mjmooney Posted March 28 VT Supporter Share Posted March 28 46 minutes ago, rjw63 said: You mean you didn't go to the local newsagent, hang around for ten minutes til it was quiet, grab some smut from the top shelf... Then get to the counter and the girl takes so long there are five people behind you, you put the mag on the counter and she squeals "Doreeeeeeeeeeeeen, how much is this RAPIER MAGAZINE?" 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted March 28 Share Posted March 28 Quote woods porn A porno magazine that is tucked away in the woods for the next generation of horny teenagers to find. It is known that the members of metal bands Shadows Fall and From Autumn To Ashes are great supporters of this. It's also a fact that the internet is ruining woods porn. https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woods porn 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panto_Villan Posted March 28 Share Posted March 28 (edited) 3 hours ago, VILLAMARV said: *snipped for length* The point I was making that sparked this was that tinker said it was a "lazy headline" and untrue to claim people are living longer than we used to. Life expectancy has only been decreasing for the past five years. It's ridiculous to say people are not living longer in the context of a wider discussion about the growth of inequality, rising asset prices and affordability of pensions which are all trends that take place over decades - during which time life expectancies have risen significantly. You need to measure both things over the same time period; and it seems like you agree with that at least. The data I posted was taken from here, which I assume is drawn from ONS data. The numbers in the previous post were from the ONS website directly, I believe. I wasn't really making an argument about infant mortality beyond the fact it won't have a huge effect on the average life expectancy of the UK because relatively few people die at that age. It's currently at 3.7 per 1000 births. When I say it hasn't got far to fall, I mean it statistically - it's literally not possible to reduce an infant mortality rate of 3.7 per 1000 by more than 3.7, so it's never going to be able to dramatically increase UK life expectancy figure like it can in the developing world. I don't particularly want to get sidetracked by talking about infant mortality beyond the statistical effect, and if you were just using it to illustrate causality then that's fine. However, I don't think it's relevant to the point I was making. Ultimately I don't agree with the premise that you can meaningfully argue people aren't living longer simply because it's possible to cherry pick specific time periods or (very) specific geographic areas where the rule becomes untrue. Obviously it's possible to do it, but when we're talking about national trends like inequality or the affordability of the pension triple lock, I don't see why you wouldn't also discuss life expectancy at a national level? Edited March 28 by Panto_Villan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinker Posted March 28 VT Supporter Share Posted March 28 37 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said: The point I was making that sparked this was that tinker said it was a "lazy headline" and untrue to claim people are living longer than we used to. Life expectancy has only been decreasing for the past five years. It's ridiculous to say people are not living longer in the context of a wider discussion about the growth of inequality, rising asset prices and affordability of pensions which are all trends that take place over decades - during which time life expectancies have risen significantly. You need to measure both things over the same time period; and it seems like you agree with that at least. The data I posted was taken from here, which I assume is drawn from ONS data. The numbers in the previous post were from the ONS website directly, I believe. I wasn't really making an argument about infant mortality beyond the fact it won't have a huge effect on the average life expectancy of the UK because relatively few people die at that age. It's currently at 3.7 per 1000 births. When I say it hasn't got far to fall, I mean it statistically - it's literally not possible to reduce an infant mortality rate of 3.7 per 1000 by more than 3.7, so it's never going to be able to dramatically increase UK life expectancy figure like it can in the developing world. I don't particularly want to get sidetracked by talking about infant mortality beyond the statistical effect, and if you were just using it to illustrate causality then that's fine. However, I don't think it's relevant to the point I was making. Ultimately I don't agree with the premise that you can meaningfully argue people aren't living longer simply because it's possible to cherry pick specific time periods or (very) specific geographic areas where the rule becomes untrue. Obviously it's possible to do it, but when we're talking about national trends like inequality or the affordability of the pension triple lock, I don't see why you wouldn't also discuss life expectancy at a national level? Raising the retirement age would disproportionately affect the areas of society where the age of death hasn't increased. Kick em while their down ay. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted March 28 Share Posted March 28 The old and the young are on the sharp end of the con. Maybe less pointing fingers at each other, in this thread anyway? Spot the blags and who sold them to you? You've got hindsight now, it's much easier. Being in denial only helps them get away with it. Chop chop. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panto_Villan Posted March 28 Share Posted March 28 51 minutes ago, tinker said: Raising the retirement age would disproportionately affect the areas of society where the age of death hasn't increased. Kick em while their down ay. I genuinely don't think there's one place in the UK where the age of death has not increased over the past 20 years though, even taking into account the declines in the past five years. Seriously - can you find even one region? The data is all there on the ONS website. Blackpool has the lowest life expectancy in the UK and the graph below is the change over time. Retirement age increased by 1 year in that period, and life expectancy increased by 1.3 years. It's obviously terrible that life expectancy has fallen over the past five years, but it's still nonsense to say that people aren't living longer if you look at things on any reasonable timescale - even when you're talking about literally the most deprived areas in the country, and including the effect of covid-19 in your figures. (yes, I'm aware age of death and life expectancy aren't literally the same thing, but they're very closely related) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinker Posted March 28 VT Supporter Share Posted March 28 9 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said: I genuinely don't think there's one place in the UK where the age of death has not increased over the past 20 years though, even taking into account the declines in the past five years. Seriously - can you find even one region? The data is all there on the ONS website. Blackpool has the lowest life expectancy in the UK and the graph below is the change over time. Retirement age increased by 1 year in that period, and life expectancy increased by 1.3 years. It's obviously terrible that life expectancy has fallen over the past five years, but it's still nonsense to say that people aren't living longer if you look at things on any reasonable timescale - even when you're talking about literally the most deprived areas in the country, and including the effect of covid-19 in your figures. (yes, I'm aware age of death and life expectancy aren't literally the same thing, but they're very closely related) So the trend over the last 5 years is negative, declining. The age of retirement has increased by 2 years to 67 and will further increase to 68, so that's a 3 year increase in retirement age. The graph below, as posted before illustrates the figures for Birmingham and show no major increase in life expectancy, certainly not 3 years extra. