shurlock

Its not just about being poor in an absolute sense - how much or little you have. What's more important to people'd wellbeing and outlook is how they are doing compared to others: how much more or less they have than the person next to them. A might seem comfortable on one measure but struggling on another - and vice-versa. That's why up to a point, you can't get away from inequality whether defined in terms of outcome or opportunity.

Agree with the article - and think the parallels with hooliganism aren't a million miles away, though crowd psychology in each case is manifested in very different ways. Throw in not giving a f**k coz you've got nothing to lose, and its a tinder box.

Enfield

Maybe its Arsene

Suppose that's one way to look at it, though of the 63%, most probably barely break out - as i say only 13% make it to the top quarter (and given earnings/incomes in this country, that's not megariches -maybe £400 a week after direct taxes) and even fewer make it to the top . Im not a socialist -if you're a feckless, idle c**t, you should stay one. But I do believe if you work hard, you should get rewarded. The idea that you have more than a 1 in 3 chance of staying at the bottom -regardless of what you do, just by virtue of where you were born- doesn't strike me as very fair.

Two aren't separate, though - I agree that alot are driven by the buzz pure and simple; but that degree of short-termism, that lack of stake in community or society which means anything goes has to come from somewhere. Why do you think Thatcher pushed right-to-buy for council housing?

Definitely exceptions but that's true with anything. Better to stick with underlying trends- the best evidence is from researchers at the London School of Economics and the Government's National Equality Panel. http://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/dps/case/cr/CASEreport60.pdf Check Chapter 11 Unfortunately they dont have data for recent years (you have to follow one group over a period of time to do so) but they nonetheless find that: * 37% of per cent of men born in 1970, whose parents were in the bottom quarter when they were teenagers, ended up in the bottom quarter of earnings themselves. By contrast, only 13% of males in the poorest quarter made it to the top quarter. Both figures also deteriorated over time. If you happened to be born in the top quarter of incomes group, you had a 45% chance of staying there; and only 13% chance of sliding to the bottom quarter (p.326) *Background also affects your chances of getting a university degree -only 10% of people born in 1979 from the bottom 25% (income) gained a degree by the time they were 23 - contrast that with 44% for the top quarter (p.327). The figures are even starker for getting degrees from the top universities and breaking into the professions. * Britain has less income mobility than Italy, France, Japan, Korea, Germany, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Australia - you name it (p.328 )

Said elsewhere, she's talking s**t. Not helped that she cites other countries that don't have a similar problem with their youth yet those countries don't have huge disparities between rich and poor - they are socialist paradises by comparison. If anything, she provides unintentional support for arguments like Dark Sotonic Mills. Not the brightest bulb for sure.

Get real - the UK is one of the most socially immobile countries in the developed world (a Labour and Conservative thing). In other words, if your parents were at the bottom of the heap, there's a pretty good chance you'll end there be too. Escaping your background through hard work and effort is pretty difficult. And its got more difficult over time.

Agree with the broad sentiment- but AOC didn't do enough for us to deserve that kind of respect (i'm not saying I hope he gets injured). Not true of other formers players whose service has been roundly and wrongly fotgotten. Ultimately I'm indifferent to what AOC does - he'll be given the same respect or disrespect that any other opposition player gets. Even though he was with us since a kid, he played so few competitive games that he never really established a bond with me.

Dare I say it, even on the march back from the Plymouth game, there was some c**t from our lot who was gobbing off and the testing the limits of the OB, confident it would give him free reign. You could just tell he wouldn't have been giving it the big i am if the OB was following different procedures.

She ain't got a clue if she's pointing approvingly to decent and law-abiding Japan which happens to be one of the most homogenous and, dare I say it, egalitarian countries on the planet.

Nothing to do with a liberal world - people getting a buzz from kicking off and getting one over the OB and the feeling of invincibility and unaccountability that comes with being in a crowd. Throw in the fact that the pursuit of risky behaviour is pronounced amongst the youth (that's what the neuroscientists tell us anyway), its not totally surprising or unfamiliar. Whether you're a small-state Tory who believes in the mythic liberties of the Englishman or a bleeding heart, wrap'em in cotton wool Liberal, there has always been an aversion to using force. But once the OB blinked, lost its credibility and showed that it was there for the taking, the writing was on the wall. As far as environment is concerned, it would be naive to say that it doesn't matter -of course, it does- but people ultimately have choices.

Wouldn't say its a "black thing" like 1981 - much more mixed this time. Also depends which part of London you're looking at.

Where's 'arry (brown) when you need him: "you failed to maintain your weapon, son" Thankfully my patch of north london hasn't been touched yet

http://twitter.com/#!/samnickerson

Sam Nickerson "Mate's uncle works up at Staplewood".

Not kidding - that's just the impression I got being in a different part of the ground (FWIW, upper block 4 where my ST is seems deathly quiet whenever I sit elsewhere for cup games). I do maintain, though, the Northam seems more subdued than it used to be.

And i thought it was only tottenham that had been looted.

http://www.arsenal.com/news/news-archive/arsenal-sign-oxlade-chamberlain

Meanwhile Guardian quoting £5m+£5m http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/aug/08/alex-oxlade-chamberlain-arsenal

Daily Mail reporting £12m and £3m but not the first time the paper has just recycled somebody else's news and they've been consistently wrong on this story. Only need to wait for the oracle that is the mirror now... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2023840/Alex-Oxlade-Chamberlain-signs-Arsenal.html

Quite a catty statement, esp the last line. Like to know what is meant by club record. A huge discrepancy between the £15m (12m+3m) cited by our lot and the £12m (£5+£7m) mentioned by some goons.

Presumably, lots of them are as sub.

Am in Block 4 - and Leeds were good value. The Northam gave virtually nothing - has seemed like that for a few months now.