The Country is Ready to Sink

Unlike most folks here, posting articles from newspapers, or broadcasters, I came across an astounding Letter to the Editor in my local paper, the Courier (one of the last, if not the last newspaper to have offices on Fleet Street, the offices with "The Dandy" "the Beano" and "the Courier" in big writing on the side). This article was deeply interesting, and indeed sums up what I think of a lot of British society today. www.thecourier.co.uk

Quote:

---

Country is ready to sink


Sir,—British society is in denial. Our world is falling about our ears, yet we are constantly told that everything in the garden is rosy.

Drunks cavort unchecked in our streets with nary a policeman in sight. Prisoners take drugs and otherwise misbehave in prison, yet they serve only half their sentences.

Released prisoners and accused persons released on bail commit more and more crime.

Our many governments pass many more laws, but the courts throw out the prosecutions based on them.

Police don’t catch many criminals, but many of those they bring to court are acquitted, given ludicrously light sentences or do not pay the fines imposed on them - and that with impunity.

Criminal lunatics are freed into society with inadequate supervision on a promise to take their medication and their doctors express surprise when they murder, maim or commit suicide.

Our governments are so riddled with corruption and fraud that many can no longer be bothered to vote.

Even if they are law-abiding, our leaders vote themselves fat salaries, expenses and pensions and spend most of their time making law-abiding tax-payers’ lives a misery with more and more bureaucracy.

Our industries have collapsed and our banks and insurance companies are going the same way. Their call-centres have already gone abroad.

Our education system is a joke and our health service not much better. Social workers don’t bear talking about.

The list of daft derivatives from our national obsession with political correctness is endless.

What amazes me is how this country keeps afloat. The day is surely not far distant when it finally sinks beneath the weight of its own stupidity!

---

What are your thought on this? Is he right or wrong (and it is a man, I just omitted the name and address)?

You sure this isnt about the US? ~D

While I agree with the content & spirit of the letter, I'm afraid I am in the minority. Most people, in some misguided notion of respect for other people's choices, have decided that anything goes. If my neighbor's kid has a keg party and I see 100 15 year old kids drunk and wandering in the street, who am I to say anything about it? If I see a woman being beaten by her husband, hey, it's her choice. If somebody decides to abandon their family and start a new life free from responsiblity, who am I to judge?

I know I'm old fashioned, but I do still believe in things like honor, respect, morality (even outside a religious context) and responsbility. Sadly, I think every day, I become even more in the fringe.

You haven't seen drunk street wandering until you've been to Scotland.

There's definitely an air of familiarity about that letter.

Everything that he said is true and it is indeed a wonder that so many people just put up with it.

Well Don I guess you and I are sailing in the same boat if thats any consolation to you. ~;) Its not just Britain but most of the western world. What you describe is liberalism taken to extremes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taffy_is_a_Taff

You haven't seen drunk street wandering until you've been to Scotland.

---

I live in Scotland, but can't say that I've seen many drunks wandering... Trying to fight, being helped home, falling over, or lying unconscious, yes, but rarely wandering

you know what I mean.

Maybe all conservative should emigrate somehwere and leave all the liberals to mess up their countries. Then when people are fed up with them the conservatives can step back in.

Heh. When's it ever been any different?

You should read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. You about described the plot.

Here's a very good article on the same topic, by Mark Steyn, a Canadian Conservative, who's one of my favorite coloumnists:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m...9/20/ixop.html

Quote:

---

Think of Germany as that flat in Marseilles, and Mr Schröder's government as the stiff, and the country's many state benefits as that French bloke's dead mum's benefits. Germany is dying, demographically and economically. Pick any of the usual indicators of a healthy advanced industrial democracy: Unemployment? The highest for 70 years. House prices? Down. New car registration? Nearly 15 per cent lower than in 1999. General nuttiness? A third of Germans under 30 think the United States government was responsible for the terrorist attacks of September 11.

---

Quote:

---

Which brings us back to that nonagenarian corpse in the Marseilles flat: what does it take to persuade the citizens of "enlightened" social democracies that sometimes you've got to give up the benefits cheque? Guardian and Independent types have had great sport with America over the last couple of weeks, gleefully citing the wreckage of New Orleans as a savage indictment of the "selfishness" of capitalism.

The argument they make is usually a moral one - that there's something better and more compassionate about us all sharing the burden as a community. But the election results in Germany and elsewhere suggest that, in fact, nothing makes a citizen more selfish than lavish welfare and that once he's enjoying the fruits thereof he couldn't give a hoot about the broader societal interest. "Social democracy" turns out to be explicitly anti-social.