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panto_Villan Posted March 28 Share Posted March 28 5 minutes ago, tinker said: So the trend over the last 5 years is negative, declining. The age of retirement has increased by 2 years to 67 and will further increase to 68, so that's a 3 year increase in retirement age. The graph below, as posted before illustrates the figures for Birmingham and show no major increase in life expectancy, certainly not 3 years extra. Yeah, okay. That’s only 12 years of data but if you’re making the point that anyone born in 2011 (which is when the pension rules came in) has had an unfair time of it then yes, I agree. There’s been a decline in life expectancy and they have to work three years extra, and perhaps even more in future. But if you’re talking about changes to the pension age you also have to bear in mind that the 65 pension age was set in 1948 when average life expectancy was 69, and it has increased a lot since then (in every part of the UK). The retirement age should have increased gradually with the increasing life expectancy, but it didn’t - and now the younger generation have to deal with all the increases at once. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinker Posted March 28 VT Supporter Share Posted March 28 11 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said: Yeah, okay. That’s only 12 years of data but if you’re making the point that anyone born in 2011 (which is when the pension rules came in) has had an unfair time of it then yes, I agree. There’s been a decline in life expectancy and they have to work three years extra, and perhaps even more in future. But if you’re talking about changes to the pension age you also have to bear in mind that the 65 pension age was set in 1948 when average life expectancy was 69, and it has increased a lot since then (in every part of the UK). The retirement age should have increased gradually with the increasing life expectancy, but it didn’t - and now the younger generation have to deal with all the increases at once. Unless the wealthy pay more tax or the pension is means tested or ask today's pensioners to pay national insurance over a certain threshold? There's not one answer to this, especially one that's most unfair to a certain group of tax payers/workers but that's the retric that's been set by certain politicians and areas of society. Fair distribution of wealth is what's required, not bashing those that need state pension the most and at a younger age than most. Tbh if it happens and the pension age is raised again and again the backlash from the younger generation will probably destroy state pensions for good, I wonder who that would please? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panto_Villan Posted March 28 Share Posted March 28 36 minutes ago, tinker said: Unless the wealthy pay more tax or the pension is means tested or ask today's pensioners to pay national insurance over a certain threshold? There's not one answer to this, especially one that's most unfair to a certain group of tax payers/workers but that's the retric that's been set by certain politicians and areas of society. Fair distribution of wealth is what's required, not bashing those that need state pension the most and at a younger age than most. Tbh if it happens and the pension age is raised again and again the backlash from the younger generation will probably destroy state pensions for good, I wonder who that would please? I do think that the next government is going to start taxing wealthy elderly people more heavily. It makes sense practically (because they have lots of money) and also politically, because they're a big bloc of voters who don't vote Labour, whereas previously they've been protected because they're reliable Tory voters. I don't really know what form those tax rises will take. Maybe bringing pensioners into national insurance like you suggest, or perhaps means testing the pension so if your annual income is above say £40k (?) then you don't get the state pension. Maybe something else entirely. But it'll definitely be something. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xela Posted March 28 Share Posted March 28 22 hours ago, mikeyp102 said: Is that what you tell yourself when alone and crying into your mixed grill? Or just thinking how you can save up to get yourself back out to Asia? Tears of joy comrade, tears of pure joy. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 13 hours ago, Xela said: Tears of joy comrade, tears of pure joy. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubbs Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 So my own body decided to cock block me this morning. Literally just about to do the deed and my calf decides to get the most agonising cramp I've ever had. I hate getting old, this never used to happen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted March 30 VT Supporter Share Posted March 30 On 28/03/2024 at 10:45, rjw63 said: WHAT?? You mean you didn't go to the local newsagent, hang around for ten minutes til it was quiet, grab some smut from the top shelf... Then get to the counter and the girl takes so long there are five people behind you, you put the mag on the counter and she squeals "Doreeeeeeeeeeeeen, how much is this RAPIER MAGAZINE?" When the price is oh-so-blatently printed on the cover. Ah the good old days... Why do that when you can explore the bushes in the local park till the inevitable porn stash reveals itself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted March 30 VT Supporter Share Posted March 30 On 28/03/2024 at 11:52, Xann said: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woods porn Yep ^^^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted March 30 VT Supporter Share Posted March 30 54 minutes ago, sidcow said: Why do that when you can explore the bushes in the local park till the inevitable paedo reveals himself? FTFY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted March 30 VT Supporter Share Posted March 30 1 hour ago, mjmooney said: FTFY Occupational hazard of a young teenager in the 80s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 17 hours ago, dubbs said: So my own body decided to cock block me this morning. Literally just about to do the deed and my calf decides to get the most agonising cramp I've ever had. I hate getting old, this never used to happen If you had filmed it you could have called it, Missionary Impossible! There's bound to be a sequal. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xela Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 On 28/03/2024 at 10:45, rjw63 said: WHAT?? You mean you didn't go to the local newsagent, hang around for ten minutes til it was quiet, grab some smut from the top shelf... Then get to the counter and the girl takes so long there are five people behind you, you put the mag on the counter and she squeals "Doreeeeeeeeeeeeen, how much is this RAPIER MAGAZINE?" When the price is oh-so-blatently printed on the cover. Ah the good old days... Reminds me of this thread... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 (edited) Extended my patio today, only 4 600x600 slabs but I think I’m gonna be ruined tomorrow. Good job we’re not going swimming… oh shit Edited March 30 by Genie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts