SPAM This thread is for random spam!!

[DaGaffer]

We encouraged huge population increases for many reasons...the main one which still stands today is that the more people the more power...immigration will never be curbed because of that...we went from 7 million in 1800 to 35 million in 1900...without that increase we wouldnt have stood a chance against growing populations in other warring countries....they were basically bred to work and fight.

What a load of old shite. Case in point; Ireland. The British absolutely did not encourage Irish population growth (the opposite was true), but the ability to grow more staple crops per acre (thanks to the potato's high calorie count) coupled with "Catholic stuff" led to a population explosion anyway. Population growth hasn't been planned, quite the reverse if anything; a series of incremental steps that led to more productive land, lower infant mortality and eventually, longer lifespans. Its laughable to assume that people sat around saying "we need more people, and here's how we'll do it". If the British wanted more people, they usually went off a nicked someone's country instead, and then ran the places with a handful of white men.

 

[DaGaffer]

Aye, Why was the NHS started?

It wasn't because the Government fancied being nice to people.

Jesus. The NHS and Welfare State started because returning squaddies demanded it, which is why they kicked out Churchill 20 minutes after getting home and voted in Labour by a landslide. It was one of the most thoroughly democratic things to ever happen in Britain. What's going on today? Is it Swivel-Eyed Loony Week?

 

[Gwadien]

Jesus. The NHS and Welfare State started because returning squaddies demanded it, which is why they kicked out Churchill 20 minutes after getting home and voted in Labour by a landslide. It was one of the most thoroughly democratic things to ever happen in Britain. What's going on today? Is it Swivel-Eyed Loony Week?

It wasn't Labour that originally came up with the idea though, the Liberals thought of it after World War One, and that was purely to make future armies more efficient, so it wasn't like it was a massive radical democratic movement that caused it.

The Second Boer War was a massive motivator for the welfare state too, they found the volunteers for the armies were too small, sickly and weak to fight.

You're right to say that the British soldiers were coming home saying we want health care and more welfare state, but the Government was also thinking oh shit, that was close, we'd better make our army better for future conflicts.

 

[Job]

The government have a huge input into population growth, towns were designed, expansion overseen, travel links put forward, it didn't just happen and there was a goal at the end to keep Britain as a superpower and keep rich people with workers.
I'm not suggesting they handed out flyers on baby making but there are a multitude of ways to stimulate the population explosion that is still going on today, no matter how much we bleat, it won't stop till people start falling off the edge, immigration means growth and that's all capitalism has left.

 

[DaGaffer]

It wasn't Labour that originally came up with the idea though, the Liberals thought of it after World War One, and that was purely to make future armies more efficient, so it wasn't like it was a massive radical democratic movement that caused it.

The Second Boer War was a massive motivator for the welfare state too, they found the volunteers for the armies were too small, sickly and weak to fight.

You're right to say that the British soldiers were coming home saying we want health care and more welfare state, but the Government was also thinking oh shit, that was close, we'd better make our army better for future conflicts.

The Liberals came up with National Insurance, which isn't the same thing, and it was brought in before WWI, and since it was universal it had little or nothing to do with more efficient fighting men, who never counted for more than a small proportion of the working population prior to WWI (at peak 350K British troops went to fight in the Boer war, which at the time was by far the largest British fighting force in history - for comparison, only 68,000 British troops fought at Waterloo and only 250K fought in the Crimea), but was more about labour productivity and social responsibility, brought on by a widening franchise; as more people got the right to vote, politicians started to give them what they wanted (also Laissez-Faire social protection had been widely discredited by the end of the 19th century because of the Irish famine and the gradual growth of the Trade Union Movement, amongst other things).

The fact of the matter is that the NHS wasn't about preventative medicine anyway (at the start) and had little to do with the social conditions that created sickly volunteers to fight in wars (and NB. Canada had exactly the same issues with sickly volunteers, even though in theory they came from a much healthier environment). The Welfare State certainly helped to create healthier people, but so did improvements in housing and sanitation, and its just nonsense to suggest these things came with the aim of creating fitter soldiers. That would have been about 10th on the list of priorities. I'll say it again, Britain doesn't do big armies, and by the way, after WWII no-one expected large scale, infantry heavy wars again because of the Bomb.

 

[old.user4556]

@Gwadien no idea why I had facepalmed that post, sorry about that, trying to do a "rating" on a mobile phone screen is fecking hard and sometimes I do it by mistake when scrolling

 

[DaGaffer]

The government have a huge input into population growth, towns were designed, expansion overseen, travel links put forward, it didn't just happen and there was a goal at the end to keep Britain as a superpower and keep rich people with workers.
I'm not suggesting they handed out flyers on baby making but there are a multitude of ways to stimulate the population explosion that is still going on today, no matter how much we bleat, it won't stop till people start falling off the edge, immigration means growth and that's all capitalism has left.

For over 150 years the British state actually encouraged Emigration from the UK; it was official policy (from around 1800 to 1950-odd)and you often got help to do it. Hardly the behaviour of a nation building up stocks of cannon fodder.

