mercuryg

Toby, Great response and interesting to hear from someone with a current insight into the 'youth problem'. You raise some great points, but also miss some: while I fully understand you have - or had - 'nowhere to go' you clearly point out, conversely, that that is not the case. You have a home - granted, your parents like their privacy - and you have friends, and you have sixth form socials, which you choose not to attend. Quite why is your choice, but it does draw some questions. I can clearly see how you're frustrated at being glowered at by old ladies; I walk down the street in my full length black leather winter coat and they glower at me, and i'm 45! You're in the majority, for the majority of 'kids' - I use the term to describe a wide range of the younger generations, and without prejudice or other - are great, enjoyable and truly lovely people: I know, I work with many occasionally, have been involved with employing youngsters, and know a great number of the local youth through friends and family. The minority, which you rightly poin out are those who the likes of Jester has a problem with, are a true minority, and that is something we should be thankful for. Before I conclude I would like to draw your attention to this: "As i was growing up, if i had a centeral place where i could 'hang out' and somewhere where my parents will believe i am safe, i would have been alot more comftorable in groups my age " The problem I have is this: when I was growing up I didn;t have anywhere sich as you describe, those that followed me didn't, those that preceded me didn't, and so on. What's changed? What is it that this generation 'need' that we didn't?

What was said was that 90% of 'climate researchers' believe; how one defines a climate researcher i'm not sure, but it's safe to say the spread among those who do agree is varied. This is a particular bugbear of mine - not that climate change (note the non-use, these days, of 'Global warming') is happening, for it is, but that we, the human race, are solely responsible for it. Logically, we can't be, for without going into the details here - I don't have them to hand admittedly - the figures simply don't add up. Schoolkids these days are being fed the line that leaving a light bulb on at home kills a polar bear; it might if its a new fangled low energy one and the poor bear eats it, but otherwise it's !*!@# . I'm a known and hardened skeptic - i simply don't believe the !*!@# we're being fed.

Budget? What budget does it take to paint over a few bits of dodgy graffiti? How much does a community service bod cost? If your ideal is that we tolerate it, it will get worse. As for doing it ourselves, we'd probably be done for defacing public property!

With due respect, and while i agree it's 'not that bad', this is the sort of attitude that is part and parcel of the problem; or is it simply the complacency of modern man? Deeming that spraying obscenities on fences, signs and walls is in some way 'acceptable' 9and from your post i'm in two minds as to whether you think it is) is a sign of the times, surely? The thing is, not only is it not acceptable, but it's easily rectified. I must admit to being an avbid reader of graffiti - when it's funny (the eternal 'Poo' on the way down the bank gets me every time) but that such stays there for so long, as do the instances mentioned by the original poster, is curious to say the least. Mayor Guiliani, when in charge of New York, began his crackdown on crime in that city with th 'broken window' approach: no longer were the minor, seemingly irrelevant problems left to fester, they were dealt with straight away. Bedlington is, however you look at it, rife with graffiti that has been there for years - where are the community service bods with their whitewash? It doesn't take all of us to buck up our ideas, but it only takes a few thinking 'well, it's not that bad' to leave it as it is.

Absolutely; couldn't agree more. What I have found to be of interest - in particular in the past year or so - is the way the demographic on Facebook has shifted. Personally, i've noticed an increase in 'older' participants - and I mean 40 plus - which I initially put down to me communicating with those of my own age group. Research has proven, however, that i'm not wrong - there is a shift to the more mature user. It must be cafe world. Love the snow, by the way.

Facebook itself will, as I said, be replaced by 'new improved' versions of similar resources. The future of communication, as I believe you know, is in the area we are looking at with Facebook - and similar - now, and these are developing and still very young areas of the genre. I'm not saying Facebook is the be all and end all, but that it represents something that is very much of the moment, and is a blueprint for future advances. With respect, I disagree. There is - and was - a massive difference between the concept behind FR and that behind facebook. The former had a very limited appeal, as you rightly acknowledge. I couldn't agree more, but there are problems with your assurance - and again no offence - that it is in the 'true spirit of the original internet'. That spirit, that original, is gone. The future is very different. Far from saying that the future does not incorporate sites such as this, it does: as mentioned elsewhere I run a website with a very specific audience, too, and understand the limitations when faced with the global behemoths that inhabit this world. I agree, however, that it is easier to see the point of this than it is of Facebook, but that is something that will change as the world does. An aside - during the coverage of the recent floods in Cockermouth local news took in a piece about a woman, hundred and odd years old, going back to her now condemned flat to recover her belongings: dear to her was her PC. As to: "I've also had a number of discussions with councillors today who are keen to embrace it and want to work with the site on future issues so it's all looking very promising indeed." Brilliant. This is what its all about.