---

Just part of the greatness. I suggest reading the whole article.

I'd have to agree with Gawain's assesment-leftism is the problem. It turns the people from proud achievers into depresses, selfish bums awaiting their next paycheck. IT breeds dependence.

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

Heh. When's it ever been any different?

---

Or, rather, when have the pessimists said anything different. Basically, things are never as bad (or as good) as you think.

So you guys are happy with binge drinking, elevated STD rates, and low scholastic performance? Life's never been this good? ~:confused: ~:confused: ~:confused:

Quote:

---

low scholastic performance?

---

Don't believe everything you read in the right wing press. Educational standards in England have been rising steadily for the last 20 years. (Not just GCSE results, but international comparisons too)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

So you guys are happy with binge drinking, elevated STD rates, and low scholastic performance? Life's never been this good? ~:confused: ~:confused: ~:confused:

---

Our exam pass rates have been rising steadily for years-anyone who thinks our population was better educated in the 1950s is having a laugh. Whilst I wouldn't say I'm happy with the other two problems, and I would discourage people from courting them, if you want to catch syphilis and destroy your liver I can't force you not to.

Sorry, I was actually speaking about the youth of the West, not the UK specifically. Here in the US, our primary & secondary education rates have fallen off drastically. Wasn't attempting to impugn the British education system.

Im sorry for your country King Malcolm. It used to be so great.. :no:

I can relate to the author's claim of Britain losing her industries as I follow the "british" car industry closely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big King Sanctaphrax

Our exam pass rates have been rising steadily for years-anyone who thinks our population was better educated in the 1950s is having a laugh. .

---

That's not suprising if you can get a C with only 17% on one exam. I never have understood the reason for felxible pass rates.

Perhaps people should try enforcing their laws...

Britain isn't that bad. Could do with less beaurocracy and some new political blood though.

Quote:

---

Our exam pass rates have been rising steadily for years-anyone who thinks our population was better educated in the 1950s is having a laugh

---

If you doubt people were better educated in High school during the 50s here in the US you have another thing coming I cant speak for Britan. The reason for more passing scores is lower requirements not more educated students. In my school there were no As and Bs but you actualy numeric score. No Ds for those who actually failed so they could move on. You didnt pass you repeated the grade or sublect.

The letter is just a rant - I don't think it bears much semblance to reality.

For example, the stuff about collapsing industries when we're in the middle of the longest economic boom in post-war history. Yes, some industries decline - e.g. car making - but so far we are doing well enough finding more profitable alternatives. If anything we're suffering from too much affluence - obesity, carbon emissions and a welfare state so generous we worry about people not wanting to work.

On education, yes, I believe it has become easier to get A grades but I also believe students and teachers are working harder than they used to (at least than when I was in school). As Saturnus might confirm, there's a pretty international trend of rising IQs (the "Flynn effect") and I suspect the UK, like America, is benefiting from it.

In terms of health, our services can do so much more than they could any time in the past. If there is a problem, it's largely in coping with the demand for these increased possible treatments and with the resultant greater longevity.

As for UK politicians being corrupt - come on! We probably have about the cleanest political class in our history and one of the cleanest in the world. Does anyone seriously think Tony Blair, Michael Howard and Charles Kennedy are corrupt? The pitiful things that pass for political scandals in the UK - e.g. Mandelson's two resignations - would not be noticed in many other countries and, in my opinion, tend to reflect hysterical over-reaction than any wrong-doing. The letter writer really needs to travel more to see what political corruption means.

The letter writer might have a point about crime trends, but it's put in such a crude unsubstantiated way, it's hard to tell. Having recently done jury service in the UK, I'm full of admiration for our courts - defence, prosecution and judges. Scrupulously fair, very conscientious and formiddably able.

I'm sorry, I don't see any sign that the country is ready to sink. By nearly all material indicators, we enjoying a better standard of living than our parents did at our ages and I see no reason to doubt our children will be able to say the same in due course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

While I agree with the content & spirit of the letter, I'm afraid I am in the minority. Most people, in some misguided notion of respect for other people's choices, have decided that anything goes. If my neighbor's kid has a keg party and I see 100 15 year old kids drunk and wandering in the street, who am I to say anything about it? If I see a woman being beaten by her husband, hey, it's her choice. If somebody decides to abandon their family and start a new life free from responsiblity, who am I to judge?

I know I'm old fashioned, but I do still believe in things like honor, respect, morality (even outside a religious context) and responsbility. Sadly, I think every day, I become even more in the fringe.

