Well said Jeff Randall

[Denny]

In the Telegraph today this appeared and I agree wholeheartedly with this. Some parallels to how arguments are conducted on this site (taking a stand that is anti gay being smeared as homophobic for instance)

take a look:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m.../16/do1601.xml

You agree wholeheartedly with this do you - WHOLEHEARTEDLY?

What you are effectively saying is that there is nothing wrong with this article because you can't find fault with it. All this demonstrates is your narrow minded vision and intellect at spotting a biased article with an agenda attached to it that's every bit as strong as the agenda of the politically correct espousers you and the author of this article despise so much.

There is plenty wrong with it, trust me!

The Telegraph is notorously right wing in it's views, so the article is not an impartial viewpoint founded on reason and common sense that cuts across all intellectual boundaries. Instead, it is blatant show of right wing propoganda designed to weaken and fragment the dissatisfied still further (well those that read The Telegraph) and make them feel guilty for ever making a complaint about anything. Or else it is to harden the hearts of those who are inclined to be exploitative and abusive to those less fortunate than themselves.

Surely you can see that.

I'm not advocating that political correctness is a good thing and many of the points made in Randall's article that targets the black communities and other minorities as 'whingers' I would personally endorse. There are far too instances whereby black people will use their colour to persecute innocent white critics. We've all seen this happen and those that behave in this way do a massive disservice to their own people who really are victimised as a result of colour.

However, what the article doesn't say is that the elites and the privileged are precisely that because the system has always been on their side - they made the system what it is to their own advantage - so they have nothing to moan about or be dissatisfied with, have they. They have the money, the contacts, the life chances and the lawyers to ensure that life always or nearly always falls 'sunny side up' for them and that the law manages to give them more favourable outcomes than their poorer counterparts faced with similar dilemmas but no deep pockets or good connections. This isn't always true in every single case - but it is broadly speaking and certainly enough to make a convincing case from the evidence of how life seems to affect certain groups of people - segregating out the lucky and the unlucky.

How many times have you heard people say that winning or losing a criminal criminal case really rests on the quality of defense Counsel, not whether a perpetrator is guilty or not? Good Counsel has never been in the business of convicting the guilty or clearing the innocent (as it should be in a perfect world whereby moaning is really unnecessary) - it's always been about planting reasonable doubt in a jury to ensure an acquittal.

According to this article - just pointing this fact out making me a tree hugging, socialist bleeding heart. Only recently, political scientists have endorsed that the UK is now more socially segregated than it has been for a long time - bucking the NL's utopian vision that we now live in a 'classless' society.

Remember this: Catherine Zeta Jones once got £1m compensation because her wedding was published without consent in Hello Magazine. This is someone who chooses to be in the public eye. According to law she was wronged. Yet, victims of crime are lucky to get £10K top whack when their kid has been run over and killed in a car accident. Call that fair do you? Are the parents who point out these minor indiscretions in the system whingers who should get on with life and not complain?

If you think pointing that out makes me a bleeding heart whinger - then all I can say is that you and others who endorse this article 'wholeheartedly' are really intellectually too inferior for your views to count for much. This is a shame.

By the way, like the author, I too went to a premier league Russell Group university. Therefore, according to him I should be far too intelligent not to agree with Randall's article.

[wendigo100]

Denny, aren't you reading more into the article than is there? Is the article supposed to be a treatise on the whole structure and inequity of society? It would be a shame if all commentary had to boil down to that.

Me, I'm a downtrodden member of the contractor community.

[Denny]

Denny, aren't you reading more into the article than is there? Is the article supposed to be a treatise on the whole structure and inequity of society? It would be a shame if all commentary had to boil down to that.

Me, I'm a downtrodden member of the contractor community.

Unfortunately, that is what it often does boil down to.

Even when you suck a toffee you're making a covert political statement.

[TheOmegaMan]

You say capitalism is at fault ..."

You are of limited intellect since you fail to see the link between your own actions and those of others. Capitalism is at fault because of the emphasis on material wealth over all other things. Capitalism is not about personal freedom - it is about the manipulation of people through money.

Contractors are not Capitalists - they are traders - they trade their own skills and time for money. Reccons are representative of the ills of capitalism. You manipulate others for you own material gain. You deceive, you lie, you spin, you parasitic little sh*t.