 

[Gwadien]

@Gwadien no idea why I had facepalmed that post, sorry about that, trying to do a "rating" on a mobile phone screen is fecking hard and sometimes I do it by mistake when scrolling

SO YOU SHOULD BE

I didn't even notice tbh

 

[Billargh]

SO YOU SHOULD BE

I didn't even notice tbh

Bullshit! I seen the passive aggressive status you posted on Facebook about 'hating why people disagree with my views without explaining why'.

 

[Moriath]

For over 150 years the British state actually encouraged Emigration from the UK; it was official policy (from around 1800 to 1950-odd)and you often got help to do it. Hardly the behaviour of a nation building up stocks of cannon fodder.

That was to the colonies to build up a bigger English presence in them to help rule the natives.

 

[DaGaffer]

That was to the colonies to build up a bigger English presence in them to help rule the natives.

Not really, because the colonies they went to (South Africa and NZ excepted) didn't really have many natives.

 

[Gwadien]

I just walked into the Kitchen, the Rabbit was cleaning his ear, I made him panic, so he did like a slow motion fall to his side and fell into his bowl of water.

 

[Job]

Your rabbit is auditioning for reddit.

 

[Job]

The Liberals came up with National Insurance, which isn't the same thing, and it was brought in before WWI, and since it was universal it had little or nothing to do with more efficient fighting men, who never counted for more than a small proportion of the working population prior to WWI (at peak 350K British troops went to fight in the Boer war, which at the time was by far the largest British fighting force in history - for comparison, only 68,000 British troops fought at Waterloo and only 250K fought in the Crimea), but was more about labour productivity and social responsibility, brought on by a widening franchise; as more people got the right to vote, politicians started to give them what they wanted (also Laissez-Faire social protection had been widely discredited by the end of the 19th century because of the Irish famine and the gradual growth of the Trade Union Movement, amongst other things).

The fact of the matter is that the NHS wasn't about preventative medicine anyway (at the start) and had little to do with the social conditions that created sickly volunteers to fight in wars (and NB. Canada had exactly the same issues with sickly volunteers, even though in theory they came from a much healthier environment). The Welfare State certainly helped to create healthier people, but so did improvements in housing and sanitation, and its just nonsense to suggest these things came with the aim of creating fitter soldiers. That would have been about 10th on the list of priorities. I'll say it again, Britain doesn't do big armies, and by the way, after WWII no-one expected large scale, infantry heavy wars again because of the Bomb.

Not a standing force but by the end of ww1 there were 4 million in the british army.

 

[DaGaffer]

Not a standing force but by the end of ww1 there were 4 million in the british army.

Hence "prior to WWI" in my post. WWI was completely outside the British experience, but it was much more normal for the French and Germans, who had million+ standing armies and permanent conscription. Which is also reflected in the fact that the (non-Colonial) regular British Army prior to WWII was only about 250,000 men. Its just not a British thing.

 

[Madmaxx]

This is great

Where are numbers 16-30? Whatever, it's okay, it doesn't matter really.

Whoops I didnt realise, it has 30 online; seems to be split into 2 parts...


ohh well

EDIT: No. 17

 

[Edmond]

Number 18, I do it in Tesco when I stop to let someone through with their trolley, but I don't say it quietly, I make sure they hear me....cunts

 

[Gwadien]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28687233

Come the fuck off it.

So a MP can share their outrage of Russia getting involved in Ukraine, and support a Boycott, a MP suggests a Israeli boycott, and there's uproar, he said Israeli, not Jewish, calm the fuck down.

Galloway may or may not be a cock in your PoV, but this is just daft.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Why has the random spam thread turned into politics and such. @Madmaxx , gif me please

 

[CorNokZ]

^What he said. Take the politics away from spam, please

 

[Madmaxx]

I dunno man, I don't usually do requests.

..

 

[Madmaxx]

 

[Madmaxx]

 

[old.Tohtori]

Appreciated

 

[Madmaxx]

@old.Tohtori

EDIT:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ri2AU_UFDk

 

[Job]

Hence "prior to WWI" in my post. WWI was completely outside the British experience, but it was much more normal for the French and Germans, who had million+ standing armies and permanent conscription. Which is also reflected in the fact that the (non-Colonial) regular British Army prior to WWII was only about 250,000 men. Its just not a British thing.

Actually it was 650,000 men..so pllppp

 

[georgie]

Appreciated

Ouu, can I join in?

 

[old.Tohtori]

Who doesn't love a threesome.

 

[TdC]

wouldn't that make it a foursome?

 

[TdC]

Whoops I didnt realise, it has 30 online; seems to be split into 2 parts...


ohh well

EDIT: No. 17

we have those lists at work as a Rosetta stone English - Dutch - French, as a what the English say / what the Dutch/French hear, what the Dutch say / what the English/French hear, etc etc etc. I notice many of my Dutch coworkers actually think things are OK in confcalls when the UK guys say it's fine