Becky the questions your are asking have answers buried deep inside the very nature of being a human. And no scientist has really started to scratch the surface yet.
No, people don't drive in it like another lane. When the traffic is flowing normally the rules are respected.
It's that in this instance there was a crash on the motorways causing a big jam. Like sheep a lot of drivers decided to park themselves on the hard shoulder. Stupid I know.
On some motorways electronic traffic control will show signs saying the hard shoulder can be used, but this is clearly sign posted. In this case, like idiot sheep, a load of drivers illegally took to the hard shoulder probably because they think they could
I say send them all to the most poverty stricken places on earth to learn a lesson.
I've seen a couple of reports suggesting that EMA reform (which still provides funds for the less-wealthy students) was a reason why some rioted (which is complete bollocks). But it really does make a mockery of welfare if it's basically a bribe to stop people rioting. "What's you job?" "Well basically I get paid not to riot." Also what is even more frustrating is people blaming hip-hop!
I think in retrospect what I witnessed was quite a large mix of people looting. The fact is if people think they can get away with stealing something, quite a large chunk of them would actually risk it - rich or not so rich.
The hard shoulder lane is for broken down vehicles or emergency vehicles. It must be kept clear at all times apart from when direction by traffic control.
Sucker Punch - Bit of a weird one. At times felt like a great kids action movie and then suddenly it becomes a hollow mix of violence and prostitution.
Watched Your Highness - My expectations were very low, and despite no big laughs it was watchable and I am a sucker for the occasional bit of toilet humour.
Well they did do what all left-wing governments do. Work brilliantly until they run out of other people's natural resources or money.
Actually, when looking at these riots we are only talking about several thousand people here. That means 59,995,000 didn't riot. I guess we can credit Mrs Thatcher's philosophy of personal responsibility for the the majority who didn't wreck their community.
Well if the wealthy weren't allowed to be wealthy that million dollars wouldn't exist in the first place...duh You'd get a situation like Venezula where thousands of businesses were shut. Or Britain in the 70s when all the wealthy people fled and the country when open handed to the IMF. You really don't want that.
If yo over tax people hmrc can actually see a reduction in revenues.
"I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."
So she does say there is a duty to help our neighbour. Within context the quote isn't as point blank as "there's no such thing as society". So to help others, first you must help yourself. She merely said that 'society' is a concept people depend on but it's ignorant to the fact that what your really depending on is individual people and families. Hardly a radical thought. But let's not allow context to get in the way of a good soundbite.
At least Maggie had the balls to say the state DOESN'T have an answer to everything. A politician who openly admitted they don't always have the answer. Maggie was no shrinking violet, but at least she was honest. You knew where you stood, unlike every politician who followed her.
My crowd pleasing comment was squarely aimed at Brand. his article/blog post was aimed at the Guardian. It contained everything you need to please the young naive student audience
1. Blame Thatcher
2. Blame Thatcher
3. Don't mention 13 years of Labour
4. Blame Thatcher
5. Blame Thatcher
... and the UK and USA don't have massive aid budgets or aren't involved in any wars? The UK has to send quite a large amount of money to the EU, IMF etc...
If Governments were better at investing money than citizens then the Soviet Union, along with N Korea and Cuba would be the world's most powerful economies (they are not). Hence why Cuba and N Korea reluctantly have to turn a blind eye to private trade in certain circumstances. China adopted capitalism (though not entirely free-market) and that's worked out pretty good for them.
Cross country trade and investment is essential in a global economy. Protectionism is a bad way to go.
That's just amazing. Brand remembers something that actually didn't happen (it was Labour who coined the phrase). So just to get one (of many) things straight there.
You only think the Guardian makes any sense because you buy up 100% to their agenda, which they do have. Not once in that article does he mention 13 years of Labour rule... because Labour can't have any responsibility for the absolute GIGANTIC cock up they made of pretty much everything.
Anyway, then Brand blames Thatcher, how so predictable.
The contradiction now - On one hand the problem IS political according to Brand
(that's taking the no society quote out of context. Poor writing)
but the solution is not political
So really, this article (which I came across before it was published on the Guardian) makes no sense at all. It goes round in circles and contradicts itself.
It's a shame because often the Guardian can be quite enlightening and provide a different viewpoint, but this article isn't it. It's poorly written and is nothing more than a predictable crowd pleasing load of rubbish. He may as well have just said
I wouldn't recommend investing more than 20-30% of your savings into gold because it is a risk, like anything. You have to diversify. So don't feel too bad. I took a big risk, and it paid off, but that's because I'm stupid
Well, we're still quite a way from it's historic high of $2500 (adjusted for inflation) so we've got a fair way to go before we're in bubble territory. There were a fair few investors saying gold was the best investment a few years ago. I bought then when it was around $700 an ounce. It's now $1750 When it gets to 2500 I'll start thinking harder