---

If you try to stop the drunk teens you get told to **** off and the police couldn't care less until they have vandalised half the street, if you try to stop domestic violence your told to butt out and it's none of your business, and the same for the scum who cut and run on their family.

*Sigh*, I have spent a good part of my (short) life trying to do the right thing, but I am slowly realising that it's not worth helping unless they come looking for help... being told to get lost and to keep my nose out of their business (and by the wronged party no less) is killing my good Samaritan streak.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Carleone

So you guys are happy with binge drinking, elevated STD rates, and low scholastic performance? Life's never been this good?

---

Binge drinking has always been a problem... perhaps not as much in our suburban estates, but it has always been there... STDs were taboo not so long ago, and the general public knew next to nothing about them, I think it's not surprising that they have suddenly risen to prominence, not increased because of rampant sexual deviance, but increased knowledge of what those red lumpy things are. As for scholastic performance, someone else already made the comment that we are better then in the 50s, but there are other factors too, very few students are leaving half way through secondary now... those that would have left in years 9 and 10 of the school in the 50/60s are now hanging around to the end... where it's much harder. Curriculum’s have also become a lot more demanding, classic example is maths, the pocket calculator has meant the maths I learnt at high school makes my fathers final year seem like kindergarten.

I guess it's easy to take the "things were better back then" approach, but sometimes we have to question the validity of that statement... nostalgia and good memories can cloud the mind (not that it is a bad thing).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Simon Appleton

As for UK politicians being corrupt - come on! We probably have about the cleanest political class in our history and one of the cleanest in the world. Does anyone seriously think Tony Blair, Michael Howard and Charles Kennedy are corrupt? The pitiful things that pass for political scandals in the UK - e.g. Mandelson's two resignations - would not be noticed in many other countries and, in my opinion, tend to reflect hysterical over-reaction than any wrong-doing. The letter writer really needs to travel more to see what political corruption means.

---

Haha, yes, we seem to jump up and down over nothing... but I have never had to bribe a public official just to get something done, even if they tend to waste time and throw away our tax money.

Quote:

---

The letter writer might have a point about crime trends, but it's put in such a crude unsubstantiated way, it's hard to tell. Having recently done jury service in the UK, I'm full of admiration for our courts - defence, prosecution and judges. Scrupulously fair, very conscientious and formiddably able.

---

Most people just don't understand what 'due process' involves.. they see the mug shot of a clearly shifty character in the paper and it's enough for them to want them locked away for life... I guess all those court room dramas that spice up the whole system don't help... if only it was half as interesting as those plots!

Hmm something is Rotten in the State of Denmark er Britain...

Why do I have a feeling this is a modern interpretation of something that William Shakespeare wrote... must google... :charge:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Simon Appleton

As for UK politicians being corrupt - come on! We probably have about the cleanest political class in our history and one of the cleanest in the world. Does anyone seriously think Tony Blair, Michael Howard and Charles Kennedy are corrupt?

---

Remember cash for questions? How innocent that looks, ten years on. Asil Nadir? Jeffrey Archer's brown envelopes? For God's sakes, Labour's 'investors' are a different class of people altogether.

Bernie Ecclestone for instance, now there's an upstanding millioniare who gets things done in ninth gear.

Or Rupert Murdoch. Remember political editor Andrew Porter wrote in 2001 that Tony Blair had given assurances to 'a very key figure in the media whose opposition to the single currency is well known' that he wouldn't use his post-election 'honeymoon' to force through a referendum on the single currency. I wonder if that could be good old anti-European Union Rupert? The man to whom Blair, according to the diary of his erstwhile deputy press officer Lance Price, promised that he would be 'consulted on any change to Britain's policy towards Europe'?

They didn't buy Tony Blair and the Labour government. They're stake-holders, you see, it's a whole new concept!
:balloon2:

Britain is not as bad as the author makes out. Yes it's got problems - take a look around. So has everyone else.

The government does need a kick up the arse though. And we are due a revolution. Devolution here we come :) The sooner the better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

Bernie Ecclestone for instance, now there's an upstanding millioniare who gets things done in ninth gear.

Or Rupert Murdoch...They didn't buy Tony Blair and the Labour government. They're stake-holders, you see, it's a whole new concept!

---

Maybe I've been corrupted, but I can't get angry about these things. I lived through the depressing 1980s as a Labour party activist, when the Labour Party was crucified by the media and failed to appear an electable alternative to Mrs Thatcher. Blair and New Labour may have made some minor concessions to get a half-decent press and become electable, but it's pretty tame stuff compared to the personalised graft and pork-barrel politics you see in many other countries.

