## Crispy (Jul 1, 2011)

Done what?
*puppy dog eyes*


----------



## Santino (Jul 1, 2011)

Can we have a Google+ button on threads?


----------



## kabbes (Jul 1, 2011)

Crispy said:


> Done what?
> *puppy dog eyes*


 
I sense the start of a dreaded bin race.


----------



## Winot (Jul 1, 2011)

Don't - it'll only encourage them.  We haven't touched on the Israel-Palestine question yet, and there's the Oxford comma controversy to cover too.


----------



## kabbes (Jul 1, 2011)

Winot said:


> there's the Oxford comma controversy to cover too.


----------



## Crispy (Jul 1, 2011)

Santino said:


> Can we have a Google+ button on threads?


 
We're looking into moving the entire boards onto google's servers.


----------



## Rushy (Jul 1, 2011)

Gerry1time said:


> This thread's too long to read properly, but did the chap succeed in getting the details of a cleaner in the end? Only I'm after one myself, preferably one of them illegals, cos I've not got much cash but have got a cellar they could live in.


 
You can have mine. I've had to let her go on account of her always drying out my cakes in the fridge.


----------



## spring-peeper (Jul 1, 2011)

Crispy said:


> We're looking into moving the entire boards onto google's servers.



I'm all for it if it speeds up the boards.  My system keeps waiting for google and twitter platforms before it will load the page.


----------



## kabbes (Jul 1, 2011)

For the record:


```
Posts 85 kabbes 

Posts 81 ymu 

Posts 79 TruXta 

Posts 67 Kizmet 

Posts 63 Johnny Canuck3 

Posts 60 grit 

Posts 59 Crispy 

Posts 56 editor 

Posts 36 littlebabyjesus 

Posts 33 B-Town 

Posts 25 Rushy 

Posts 22 Santino
```


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 1, 2011)

One does have to marvel at butch's ability to constantly and consistently find new attack dogs.

Fair play to the guy... in the world of online tactics... he's good.

Very good.

Shame he uses his powers badly.


----------



## kabbes (Jul 1, 2011)

Now I feel compelled to keep posting to stay at the top of that leaderboard.  Leaderboard of fail.


----------



## Santino (Jul 1, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> One does have to marvel at butch's ability to constantly and consistently find new attack dogs.
> 
> Fair play to the guy... in the world of online tactics... he's good.
> 
> ...



Have you received any PMs of support?


----------



## kabbes (Jul 1, 2011)

Santino said:


> Have you received any PMs of support?


 
I prefer to sup port with a PM.


----------



## Santino (Jul 1, 2011)

kabbes said:


> I prefer to sup port with a PM.


 
We know, kabbes. We know.


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 1, 2011)

No. But I also don't get penis enlargement emails anymore. Maybe there is a link?


----------



## kabbes (Jul 1, 2011)

10 more to go.

er, 9.


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 1, 2011)

Remember folks - Don't keep your cake in the fridge.


----------



## Edie (Jul 1, 2011)

Kizmet posted on the nekkid thread?


----------



## ymu (Jul 1, 2011)

It is a good place to confine bunfights ...


----------



## kabbes (Jul 1, 2011)

ymu said:


> It is a good place to confine bunfights ...


 
Was that a joke about bottoms?


----------



## ymu (Jul 1, 2011)

Edie said:


> Kizmet posted on the nekkid thread?


 
Yes. Couldn't bring myself to say anything nice the second time. Makes me a bad person, I know.


----------



## Crispy (Jul 1, 2011)

ymu said:


> It is a good place to confine bunfights ...


 
I'd rather they didn't happen at all tbf.


----------



## Edie (Jul 1, 2011)

Bunfight, cake in fridge, let's just alllll get along


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 1, 2011)

Where should you keep buns, by the way?


----------



## ymu (Jul 1, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Was that a joke about bottoms?


Big, big bottoms.


----------



## Edie (Jul 1, 2011)

Post 1000!


----------



## Crispy (Jul 1, 2011)

time, ladies and gentlemen. time at the bar.

YOU BASTARDS


----------

