Sylvester

I'm not quite there yet! Most of my friends are, some will be 21 in september. I was one of the youngest ones in the year.

Well gentlemen i never took an 11+, i went to a local comprehensive school which was a 20 minute walk from my house... 2 minutes from my grandmother's and to be honest it was nicer than the grammar school which was a 20 minute bus ride away. All things taken into consideration a school i could walk to free of charge and a grammar school that cost 20p (later 30p) in bus fare every day i know which i'd pick. As did 99% of my class mates. Only one person i can think of out of my year in the juniors went to a grammar school.

well i voted for the UKIP so hey you know... i would have voted for the Referendum Party too back when that was the euro-sceptic party, but i wasn't voting age back then, alas... I think the party sums up my beliefs clearly, out of Europe. (The Tories are too divided on the issue and are too pro-Europe for my liking, they are alot better than Blair but still too lenient). By out of Europe i mean out of Europe constitutionally, i don't mean all trade links with Europe should be severed, but all attempts the make the UK part of Europe goverment wise should be scrapped. The Tories aren't radical enought on the Europe stance for my liking.

I never took an 11+! what's that all about? Unless it's SATS, cos i did those... (if i remember rightly my year [and another one further down] were the first that had to do them in primary, i was in Year 6 at the time, (fourth year as it was when i was there) don't they do them in Year 5 these days?) I know you do them in Year 9. I dunno why they do all this year stuff, what was wrong with good old 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc? Actually that brings in another point...School was confusing for me... At the Infants it was 1st and 2nd, Juniors i went through 1st, 2nd and half of third... then the new head teacher introduced the year 3,4,5 & 6 designations, but my fourth year teacher refused to use them and as he was the deputy head that everyone was afraid of we reverted to the old system of 1-4 whilst the other classes continued the new. Then came high school and it was Year 7 through to 11. Then came college and i went back to 1st and 2nd again (although my mates that went to a sixth form refer to these as 12 and 13, although why anyone would go to a sixth form is beyond me, i wanted the hell out of school), anyhow the numbers went back to 1st to 3rd with Uni. So i frequently use both systems, just incase i confuse you by talking about 3rd year, i don't mean Y3 in mean Y5!

What would be the point of changing a 1937 one, wrong king for a start! 1935 is the date you are looking for.

Nothing printed on it, but i inherited two of them, both full of nasty predecimal coins (and an 1816 large cent in Fair), by nasty i mean poor, battered, well circulated condition many with verdigris. (No silver either!) One coin bag i don't use cos that was full of the verdigried ones... and i wonder if i put anything else in there will that go green too? The other is fine though, and used to hold my US silver coins, until i got too many for it to hold, so they went in the Silver Jar and the £2 coins got allocated into the bag instead. Looks just like the one in the auction but without anything printed on it.

I got a coin bag a bit like the one in the auction. Nothing nearly as exciting in it. Only £2 coins.

Until we know the diameter i'm more than likely thinking it's an half crown.

Well the local election results for South Yorkshire are in (as they are for most places), Sheffield is still held by the Labour Party, but my local ward has had all three liberal candidates reinstated yet again by miles. All the liberals having well over 2000 votes a piece, labour trailing with just over a 1100 votes each for all three candidates. One Tory with 1000, next the Green party with 900 votes, and the other two Tory candidates trailing way back with 700 votes a piece. In the Barnsley area the Tories were slaughtered with most right wing votes going to the BNP. In turn they themselves were destroyed by the labour votes. Most votes however went to the liberals and the independents. I think Doncaster is now under the liberals, labour has been ousted.

Oh and as far as i'm aware there are no term limits. I think Thatcher got in three times consecutively... 1979, 1983 and 1987... i think they ditched her before the 1992 election. (can't have been 1991 because the maths don't work to 1997) I'm guessing (i dunno where you can find the dates exactly) but i think they held office for 5 years in 1987-1992, then held it for another 5 years till 1997 before calling an election.

Actually Master JMD has got it wrong. Tony Blair was elected in 1997 (the first time) he was re-elected in 2001 (the second in-ings) Next election is May 2005 (or possibly 2006) that's if Blair makes it that far and doesn't get pushed aside as an electoral liability, like the Tories did with Thatcher in 1990/1. A government has to call a general election every 4 or 5 years (although i think that's more out of custom, i don't think there is actually a legal requirement for them to do so?) Looking at the results for the local elections which are slowly coming in. (these figures reported on GMTV) Labour (Blair) had 780+ seats, they have lost over 200. Conservatives (Howard) they had about 600 seats they are now up 101 seats. Liberals had about 200, they've gone up 69. Not all the results are in yet for the locals, Birmingham and Newcastle are the biggest dangers for the Government. Question is, can the Tories grab Birmingham and can the Liberals grab Newcastle? I have a feeling that my local consituency probably has the liberals back in office again, infact i can't remember when they weren't.

well i know where they are... i'll be taking them on Sunday.

i haven't!

the farthing is fine!