For example, the Blair-Murdoch thing - there's a reality of public opinion underlying both player's wary dance. There's no way Blair could go for the single currency for example - he'd lose a referendum. So promising to consult Murdoch on it is a small debasement that means little. Similarly, Murdoch partly backs Blair because his readers see them as more electable than the opposition. If that were to change, the daggers would be out whatever Blair offers.

On the Ecclestone thing, I frankly don't care whether Formula 1 has tobacco money adverts/sponsorship. If stopping the money just means it leave the UK and still promotes tobacco companies, I can't see the point. If Ecclestone is going to give my party £1m to do something I am not opposed to, fine. Well, I did say I may have been corrupted.

Yes, British political parties tell half-truths and are open to influence. They are political parties. But I still think it is a joke to say British politics is hopelessly corrupt. (Maybe seeing Kenyan politicians handing out 100 shilling bills to electors colours my perspective a little here.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Simon Appleton

(..) it's pretty tame stuff compared to the personalised graft and pork-barrel politics you see in many other countries.

---

What about Labour peer Paul Drayson and the £32m Powderject contract he was given without tendering shortly after he donated £100,000 to Labour? The Indian steel billionaire Mr Mittal who donated £125,000 to Labour prior to receiving Mr Blair's backing for his takeover of the Romanian Sidex steel plant? Ex-minister Geoffrey Robinson misleading Parliament about a £200,000 payment from Robert Maxwell? A sum that may have been used toward the undeclared loan he gave Mr Mandelson, which led to Mr Mandelson's first resignation? Alright, British politicians are not in the Mugabe/Suharto league, but the appropriate words would still be bribery and influence-peddling, not 'tame stuff'.

A 320 to 1 gross return is pretty good... I wonder what the net was?

Corrupt in any country. When you condone it on your side you condone it everywhere else.

According to Transparency International's polls, Britain is the 11th least corrupt nation in the world (tied with Canada and Luxembourg), taking into account business, police, and political corruption. I'm not sure I'd put a huge amount of faith in those polls, but I still found them quite interesting.

Personally, I think that if the UK government is "riddled with corruption and fraud" then the rest of modern civilization is pretty much in the same boat.

i cannot rationally explain why i live a moral life. logic says that i shouldnt, but i continue to. If i see wrongs being committed, i step in. if i am a witness to injustice or stupidity ever, i step in if i think that i can help. i vote conservative even though the majority of evidence tells me to either not vote or vote secular liberal. i do the exact opposite of what my mind and popular culture tell me to do.

don, i agree with you for the most part - i see modern society as absurd and corrupt and, while i want to prop it up as cultured and superior, i find that the further along in development we get, the more absurd, useless and corrupt we become

i feel like our society is like a pro-cross country biker
we, through skill and ingenuity come to the front of the race, leaving all in our wake - by the time we get to the top of the hill, our legs have broken and we continue in the front of the race, going even faster down the hill with our legs in total shambles - at this moment in our history, we are a quarter mile ahead and we have finally hit level land - we no longer have control of the bike, are about to pass out and crash into a tree, having no control of our propulsion or steering.

while it looks like we are set to win the race, our body knows that the only place that we are going is into a tree to lose the race at breakneck speed. because of all the damage and the uselessness of our bodies, we can see the outcome, but are powerless to avert disaster.

There is a sense of truth in The Matrix when we are told that the human rejected the perfect world.
We relish in all the good we have, but if we can't complain it becomes unbearable. The best that can happen to us is perfection with a single flaw we can complain about.

Look around, we like to complain in general. Lousy weather!!! When the rainclouds in fact give us beautiful sunsets. We are free to complain, and we do it. We should be happy that our complaining isn't noticed by some shady state agency.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

Alright, British politicians are not in the Mugabe/Suharto league, but the appropriate words would still be bribery and influence-peddling, not 'tame stuff'.

---

Well, if the UK is the eleventh least corrupt country in the world - which sounds plausible - I would say that it is pretty "tame stuff". That seems a fairer description than hopelessly corrupt.

To call it bribery, you would have to know about the exchanges that went on. Yes, businessmen may donate to the Labour Party and yes they may benefit from subsequent government actions. But that does not necessarily make it bribery or influence peddling.

The Powderject contract does smell, and I believe it is being investigated by the National Audit Office. But whether it was an instance of bribery is probably a matter between Dr Reid and his god. I'd certainly hesitate about naming it thus in public unless I could prove it in a court of law.

