For all her sins, at least Karen had the decency to admit to her crime and show remorse. IMO, the Mccons covered their wrong doings so well, probably in a way the Karen wouldnt even dream of. Dont worry, their day will come,i am sure of that.

Nothing would surprise me! I would be surprised if the David Cameron is accepting much from Archer these days - but then again, as I keep saying, nothing surprises me! Archer certainly does not come from a similar background to Cameron - I doubt they have much in common. Neither does Archer’s wife impress me. In my opinion, no political party should want to associate with them. I am somewhat horrified that Cameron has decided to embrace Aitken and I have been meaning to write to him on this subject. However, on balance, I think a shift of government to a Conservative one would benefit most of us more than many people realise at the moment. And I do hope that Boris Johnson gets a chance to change London a bit. Am I living in cloud cuckoo land? Maybe, but things are not good at the moment with the present lot.

I remember having read that crimes are proportionnally inverse to the level of studies, according to statistics. In short, stretching one’s intelligence prevents you from being a criminal.

That is how class can be related to crime. It isn’t so much the money. It is the ability to solve problems, which requires an aptitude to take a certain number of data -variable data- into consideration.

What adds to the problem, is that in poorer areas, children aren’t taught to deal with frustration in the same way. Peter Mac explained it very well in some of his posts. The pleasure principle (I must get what I want now), is prevailing over the principle of reality (If I accept not to have it now, I’ll get something better later). It doesn’t prepare children to become successfull in life by accepting frustrations, like working instead of playing, studying instead of watching TV etc…

It is a vicious circle, and of course, the victims are inflicting it upon themselves, but out of control over their own life rather than willingly, IMO.

YES
but the poor burn at the stake while the wealthy get away with murder

Thank you for that information which I do find reassuring.

Very good answer I must say.

Yet I think it was his duty to give the green light or not. In those times, there was no separation of justice and government. So, as he put the problem in a philosophical way : “What is truth?, he washed his hands off his reponsibility, knowing that the man was innocent. He didn’t fight for the truth to prevail, he turned it into a philosophical debate. A nihilist before his time, in a way.

If truth can be seen in different ways, it is no longer the truth, IMO. What can be seen in different ways, is the interpretation of the truth.

I know our little discussion has little to do with the present case. I just wanted to point out that there are some indisputable facts in it, and that the local police are entitled to examine them in the light of the local law. A trial would decide if the charges are relevant.

I totally agree - there are still great inequalities between the sexes. And of course, money will always harness power, and people of lesser intelligence and inferior education will usually have a harder time achieving what they deserve. But many posters are simply equating money with the middle/upper classes and lack of it with the working classes, when this is often clearly not the case. People in council housing often have more disposable income than those struggling to pay a mortgage. Likewise, criminals who gain wealth by their criminal activities do not become upper class.

I don’t understand why so many people have such a hard time accepting that there is good and bad in all classes and creeds. This is a fact which cannot be denied.

I think it was a Conservative Party Fund Raising bash.

Class distinction is operated also by none other than the Inland Revenue.

HI !

by hand or by drugs?

No…I was concerned that you seemed to consider her guilty without evidence
….and at the time there was nothing to actually suggest that she may have been complicit. The fact that it has turned out that she may be complicit…is neither here
nor there….her life-style itself did not necessarily suggest that she was actually guilty.