I'm looking for them still!

So we've got a Royalist Lefty (moi), a centrist and two right wingers. (Of which i used to be one, but the more in depth i went philosophically the harder it was to maintain a right wing stance, [or a marxist one if you choose to believe that view point] ) But since i think the whole concept of class is socially constructed, people are people, no bourgeosie and no proletariat as far as i'm concerned, and no class struggle because afterall class doesn't really exist, it's in the mind.

At last i've figured out where i stand politically, and no doubt why i disagree with many of you one here... it has taken many tests to get this far, but this works the best... http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html My results show clearly that the previous one we did was correct and yes i'm ashamed to admit it, it does appear as if i'm a lefty. Not socialist and not communist, cos i dispise the idea of making everyone follow suit and act the same, and share the same ideas and beliefs. But Left-Liberal... In a nutshell this is exactly what i want! "Left-Liberals prefer self-government in personal matters and central decision-making on economics. They want government to serve the disadvantaged in the name of fairness. Leftists tolerate social diversity, but work for economic equality." I.e on everything but economic grounds i've tolerant of individual beliefs and minimal government intervention. Economically i want a strong government in control. But add to this a fair hint of traditionalism and a tad of Nationalism (not much, but enough to recognise i'm British and be keen to defend it), and i think that's about it. So which party should i be voting for?

I never said we shouldn't trade with Europe. It's just i think we can cope without being partb of Europe (that is the European Union), just because we might trade with Asia or Africa or the Americas doesn't me we should be politically and constitutionally part of them. Same with Europe.

I don't like any of them... For Europe the UKIP, I want out of Europe altogether. At home it's more tricky, the labour party is not actually a labour party, it is not a socialist party like it should be, if anything it's just inserted itself nicely into the previous Conservative party's place. Which has left the Conservative party pretty much in a mess. The Liberals are... well i'm not really sure what the liberals are to be honest. If they were good old fashioned liberals then i'd be very happy to vote for them. But they are the 'New Liberals', the pro-everything party as far as i can tell. Plus they want the euro, they've made it quite clear that they see having the euro as a way forward to an integrated Europe, in a way you have to commend them for their honesty rather than Blair's we'll pretend the people have a choice but in actual fact... The Conservatives, well i dislike the obsession they have got with lower taxes. Lower taxes means public spending cuts, means less cash into the NHS, = more privatisation and the destruction of the health service amongst other issues. The Tories also seem to favour not taxing the rich as heavily as they should be taxed. (there were some figures somewhere to show that during Thatcher's period the poor overall were paying a higher percentage of their income in tax than the rich people). I think the rich should pay the same percentage, even the Royal Family should pay tax. So in a nutshell, i hate Labour, i disagree with the liberals and the Conservatives are still dominated by new rights such as Lord Tebbit, enough said. But currently the euro thing is the hinge i'm voting on so my vote goes to the Tories, for now. I don't trust what any of the parties say anyhow, the conservatives are liars, labour are liars and so is the liberal party. You can't trust any of em.

i'll enter the 1 1/2d, much better!

This sounds like my entire family here... and most of my mates too! Ha the joy of Lidl, awful chocolate though, terrible, but cheap.

the obverse (side with the king on) will read something like E D W A R D R A N G D N S H Y B + (or E D W A R R A N G D N S H Y B +) Or quite possibly E D W A R E X A N G D N S H Y B + [Or things along the same line) The reverse with the cross and pellets... Should read either C I V I T A S (followed by a mint) or V I L L A followed by a mint (i think it's Villa) The three major mints are... Canterbury = C A N T O R London = L U N D O N (Or L U N D) York = E B O R A C I (Or E V E R I C ) Many many other mints exist, most quite common if it's an Edward I.

