when was the class system removed?

Tefal said:
Because they arn't all capable of the same things :confused:


An Olympic sprinter is an excellent sprinter but probably wouldn't be a good theoretical physicist, just the Stephen hawking is never going to be a fire-fighter.
Click to expand...

You know quite well what I mean and it is not sprinting or Stephen Hawking. If oyu have to use disability as part of your arguement then it is a shoddy way to go about it.
 
Tefal said:
Because they arn't all capable of the same things :confused:

An Olympic sprinter is an excellent sprinter but probably wouldn't be a good theoretical physicist, just the Stephen hawking is never going to be a fire-fighter.
Click to expand...

That's not the same. We obviously aren't physically and mentally identical. That's not what equality is about. Equality is the fact that people from different backgrounds and walks of life have the same rights as anybody else, and should not be treat any differently.

Don't be so pedantic/literal. When you use the 'equals' sign on a calculator it gives you something that is the same as something else, not something that is something else.
 
mejinks said:
Shoddy construction of what? The boat? Ok, you design something that can ram into a large iceburg using 1920s technology that doesn't sink. There certainly wasn't anything shoddy about the construction of the boat, it was designed to be the most opulent ship afloat.
Click to expand...

Actually that's no problem at all, the steel used wasn't thick enough and buckled under contact with the iceberg. A battleship would likely have survived the same collision easily but that's not actually a fault, it was never designed for that. There were flaws in both the crew's reactions and various other related things but that's about it...
 
simpletom said:
You know quite well what I mean and it is not sprinting or Stephen Hawking. If oyu have to use disability as part of your arguement then it is a shoddy way to go about it.
Click to expand...

So everyone is equal and we'll just ignore the fact everyone is different.
 
cm1179 said:
(watching titanic) women and children first then the richest!
this was less than 100 years ago. what (thankfully) wiped it out?
Click to expand...

Nothing wiped it out. The UK's class system is alive and kicking. You're still ruled by a monarch whose only qualification for the job is that she was born into the right family. You're still ruled by hereditary Lords whose only qualification for the job is that they were born into the right family. You still have aristocrats and landed gentry. In short, you still have a system in which privilege and power is derived from birthright. It's like the Indian caste system, but without the brutality.

As someone has already said, Britain's class system is not based upon wealth and never has been. An Earl can be poor as a church mouse, but he's still an Earl. A footballer can be a millionarie but he's still not an aristocrat. A working class man can gain the trappings of middle class society or marry into the aristocracy, but he's still a working class man. It has nothing to do with how much money and assets you have. It's all about the social group you're born into.
 
mglover070588 said:
If I was on a sinking boat I would want a class system.

Children first.
Then adults.
Then adults who don't work.
Click to expand...

If you are on a passenger ship these days other than a ferry then it is probably a cruise ship so the majority of passengers will be "adults who don't work".
 
Good question.

I reckon you are under 20 or so as you would know what the 80's/90's were like if not, but believe it or not it was "New Labour" that removed it, or certainly put the dampeners on it.

In the 90's almost literally up to 1997 then there was strong working, middle, upper, working-middle, middle-upper etc etc ... classes and it was very powerful. I really don't know how Labour managed it, but they truly catalyzed a class revolution, and all for the better. I would have been middle btw, but the pain of living around the working classes was a lot to bear, not by my doing i should say but by theirs.

The classes were very defined, tradesman got paid a pittance and the working classes didn't think to much of the middles going to university to say the least, a middle class person would never last in the trades even if they wanted too. Groups were a LOT more segregated, the working classes could be a real thorn in the side.

Be very thankful that Labour addressed this, this was a courage thing for them to do and they did exceedingly well.
 
Last edited:
Evangelion said:
Nothing wiped it out. The UK's class system is alive and kicking. You're still ruled by a monarch whose only qualification for the job is that she was born into the right family. You're still ruled by hereditary Lords whose only qualification for the job is that they were born into the right family. You still have aristocrats and landed gentry. In short, you still have a system in which privilege and power is derived from birthright. It's like the Indian caste system, but without the brutality.
Click to expand...

But then again so are you - Australia has the monarchy too, in fact you've got the exact same one that we've got... You're mostly wrong on the Lords though - they're appointed these days. There are a handful of hereditary ones kicking about but that's because they've been chosen to be there rather than having any hereditary right to be there. These days a hereditary peer doesn't have any automatic right to a seat.

Class is hardly a UK thing - in any western style democracy there is a class system of sorts its hardly confined to the UK - plenty of private Schools in the US and Australia etc... if anything the US and Australia are divided even more. There is a far bigger rich/poor divide in the US and both Australia and the US have far greater racial divides. You're probably better off as a chav on a UK council estate than an 'Abbo' in Australia.
 
To answer OP's question (which wasn't actually about the class system at all), the 'Women and Children first' directive is a maritime tradition dating back to HMS Birkenhead. There's no particular law or even guideline that dictates it - the order would have come from the Captain but would have been at his discretion.
So it's never actually been removed and I'd say the 'protect the women and children' male instinct (one of the finer things about most of our gender) is still there and, should there be the need, most good men would send their wives and children to be saved ahead of themselves. Any captain of a ship which had insufficient lifeboats for some reason would very likely give the same order today.

(Also, the women and children first only meant that women and children should get the available seats. If there weren't any children or women around (bearing in mind many of the lifeboats left the Titanic half full) then men should certainly have filled the boats).

Edit - just realised the OP's question was about the class system. Ah well, I found this interesting anyway :)
 
Last edited:
The changes that Labour have made have been truly phenomenal and in such a short space of time, some say it is now too liberal, but i don't agree, we have more freedom now, and yes some abuse that freedom. Before Labour there were some very angry misguided people out there, partly due to the madness of having insane people like Thatcher in charge of our country! She was an egotistical grudge filled maniac like the core of the conservatives tend to be.

So, people who have bad leadership will tend toward class systems to try and make them understand their boundaries better. Bad idea though, push forward and break the barriers, we are all born equal!
 
Last edited:
dante6491 said:
And yet the gap between the richest and poorest has increased over labours time in charge.
Click to expand...

Yet the poor get more free money than ever.
They honestly believe they are hard done to and just want more and more money.
(I am refering to UK only btw, not worldwide).

The gap widens because the scummers who cba to work now have children who are even worse.
 
mglover070588 said:
Yet the poor get more free money than ever.
They honestly believe they are hard done to and just want more and more money.
(I am refering to UK only btw, not worldwide).

The gap widens because the scummers who cba to work now have children who are even worse.
Click to expand...

I was just contesting the point he made about the situation improving under Labour. They obviously haven't improved the situation.
 
rz30 said:
The changes that Labour have made have been truly phenomenal and in such a short space of time, some say it is now too liberal, but i don't agree, we have more freedom now, and yes some abuse that freedom. Before Labour there were some very angry misguided people out there, partly due to the madness of having insane people like Thatcher in charge of our country! She was an egotistical grudge filled maniac like the core of the conservatives tend to be.

So, people who have bad leadership will tend toward class systems to try and make them understand their boundaries better. Bad idea though, push forward and break the barriers, we are all born equal!
Click to expand...

Labour has presided over the rise of the chav - that is what their equality meant. The lack of class now means any scrote in a track suite can abuse those around them and the over stretched paper pushing Police force can't do anything about it.

We need someone like Thatcher to take over from Brown to get this country back on track. She had to do it last time... Oh look our country being brought to its knees by over spending, unions and oil prices.

Go ask Mr Brown where all our gold went! The thieving ******* should be brought up on charges for what he has done to our country first as Chancellor and now as PM!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom