|
|
Post by Pete on Jun 13, 2008 9:23:20 GMT
Or fewer educated staff?! ;D Ha! Perhaps I should have written less-educated - or fewer well-educated ...  Intriguing, though, to find a case where less-educated and fewer educated amount to pretty much the same thing!  |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Jun 13, 2008 10:32:05 GMT
I actually find banks to be nowadays WAY more efficient than ever they were before ... Yes, and I don't recall the GPO as being a model of speediness and efficiency when one wanted a phone installed. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Jun 13, 2008 10:44:07 GMT
The causes of this malaise are rooted in the poor standard of education ... Ah yes, that old chestnut. The chosen few may now have a poorer standard of education (although that's arguable), but the great masses are undoubtedly better educated than they were: historically they were barely educated at all. One may as well argue that the general malaise (if it exists) is caused by better educating the masses; it tends to make them restless. What we need is another world war or two, eh? |
|
|
|
Post by Gabriel-Ernest on Jun 13, 2008 15:17:37 GMT
Paul D,
Yes, and I don't recall the GPO as being a model of speediness and efficiency when one wanted a phone installed.
Come now! You are talking about a state of affairs some quarter of a century ago. It is the usual argument that is trotted out to prove that Thatcher’s privatisations were A Good Thing. Remember, because of competition everything would be cheaper and more efficient? What ever happened to that?
. . . historically they were barely educated at all.
By 'historically' do you mean 'in the past'? How far back should we go? Personally I think the rot set in when non-homeowners were given the vote.
G-E.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Jun 13, 2008 15:46:04 GMT
Well, I never thought I'd be caught out defending M Thatcher. No one of my heroes.
> By 'historically' do you mean 'in the past'? <
I do. The "things are dreadful these days" argument is often trotted out, usually to support some sort of argument about the decline of respect, morals, religion or somesuch. But in large parts of the past things were often rather worse than they are now. Everyone knows there was a golden age when education was excellent, the working classes knew their place, and crime was non-existent because of Dixon of Dock Green -- the trouble is that no-one can agree quite when it was. "When I was about 14" is the usual answer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tone on Jun 13, 2008 20:02:36 GMT
G-E, > Personally I think the rot set in when non-homeowners were given the vote.<Seems that we might well agree on that one!  (And I won't even mention railings -- whoops, I just did.  ) Tone |
|
|
|
Post by Bertie on Jun 13, 2008 23:36:53 GMT
I am sure that ignorance, surliness, rudeness, direspect etc. have always been with us in some form or other. It is just that such anti-social attitudes seem more prevalent, particularly amongst the young. My job brings me into contact with many students, few of whom seem to have any social graces - or abilities - whatsoever.
My original point was more about the decline in a proper work ethic devoted to doing your best by either your employer or the customer. Now it seems to be accepted practice to do the minimum for either.
|
|
)