As I think I might have touched on in the other post, this is not something that should be blindly accepted - no offence, 3G, but something that needs to be addressed. That these people see 'no point' in posting on Facebook is a problem that it is necessary to overcome. Facebook is not a fad, it's not a here today/gone tomorrow youngsters game, it's a blueprint for the future of internet - and general - communication. Granted, it's not perfect, but it's a workable idea that has many imitators, and will only become defunct when something better, and easier, comes along. perhaps those who see no point in posting on Facebook - and i'm talking of those you refer to who make things happen - need to take a closer look at what it's about, and what it can achieve; I speak as one who has, and has had their eyes opened to a great degree. This is a great website - I enjoy it very much and it speaks to a clear and defined audience - but it will never have the cache or the reach that something like Facebook does; i'm involved in instructing businesses how to use Facebook, and similar, to achieve results, and believe me, the number of those who 'see no point' yet end up getting it is quite astonishing. As for the Summer Fair, great idea, but is it viable? These days of massive insurance policies for such things have put paid - in many cases - to such events, and there is little that even Facebook can do about that. Still, let's push it, and let's see if we can make it happen. Need any help, i'm up for it.

Interesting discussion. As someone who works in internet marketing and promotion I can see both sides of the story. I'm no computer savvy kid but a 45 year old bloke who knows how to turn a computer on, send emails, and write words. I couldn't programme if my life depended upon it, and haven't a clue what binary is. the thing is I don't need to know any of that to see what is happening; someone asked 'what happened to the telephone?' - it's there, in everyone's pocket, portable and in most cases internet ready. That's how communication is going, that's how it's going to develop. I use Facebook as both a leisure tool and a way of keeping in touch with people across the country without incurring costs that might otherwise be there - I use email the same way. I'm also deaf, and being able to communicate without using a phone is a Godsend in many ways. However, back to the point, and while I understand 4g's comments about Facebook not being good for collaboration, that is something that should be addressed with the originators. I would venture that, thanks to facebook and the events of the last two weeks, this website has recieved a great deal of exposure that is valuable. That people have to sign up for a Facebook account to read what's going on there is surely neither here nor there - it's a free, five minute job and, after all, yo have to sign up here, too, to participate. Personally, I think Twitter is doomed to failure: it's limited and restricted, and has 'fad' written all over it, but that's another story. I hope that the recent publicity has imbued local people with a sense of what this website is all about, and that discussions such as this continue and add to the purpose of what is a very worthwhile forum and portal. Build on it, and who knows what can be achieved, but keep it's profile high on the likes of Facebook, as that's where the popular vote will come from.

Brilliant band - great foot tapping stuff and much fun.

Absolutely brilliant! Well done to Sian and Andrew for such a protracted campaign - people power!

I was going to enquire about my good friend Mrs Vic as it happens, good point.

yeah, you get interesat at what - half a percent or something? You know what the banks keep? I don't think Somalian pirates are turning to piracy because of the dire economic status of their country, but because they see rich pickings in the busy seaways off their coast. To be a pirate, after all, you need a boat, arms, and so on, and the tools of piracy are not available to the average Somalian who is starving and destitute. For the record, it might not have occured to you but the reason this country - the UK - is bankrupt (and it is)is down almost entirely to the banks.

I hate to tell you this, but banks don't give you money. You have to give it to them, they invest it, lose a fortune, and then tell you its all gone.

That's not always the case, Mr Darn; clearly you're not self employed. I don't mind paying charges for being over my limits, but resent paying £30 quid plus for a few pennies. Banks have been ripping people off for far too long and look what happened to them - they fell like dominoes because of their inherent greed.