The white middle class such as yourself depend completely on the state. Otherwise who is to stop me taking the wealth from you ? Who makes the laws to stop me ? Who pays the taxes to uphold those laws ? Who pays the accountants to manipulate the tax system to their advantage ?

What you fail to see is that if the white middle class are allowed to play the system to their own ends for their own material wealth then so too should the poor and the supposed disadvantaged. So when a homosexual muslim 60 year old cries "victim" he is just manipulating the system for his own ends and you should applaud him. That is your value system.

[Denny]

Reccons are representative of the ills of capitalism. You manipulate others for you own material gain. You deceive, you lie, you spin, you parasitic little sh*t.

The recruitment industry is one of the modern curses of capitalism. What I mean by that statement is that it exposes exactly how possible it is for an industry to thrive when it has nothing to offer and money-making its main motive rather than its reward.

Right wing thinkers often think that capitalism is a good thing - its about providing goods or services for profit even if labour was exploited to achieve it. Somehow, a free, unfettered market, benefitted all of society because the market dictated was was needed and what wasn't and that eventually the trickle down effect would filter down to the very poorest eventually, allowing them to benefit too.

Not only does this not happen but it has been demonstrated historically time and again that the wealthiest countries in the world have only managed to climb to and maintain their top premier league spots as the strongest and richest economies precisely because they endorsed and ensured protectionism at the time of their industrial growth precisely because they did not allow a free market to crowd out their own trading advantages. This protectionist policy not only allowed the strongest and richest to grow and thrive and maintain their premier league spots, it also ensured that the poorest and weakest remained that way too.

The recruitment industry demonstrates this too - it's not the market that dictates their presence or its success - its the marketing hype and manipulation they've successfully cultivated, allowing them to monopolise the office job market (and other sectors too) by convincing and even lying to corporations, aided and abetted by their lawyers, and other large organisations that they can't do without them.

Parasites are exactly what I would call them too.

[lilelvis2000]

The UK has evolved into a individualistc state. Everyone is incentivised and given targets to earn bonuses to feed our ever growing need for material things. We also have a huge PI industry - Really this victimisation and PI are linked. We cry for compo. and then we can buy a posh holiday and brag to our collegues. I also think that selfish capitalism and materialism will create ever greater levels of crime (but that's another debate)..

We've let the genie out of the bottle on this one. There's no way to put him back. Way to go Thatcher and Blair. But then...perhaps they wanted it this way? check out http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctwo/listings...0_4224_8729_60

[wendigo100]

The recruitment industry offers something to me - it does most of my sales and marketing. I haven't got time or the ability to do what they do.

More to the point of this thread - what other economic model do you all have in mind? And how would you impose it?

People are people. Whatever you do, you will always have winners and losers.

[thunderlizard]

Yes in certain circles there's a pride in victimhood. It's like a game of snap: whoever takes offence first, or most, wins.

Still I didn't like your man Jeff's article. All he does is whinge and moan about how other people keep whinging and moaning. Most of the country realised it ages ago, and has been trying to move the debate on in more constructive ways.

The Trevor Philips / Ken Livingstone spat has a personal history that he doesn't appreciate. When they were both putting themselves forward for London mayor in '99, Ken realised Trevor's campaign was going nowhere and asked him if he'd like to stand as his deputy. Trevor said that was a racist attitude, reasoning I suppose that if Trevor had been white, Ken would have politely stood aside. They've been playing bleeding-heart snap against each other ever since. The rest of the world needn't worry about it.

[DodgyAgent]

You agree wholeheartedly with this do you - WHOLEHEARTEDLY?

What you are effectively saying is that there is nothing wrong with this article because you can't find fault with it. All this demonstrates is your narrow minded vision and intellect at spotting a biased article with an agenda attached to it that's every bit as strong as the agenda of the politically correct espousers you and the author of this article despise so much.

There is plenty wrong with it, trust me!

The Telegraph is notorously right wing in it's views, so the article is not an impartial viewpoint founded on reason and common sense that cuts across all intellectual boundaries. Instead, it is blatant show of right wing propoganda designed to weaken and fragment the dissatisfied still further (well those that read The Telegraph) and make them feel guilty for ever making a complaint about anything. Or else it is to harden the hearts of those who are inclined to be exploitative and abusive to those less fortunate than themselves.

Surely you can see that.

I'm not advocating that political correctness is a good thing and many of the points made in Randall's article that targets the black communities and other minorities as 'whingers' I would personally endorse. There are far too instances whereby black people will use their colour to persecute innocent white critics. We've all seen this happen and those that behave in this way do a massive disservice to their own people who really are victimised as a result of colour.

However, what the article doesn't say is that the elites and the privileged are precisely that because the system has always been on their side - they made the system what it is to their own advantage - so they have nothing to moan about or be dissatisfied with, have they. They have the money, the contacts, the life chances and the lawyers to ensure that life always or nearly always falls 'sunny side up' for them and that the law manages to give them more favourable outcomes than their poorer counterparts faced with similar dilemmas but no deep pockets or good connections. This isn't always true in every single case - but it is broadly speaking and certainly enough to make a convincing case from the evidence of how life seems to affect certain groups of people - segregating out the lucky and the unlucky.

How many times have you heard people say that winning or losing a criminal criminal case really rests on the quality of defense Counsel, not whether a perpetrator is guilty or not? Good Counsel has never been in the business of convicting the guilty or clearing the innocent (as it should be in a perfect world whereby moaning is really unnecessary) - it's always been about planting reasonable doubt in a jury to ensure an acquittal.

According to this article - just pointing this fact out making me a tree hugging, socialist bleeding heart. Only recently, political scientists have endorsed that the UK is now more socially segregated than it has been for a long time - bucking the NL's utopian vision that we now live in a 'classless' society.

Remember this: Catherine Zeta Jones once got £1m compensation because her wedding was published without consent in Hello Magazine. This is someone who chooses to be in the public eye. According to law she was wronged. Yet, victims of crime are lucky to get £10K top whack when their kid has been run over and killed in a car accident. Call that fair do you? Are the parents who point out these minor indiscretions in the system whingers who should get on with life and not complain?

If you think pointing that out makes me a bleeding heart whinger - then all I can say is that you and others who endorse this article 'wholeheartedly' are really intellectually too inferior for your views to count for much. This is a shame.

By the way, like the author, I too went to a premier league Russell Group university. Therefore, according to him I should be far too intelligent not to agree with Randall's article.

So having dished the Telegraph (where has it -or any newspaper for that matter- ever claimed to be a paragon of objectivity and impartiality!!!!???) you then go on to agree with everything that it says!! a great example of how the left has made us feel guilty about associating ourselves with anything that questions its politically correct assumptions from the queen to margaret Thatcher to the Telegraph!

[DodgyAgent]

The recruitment industry is one of the modern curses of capitalism. What I mean by that statement is that it exposes exactly how possible it is for an industry to thrive when it has nothing to offer and money-making its main motive rather than its reward.

Right wing thinkers often think that capitalism is a good thing - its about providing goods or services for profit even if labour was exploited to achieve it. Somehow, a free, unfettered market, benefitted all of society because the market dictated was was needed and what wasn't and that eventually the trickle down effect would filter down to the very poorest eventually, allowing them to benefit too.

Not only does this not happen but it has been demonstrated historically time and again that the wealthiest countries in the world have only managed to climb to and maintain their top premier league spots as the strongest and richest economies precisely because they endorsed and ensured protectionism at the time of their industrial growth precisely because they did not allow a free market to crowd out their own trading advantages. This protectionist policy not only allowed the strongest and richest to grow and thrive and maintain their premier league spots, it also ensured that the poorest and weakest remained that way too.

The recruitment industry demonstrates this too - it's not the market that dictates their presence or its success - its the marketing hype and manipulation they've successfully cultivated, allowing them to monopolise the office job market (and other sectors too) by convincing and even lying to corporations, aided and abetted by their lawyers, and other large organisations that they can't do without them.

Parasites are exactly what I would call them too.

Er isnt marketing or "hype" part of how the free market works? and are not people like you or I intelligent enough to inform ourselves of what is on the market in order to make our own minds up about what we buy and who we buy it from? or would you prefer a command economy ?