The Mittal affair seems small potatoes - I can't see Mittal and the Labour party making any explicit deal "I'll give you £150,000 if you help me". Maybe Blair should not have written a letter to the Romanian government and helped a bidder with a British parent company win a privatisation contract. He probably regrets doing so now, but I do not think it makes him corrupt.

Ande Geoffrey Robinson's escapades seem particular to the individual rather than symptomatic of his Party (perhaps regrettably, the Party does not attract many businessmen to its ranks).

I think there's a sort of serious point here. By saying Britain is hopelessly corrupt, the original rant is debasing the coinage of political discourse and undermining a politics that is relatively clean.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Simon Appleton

I think there's a sort of serious point here. By saying Britain is hopelessly corrupt, the original rant is debasing the coinage of political discourse and undermining a politics that is relatively clean.

---

Of course I do not subscribe to that letter to the editor, that is just reactionary drivel. I find it disappointing that an original Labour supporter such as you would find it acceptable that Mr Blair is beholden to Mr Murdoch, who spreads such drivel around the world on a daily basis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

I find it disappointing that an original Labour supporter such as you would find it acceptable that Mr Blair is beholden to Mr Murdoch, who spreads such drivel around the world on a daily basis.

---

Well, I did say it was an instance of Blair debasing himself, so I am not exactly cock-a-hoop over it.

But to repeat, I think you over-estimate the sincerity and depth of the Blair-Murdoch relation. Recently, I recall reading that a Labour participant returned from a breakfast meeting with the Sun, saying it was like stepping into a Nuremberg rally or some such.

I think it's a courtesy, rather like deferring to the Queen or shaking hands with dictators, that makes life a little easier. If I seriously thought it changed government policies, I would be alarmed. But I suspect the Sun only restrains Labour to the extent that it mirrors the natural conservatism and prejudices of the British public.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Simon Appleton

Well, I did say it was an instance of Blair debasing himself, so I am not exactly cock-a-hoop over it.

---

I believe it is an instance of Mr Blair selling himself to the devil. Rupert Murdoch of course is not the devil incarnate, even though he and his editors leave a hint of sulphur wherever they set foot. The true devil would be Mr Murdoch's empire and its power to conjure up public support and popularity for political leaders. Mr Murdoch doesn't believe in anything except money and he goes for the highest bidder.

The whole 1995 episode (when Mr Blair presented himself cap-in-hand at Mr Murdoch's Hayman Island home and promised him a favourable tax regime) is reminiscent of Faust selling his soul to Mephistopheles in order to conquer his beloved Marguerite's heart. The Sun, the Times, the News of the World dropped their traditional anti-Labour stance and went for Blair. Same thing in 2001, when the PM backed the new communications bill that loosened restrictions on foreign media ownership and allowed newspaper publishers to own television stations (also known as the Lex Rupert).

Both men have seen eye to eye more than once. They went to war in Iraq together, albeit for slightly different reasons. According to Mr Murdoch 'the greatest thing to come out of this for the world economy would be $20 a barrel for oil. That's bigger than any tax cut in any country. Once Iraq is behind us, the whole world will benefit from cheaper oil which will be a bigger stimulus than anything else.'

They have the same view on doing business with China, even though Mr Murdoch collaborates openly with the regime and their state television channel.

They have the same view about immigration ever since Mr Blair was called to order by the Murdoch papers by means of the sickening anti-immigrant campaign in August 2004. In a move that made their true relationship disgustingly obvious, Home Secretary David Blunkett interrupted his holiday to phone the offices of the Sun and ask them to please publish that he was 'not in dispute with the Sun on this week’s coverage' and that the government agreed that the borders must be made secure, that the British judiciary was 'out of control', that offenders would henceforth automatically lose their asylum rights, and that it would immediately introduce ID cards, citizenship courses, compulsory language courses and blah blah blah...

Quote:

---

If I seriously thought it changed government policies, I would be alarmed.

---

Oh, I would be worried if I were you. Next thing you know, Blair and Murdoch will join hands to strangle the BBC.

Adrian:

Stop sugar-coating things and tell us what you really think...

~;) Seamus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Adrian:

Stop sugar-coating things and tell us what you really think...

~;) Seamus

---

I already did.

I could add that I think Tony Blair is a spent force and he will have to go as soon as Whitehall and a majority of Parliament tacitly agree that the time has come for a withdrawal from Iraq. Mr Blair will never preside over such a withdrawal; Gordon Brown or Jack Straw will have to take over at that time. Might be sooner than people think.