What free bank accounts? The whole point of this prolonged argument has been that, in fact, no bank account is free and, as it is, charges levied are extortionate. Does it cost £30 to send a letter? They didn't pay me that when I billed them for one. personally, I would rather have an account with a fee and a lesser rate of charges for going 50p overdrawn than one that charges me a bloody fortune for the privelege. Here's hopign the OFT screws them

Like those supercar makers, who all use an engine based on one first developed in the 1880's?? No they don't.

Do you need telling that it hasn'got it's body on yet? Or are you genuinely joking>?

That's fair enough, and many times you're right, but that wasn;t quite what we were discussing!

To a point you're right; i have no idea about monsta trucks for I thought they just crushed old cars, but there is an over-riding belief among many fans of motor sport that there is more 'fun' to be had in some of the lesser categories you mention. I love tin tops - especially the WTCC - but touring car races can be every bit as processional as many F1 races; the FIA GT championship suffers a similar fate, for no series throws up 100% exciting and exhilirating races. The last FF race I watched had 12 entries, and the radical series is on the whole a bit drab. As for midget cars, are you talkin the true, US style midget cars? If so, that's grass roots motor sport at its finest. But there we have the problem: as I said, if f1 were to die now the TV companies wouldn't be rushing to replace it with any of the above, or any of the many series out there. Just as we see Premiership games and FA cup ties on the TV and not League One clashes or FA Trophy battles, the 'cream' rises to the top, and that cream is determined by big names, star attractions, and the benefit that sponsors get from exposure. F1 has a star draw - Ferrari - which is a bigger name than anything else in motor sport, and star names - Hamilton, Alonso, Raikkonen, Massa, Button - plus Mercedes Benz, McLaren, Williams, et al. The training ground series don;t have that, and that's why they make no appeal to TV bosses. I agree that watching a Formula Three race, or GP2 even, can be more entertaining than many F1 races, but then the opposite is also true. There is, too, a sorry story in the tale of th much vaunted A1GP series, launched a few years ago to fanfare and such as the 'World Series for Motorsport'; it offered great racing, good drivers, and the added cache of country vs country. It's just about dead now. Why? because the TV companies were'nt interested. A sad fact, but true.

You raise a good point. Unfortunately even if f1 were to vanish entirely the terrestrial tv channels would show no interest in other categoris they don't bring in the viewers. Out of interest what do you want to see?

Toyota's withdrawal has been expected for many months ( I was informed they had opted to leave as long ago as the Monaco weekend) but what is curious is why they have withdrawn. This season has seen a concerted effort by the manufacturer teams and the private entrants to impose a sensible and achievable reduction in costs over the next few seasons; rather than the immediate imposition of a €45million budget cap as proposed by the thankfully deposed Mosley - a scheme that was clearly unworkable in the eyes of the bigger teams - a sliding scale of reductions has been put into place that will see costs reduced, by 2012,to levels not seen since the late 1990's. Toyota, and BMW, (plus Honda) cited the economic downturn as the reason for their exit; while their is little doubt it has had some influence, when on considers the cost of running an F1 team against the reason for doing so - in the case of the manufacturer teams worldwide exposure - the lines become distinctly blurred. Toyota, it is said, operated with a budget of $450million a season last year. more than half of that was secured through sponsorship. It may seem perverse to say it, but $200million a year for a company that spends - annually - in excess of $2billion (thats US billion) on advertising alone is peanuts. The same applies to BMW and, to a greater extent, to Honda, who opted to do without the sponsorship option and, foolishly, funded the entire project themselves. Once Honda was out of the picture it was inevitable that the other Japanese manufacturer would leave; BMW, meanwhile, has never forgiven Mosley for his response to their expression of disgust at his personal orgy antics - he replied, in a public letter, that they should 'not forget what they did in the war'. Renault, meanwhile, is said to be continuing, but I have it on good authority they will sell the team on in the near future, most likely to Prodrive, nd continue as an engine manufacturer. Is F1 F's? No, far from it. Manufacturers come and go, and there are four new teams gearing up for entry next season (three of whom are likely to make it) hence it looks as though F1 will feature a full grid for the first time in many a year. Follow the winter testing, and other stories, at www.updatef1.com, the best independent f1 website in existence, and the only one edited by me!