I bet it's an Edward I penny... E D V (and all) does it look like this? http://www.omnicoin.com/coin_view.aspx?id=889326

Hmm time taken off work, true. BUT! If everyone is going to funerals then the funeral market would pick up and the funeral directing business would boom, it would reduce the population and thus create (hopefully) a labour shortage, leading to an increase in wages and living standards etc. (if you wanted to look at it from a purely methodical level) Hmm i take your point about landed families and i agree with you to a point. But it would be nice to see Prince Charles get a real job, like a bin man or something! (just kidding, i think travelling around the world to never ending meetings would be tedious, and having to put up with the public spotlight 24/7 would be enough punishment [being a prisoner in your own palace virtually] to warrant that he is doing a real job, one that i certainly wouldn't want) With regards to private companies it would be nice if the companies were totally private, but a government run regulatory body should be set up to keep an eye on their practices (properly i mean, like a governmental policing force to prevent unscrupulous behaviour and price fixing between companies), and that the people had some say in how the regulating body was run. Then there would be less possibility of corruption between the body and the companies. So not total government intervention, but rather minimal government intervention to keep things from falling into inscroupulous practices, but hopefully supply and demand would keep the rest sorted out. With regards to the issue of the euro and related topics, the Pound is good enough, it's worked for us so why change it? as the good old conservative motto goes 'if it ain't broke don't fix it'. I was going to make another point but it escapes me at the minute... Oh erm the the drugs issue, i think the key to solving that is not in keeping it illegal (if they want to try them they'll try it whether it's legal or not, a rise may seem apparent if they did legalise drugs but this would be because it would turn from a covert practice into an overt one). I think a greater education and prevention through educating not only the children but also the parents would be benefitial. Ity's about changing social view points... it can be done they have been changed before, changing it from a "it's cool to take drugs" to a more "it'll ruin your life and it's pointless" attitude. The problem would never be solved either way, illegalisation (suppression method) or via legalisation and education (facing it face to face and asking why? method). But my views (i think, well for today at least), still stand [although i see your point and i agree with it to an extent Oli; about it remaining illegal and all, but i doubt it would work effectively, we've been trying it for long enough, and they say the drug problem is increasing!] At the end of the day i believe on an individual level, if someone wants to do something or believe something, who am i to stop them? As long as they don't harm anyone else in the progress. If they do then they must be punished severely for the greater good of all the other individuals, and as a deterent to others.

They always say you should never start off a politics (or a religion thread for that matter) because it creates more problems than it's worth. But the problem is a big one for me... Many of you seem to have formed political views, by that i mean that you know what you believe and you have reasons for it. Now maybe it's because i'm too open minded for my own good, or maybe it's because i've studied political philosopy, but i find that i haven't got a clue what i believe, politically. (the views stated below change with the weather, sometimes i'm less convicted, some times moreso, plus i can see more than one side of every argument) I've tried to see myself on a left-right lines but it just doesn't work, take this for example, I dislike privatisation immensely, because the businesses are in it for the money and screw the customers (just like my dentist, he's making people have dental work when they really don't need it, like that filling of mine which has given me more problems since, except i wasn't the only one he's done this too), negative about privatisation so that suggests i'm left wing. However, i'm not keen on nationalisation cos i don't trust the government as far as i could throw them, look at the state of the railways the Beeching closures of the 60s, all happened under a nationalised network, and Thatcher's spending cuts (if it had been private and she hadn't held the purse strings it wouldn't have been half as bad), this suggests i'm right wing! (Nationalisation is bad) The idea of sharing property equally is just wrong, but i do think people should have fair opportunities. But it should be awarded on merit, not on family status or on how much money you earn. Everyone should have equal chances, but everyone shouldn't be forced to be equal. (if you follow that line of argument) I.e not Communist... if you work hard enough you can have a bigger bit of land than your neighbour, but you both must have an equal chance of getting the land at the start. I dislike the voting system too, these parties all lie and they all do what they want to do anyhow, ideally it'd be nice if we could run it ourselves, but in practice it wouldn't work. Ancient Athens had about the best system going, less beaurocracy (never could spell that word). Also society needs to have strict morals and codes and severe punishments for those louts and loonies that step out of line. The reintroduction of the death penalty would be a good idea too. All drugs should be legalised, as they were in the Victorian period (this is the reactionary line coming out), people have free choice whether to take them or not and if they reck themselves (as long as they don't harm others) then that is alright. (obviously if it was legalised then the under ground dealers which cause the crime associated with drugs would go out of business if the substances, like opium, were available cheaply over the counter). Obviously smoking and drug taking in public should remain banned (or be banned), but in the privacy of their own home i see no problems, unless it harms others, then the punishments for the good of the others should occur upon those causing the harm. Plus only the idiots would do the drugging anyhow. So politically where does that leave me, left or right? I see contradictory beliefs left right and centre. And for the more well read members think John Stuart Mill. Is it just classic Liberalism in practice?