General News Discussion

[eFestivals]

Anyway what is "right" and "wrong" is subjective and the only real thing we have to work from in such cases of disagreement is the law.

what is right and wrong is indeed subjective.

What is not subjective is that what I laid out is always the same thing - the salesman or business knowing they're scamming the customer.

You can decide that it's right for them to be able to do that.

You can decide that it's wrong for them to be able to do that.

But you can't decide that doing that is both right and wrong.

[lost]

in which case - by the same morality - it's fine to scam a granny.

[eFestivals]

You say scamming another says gaining an edge...

Its business... Clearly its all a little scary for some. Probably best you opted out.

OK, glad we've cleared that up. Scamming grannies is OK with you.

[eFestivals]

its subjective she might not feel scammed I can pay 100k for a bottle of wine or 3.99.

whether she feels scammed or not, the person who scammed her knows that he's scammed her - and she's been scammed.

[feral chile]

whether she feels scammed or not, the person who scammed her knows that he's scammed her - and she's been scammed.

[eFestivals]

Ah but that's subjective too. Maybe the builder who charges four grand for changing a roof tile just considers himself good at business negotiation?

in which case you can add 'stupid' to his crimes against humanity.

[eFestivals]

I'm so very wacky and an undoubted commie with saying that wage differentials are completely fucked up and at the heart of the current economic crisis that I've now been joined in my nutty view by the guy with no respect from world leaders or top businessmen ... he holds a gun to their heads to get them all to Davos each year instead.

Oh, and that well known commie, Barack Obama. And the newspaper of the Socialist Workers party, The Observer.

Wackies of the world unite.

Edited February 4, 2013 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

3, They put their own lives on the line.

Talk about a massive massive over-statement.

[TheGayTent]

Any normal member of the public would do time (albeit a short sentence) for that. So I don't see why Huhne shouldn't.

Anyway, that's his political career 100% over.

An interesting by election coming up too. IIRC his margin wasn't that great.

[gary1979666]

So back to grannies and bread. I think we all agree that selling a loaf of bread for £1000 is a con, but at what level do people determine a fair price to be?

If the bread costs £1 to make (simplistic cost - would include all ingredients and the appropriate share of all of the fixed costs to break even).

£1.05?

£1.50?

£2.00?

£1000?

I think we know we'll all have different levels of what we think is fair. But where is that line drawn? At what point do you think it becomes a con/exploitation?

[eFestivals]

Any normal member of the public would do time (albeit a short sentence) for that. So I don't see why Huhne shouldn't.

it's all very similar to Aiken's "sword of Damocles" which was going to kill The Guardian for printing 'lies'.

Which begs the same question as then: if MP's are telling porkies over such minor things and getting caught out, just think what a proper investigation of any of them is likely to drag up.

For example, Jeremy c**t was invited to convict himself in front of Leveson, which he unsurprisingly declined to do. Same with Dave Moron about his Brookes/Murdoch/Coulson corruption, with the same result. Same with News International itself, where it is investigating itself and the police are letting them do it, presumably to the mutual benefit of both (or at least, the more senior people at both).

All it took with Hulme was for the old bill to peek at his diary - and that's taken over a year to happen.

Do the police work for the country, or do they work for MPs and themselves?

[eFestivals]

So back to grannies and bread. I think we all agree that selling a loaf of bread for £1000 is a con, but at what level do people determine a fair price to be?

If the bread costs £1 to make (simplistic cost - would include all ingredients and the appropriate share of all of the fixed costs to break even).

£1.05?

£1.50?

£2.00?

£1000?

I think we know we'll all have different levels of what we think is fair. But where is that line drawn? At what point do you think it becomes a con/exploitation?

We all have different levels, but just about no one would go with the £1000 bit.

My point wasn't about any particular level, but about a person knowing that they've gone beyond what is fair and reasonable. That can be done both by making a bid below what things will cost (Virgin Rail for the previous West Coast contract, First Group for the one that's just bee ripped up; both knowing that a bail-out will follow, from which they'll make the real profits) and the likes of PFI where they know they'll be charging £50 to change a light bulb.

[hot_ice]

We all have different levels, but just about no one would go with the £1000 bit.

My point wasn't about any particular level, but about a person knowing that they've gone beyond what is fair and reasonable. That can be done both by making a bid below what things will cost (Virgin Rail for the previous West Coast contract, First Group for the one that's just bee ripped up; both knowing that a bail-out will follow, from which they'll make the real profits) and the likes of PFI where they know they'll be charging £50 to change a light bulb.

[hot_ice]

We are meant to be talking about employed skilled people... Its just barmy to involve grannies.

[eFestivals]

but again, government should be wise to this and not sign the contract, whats the first lesson we learn, if something to good to be true... it probably is...

We are meant to be talking about employed skilled people... Its just barmy to involve grannies.

It applies to both!

It very definitely applies to both. If people - and there are only ever people - in govt are meant to know not to be ripped off, then other people such as grannies should know not to be ripped off too.

In both cases it's the business and only the business who knows what the costs are and whether they're taking the piss out of the customer. So expecting the customer to know what they can't know is extremely daft.

So then everything comes down to the business to operate responsibly - but that is at odds with the very purpose of standard business, which is to make as much profit as possible.

It's an inherent contradiction - because a society where the the driving force is greed is always going to be undermined by that greed.

People are always very quick to say that socialist ideas are flawed because it's human nature to act in self-interest (which means "be greedy"), but they never follow that idea thru to give similar analysis for capitalism.

And so we end up with the worst flaw of all, a flaw that cannot be mentioned, and which fucks over almost every one of us (including nearly all of the ones who stupidly believe themselves to benefit, when all they're really doing if fucking over themselves while making themselves feel good about fucking over others too..

[eFestivals]

Agreed...

Where as though you could question an individuals mental capacity to exercise such caution I just find it laughable Neil thinks we should question the government in the same way

Sorry, Barry, but can you please show me the badge of perfection that you wear and also believe all those in govt to wear (but no one outside of govt)?

[thesecretingredientiscrime]

But yet its been constantly said government departments aren't fit for purpose.

[eFestivals]

Listening to the judges language it sounds like he is going down for it.

there's not a lot that gets the system's wrath as taking the piss out of the system.

Perverting the course of justice means he's a pervert. .... and a pervert in the Liberal Party? It's not a first, is it?

Next up before the beak for being perverts are Dave Moron's chums.

[abdoujaparov]

Any normal member of the public would do time (albeit a short sentence) for that. So I don't see why Huhne shouldn't.

[pink_triangle]

Yes, he will get a custodial sentence, just as Jonathan Aitken did. My guess is that he'll get 12-18 months

[thesecretingredientiscrime]

Because there's too much pressure put on NHS to make profit.

[kaosmark2]

NHS vs Private health care.

The biggest single argument against private care is profit being put ahead of care. But as the forthcoming shit storm is showing at Staffordshire NHS its already happening in the NHS anyway.

[eFestivals]

NHS vs Private health care.

The biggest single argument against private care is profit being put ahead of care. But as the forthcoming shit storm is showing at Staffordshire NHS its already happening in the NHS anyway.

erm ... the biggest argument against private healthcare is that it costs twice as much and delivers a worse average health outcome.

The only reason it doesn't look like that in the UK is because the NHS carries most of the costs of private healthcare, via training all its staff and covering the costs of the expensive treatments which the private sector doesn't do.

Only sick people support the idea of private healthcare.

[eFestivals]

and what happened in Staffordshire has absolutely nothing at all to do with the NHS, it only has things to do with the exact same people as would staff private healthcare facilities.

[eFestivals]

The whistle blowers point to the trust trying to save money and hit government targets. Putting the blame on the structure.

erm ... and private hospitals don't have a structure where saving money is the biggest part?

Saying that... And I think this is where you are coming from. The people on the ground still choose to ignore patients sitting in their own filth and to be quite frank I couldn't sleep at night knowing I did that...

yep - that's exactly what I'm getting at.

Tho to be fair, plenty complained to the hospital and the regulator, both of whom did nothing. But nothing of those things would change under private ownership either.

I reckon the heart of the problem is actually to do with nurses training nowadays, where they are trained to be technical, which has the effect of putting the necessary caring side of the profession as beneath them.