Well, from what I heard yesterday the news is that part of the new fangled market place is to be turned into an ice rink, as they do in a couple of places in newcastle, for a limited time before Xmas. get your skates out!

Chamone, yare absolutely right in agreeing with Vic's views regarding the political correctness that affects society these days, but that does not mean we can ignore the basic responsibility that each of us has. Give the kids a place to go and the rogue element - those that Jester is on about - would still act as they do, because that's them, that's how they are. When I was a kid there were those we avoided, those who smashed up phone boxes and the like; they didn't do it because they had 'nothing to do' or 'nowhere to go', they did it because they were badly behaved kids. Someone, somewhere, has to take responsibility for that, aned it's not the 'authorities' by giving them a building of their own to smash up, it's the parents. Vic alludes to the removal of power from teachers and police; that's right, but parents still have a responsibility, and an ability, to bring up their kids correctly. Many of my friends have beautifully behaved children of all ages, well brought up and extremely pleasant, and they are not the minority but the majority. Most kids are like that. That's why these 'theories' don't stack up.

What on eart do you mean 'it's not surprising' that they've turned to what is, essentially, disgracefully bad behaviour? It should be very, very surprising, and it shouldn't be happening! What a lackadaisical attitude it is that you consider this to be the fault entirely of others, and not the kids themselves! No, I'm saying that there IS something for them to do! My mates used to come round to my house and play on Scalextric or whatever, or i'd go to there's and do something else. Why has it suddenly come to be an excuse that kids are behaving badly because they haven't got 'somewhere to go'? We didn't have a sports centre, a youth club, a leisure centre or whatever, we made our own fun. the difference was, it wasn;t at someone else's expense! I agree with you regards the do gooders, but again you're shirking the responsibility of both the kids and the parents. Look, these kids who bang on Jester's door and kick his garage in, are they doing it because they have 'nothing else to do'? No, are they !*!@# , they are doing it because a) they choose to, they think its fun and c) they get away with it. Do they go home and tell their parents 'hey dad, mum, I kicked seven shades out of this guys garage door tonight, it was great fun!'? No, they don't, and the vast majority of those parents haven't got a bloody clue that they are doing anything fo the sort. What sort of parent lets (according to Jester) a nine year old kid hang out on the street like that? Has that crossed your mind? What has that to do with 'do gooders' and the like? These kids aren't forced to kick in garages and bang on doors, and then entice the victims with abuse, they CHOOSE to do it. I will say one thing - those that indulge in this sort of behaviour are very much in the minority; this is yet another confirmation of the fact that the reasons you give (and it's not you, there are others) are not justifiable; if it was because they had 'nothing to do' and 'nowhere to go' they would all be at it. They're not, so tell me, where are the rest, the majority?

It always riles me greatly when I read this excuse, time and time again, as a reason for the bad behaviour of idiots. I was brought up in a town where there was absolutely nothing to do when we were young bar ride our bikes and gather with mates for a natter. Did we indulge in the behaviour described by Jester? No, we didn't, because had we done so the local bobby would have found us, given us a bloody great clip around the ear and deliver us to our parents with a full explanation. I'll lay odds that the majority of these kids have a playstation, a computer, whatever, that can give them far more in terms of something 'to do' than anything I had in my youth. It's not an excuse at all. I agree with the bit about the 'do gooders' but maybe in a different way; it's largely the lax attitude of parents who are not held responsible for the beahaviour of their kids. I disagree; call in those favours and give the little !*!@# a fright. We all know it wasn;t Jester, after all.... A story; a friend of mine had been suffering a great deal of torment from someone, no details given here for obvious reasons, and did just this - installed CCTV at home. Said tormentor was caught several times causing bother, vandalism, damage outside of home. Did it help? No, it didn't, because there is still teh need for a positive identification, something not always possible on CCTV, especially in the dark. Don't pay the money for teh CCTV, offer it to some nice people to help.