What to stick on his windscreen which wont come off easily? [OT]

How did someone so stupid and narrow minded get a job in aerospace? Mind you, you could be the teaboy.

Common sense..like knowing that sticking your hand in a fire isn't a bright idea.

And as for the problem solving, there aren't that many things which only have a single approach to achieve the same aim.

What does a teaboy get paid at BAe nowadays?

Why? Incapable of working it out for yourself?

Is this thread a magnet for stupid people? The sign of a white wheelchair on a blue background is the internationally recognised symbol for disability.

I *think* I'm right in saying that it's perfectly legal to kill fuckwits like that.

There might even be a reward.

What an unusual place to locate a supermarket. Most of them choose locations with easy access (it increases the odds of people shopping there, you see).

Again, you're making assumptions. Perhaps they had other children at home and half a trolley worth of goods was about enough to last a day. Perhaps they were - since they were there anyway, and indeed as I did on the trip I mentioned earlier - picking up some other items along the way.

At any rate, none of what you've said supports your original statement, which was that "no child of that age should be out at that time of night/morning some parents are just not fit to have children". It *may*, possibly, support the idea that the particular parents you saw were irresponsible - but only possibly, since you don't know the circumstances, and it certainly doesn't justify your sweeping assumptions.

Ah, I see.

In that case yes, you're right.

What are men designed for?

Mary

Tennis elbow is quite common, I understand.

Dave, did you actually understand the sentence above your reply?

Mary

Conor ( snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

So disabled spaces are only for people in wheelchairs?

Did you read my other post where I said it was the internationally recognised sign for disability?

Is it edible - what will it barbeque like?

Conor ( snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

So?

You're now telling us that there's only a subset of parent/child groups allowed to park in them - while somebody else is saying that there doesn't HAVE to be a parent included, it can be any adult, yet the sign explicitly says "Parent and Child". Not "Adult and Child", "Under-18 and Guardian" or anything else.

Is it any wonder we're confused?

Except that isn't my viewpoint... What I said was "Personally I feel that couples should only have two kids of their own". I wasn't suggesting that this should be law! Notice I said "*personally*, I feel that.."

In any case, given the figures, this would actually constitute an

*increase* in procreation!

It's a different stat my friend. If it were the same stat, then the same logic I applied would also apply to the second stat. But it clearly does not, as you yourself have been trying to show!!

Of course, this *also* means that your reinterpretation of the stat was botched too. Y'see in *your* interpretation you talked of "the average person", which includes children, people who are still of child bearing age etc... The original stat clearly does not.

Well, ignoring your assumption that the population is equally split between male/female (which I don't believe to be the case), and the fact that your figure appears to be out of date (it was 1.71 in the last census)

Ishould reiterate that to 'forget' the fact that the original stat wasWRT women > child bearing age and to convert it into being "theaverage person", or "per person", ie including many people still <child bearing age, or even kids, is to totally change the statistic. And of course, to deduce the child bearing rate of *today* by using a figure based on the totals of those of an age no longer able to have children is also botched. By its very definition, the figure actually describes the child bearing rate of a decade or two ago.

Bizarrely you seem to believe that birth rates are the only causes of a population explosion. It's not quite so simple as that. At the other end of things, we have pensioners living far longer than they used to, thus maintaining the existing population whilst the births add to it. Perhaps in your 'research', you missed this:

"The UK has a growing population" "Growth has been faster in more recent years"

...statements which I'd like you to rationalise this with your original claim that:

"It's also now the case that the average person in the UK has less than 1 child, so the population is actually shrinking slightly".

... which would appear to be complete bollocks. Like I say, you seem to think that lower birth rates = lower population, and for you to go on to accuse me of "making up your own way to interpret stats that you don't understand", is both ironic and rather hilarious.

However, credit where it's due, you do appear to realise that the average age of the population is rising and that you see this as an issue. However, to address it by suggesting we make more kids is surely only going to increase the problem in the future. All those extra kids are going to grow up to be extra pensioners you know! How would you address that - even more kids?!

I'm only asking you to show your research which incidentally, is in

*direct* response to you making suggestions that I had not done any. And then you whine that I'm "trying to discredit [you]". Oh my, is this national hypocrisy day?

However, I need not try to discredit you, your claim that "the population is actually shrinking slightly", as a botched conclusion from the birth-rate, despite the evidence of the National Census (which *surely* your "research" would have included), to the contrary, is more than enough for you to discredit yourself.

You haven't done anything to prove that there isn't. You've implied that there's some research you've done, but when questioned *multiple* times, you've failed to produce it, explain it, refer to it, quote it, provide links to it or *anything*. And I'm supposed to be convinced by this? Oh come on!

andyt

Almost half the population earn *less* than the national average, you know! Shocking isn't it!

andyt

Isn't it quite a lot more than half?

cheers, clive

I suspect that well over half do: 1 boss x £50K; 9 workers x £10K - average £14K - 90% earn less than this. Which is why median figures tend to be more meaningful than averages when average = mean.

In the election the Conservatives made a lot of an IFS report that said that average earnings had fallen in the last year. What it actually said was that the mean had fallen because of tax/NI on higher earners but the median had risen slightly.

Actually, good point. It will be!

andyt

The message from Andy Turner contains these words:

"Lake Wobegone - where all the children are slightly above average"

Yeah, and if you tried that nowadays you'd probably find a herd of social workers, one or two court welfare officers (actually, court welfare are usually sensible people) and any number of other opinionated (childless) people kicking your door in and telling you what a bad parent you are.

Conor ( snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

everything.

Conor, you're heading rapidly towards making Victor Meldrew look like the voice of unshakable cheeriness.

I've never known a parent who didn't have a bright child.

Mary