|
Post by naughtyfox on Oct 24, 2020 7:29:14 GMT
I prefer the notion that if people choose to have children they should be responsible for feeding them. If they can't afford to feed their children they shouldn't have them. If over time people know they can have children without paying for their meals people can just have children on a whim or as a result of a slip, or a mistake. None of these things have any negative consequences, just positive ones. So people will just have random children without any feeling of responsibility and any notion of a society where everyone does their bit is sacrificed in favour of the nationalisation of children.
it is the duty of the poor, the lazy and the ignorant to multiply and the duty of the rich, the hard-working and the ambitious to pay lots of taxes to subsidise the breeding classes. The duty of the rich is to squirrel away Other People's Money into their offshore bank accounts. And laugh about it.
|
|
|
Post by bodger on Oct 24, 2020 11:04:47 GMT
"MPs are to receive an inflation-busting 3.1 per cent pay rise, bringing their basic annual salary to almost £82,000" bodger will tell us that's peanuts. it's not a secure job and most MPs will take the job seriously, work morning, noon and night and travel extensively, away from home and family much of the time.
how do they plan for 5 years plus in service and possibly lose their job through no fault of their own any time the government collapses or decides to go fore a snap election?
there plenty of fat cats in parliament, but the younger and newer members will not often have any such comfort. I do not envy them one iota.
|
|
|
Post by twbm2 on Oct 24, 2020 16:45:27 GMT
Fair point. I know it's unfashionable to wonder how many of the 'poor families' claiming free school meals have the latest iphones throughout the family, a subscription to Sky and visit the local overpriced takeaway on a regular basis. Unfashionable as it might be, it's not an unreasonable thing to wonder. In the mid eighties when I was plod I worked on a very deprived council estate in the North West. Lots of second and third generation full time unemployed with no concept of a work ethic. Majority of them had the biggest latest TV's and VHS Video players. Am I generalising? A bit, maybe, but not by much.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Oct 24, 2020 16:48:25 GMT
Fair point. I know it's unfashionable to wonder how many of the 'poor families' claiming free school meals have the latest iphones throughout the family, a subscription to Sky and visit the local overpriced takeaway on a regular basis. Unfashionable as it might be, it's not an unreasonable thing to wonder. In the mid eighties when I was plod I worked on a very deprived council estate in the North West. Lots of second and third generation full time unemployed with no concept of a work ethic. Majority of them had the biggest latest TV's and VHS Video players. Am I generalising? A bit, maybe, but not by much. Of course you kept impartial and non judgemental?
|
|
|
Post by twbm2 on Oct 24, 2020 16:58:15 GMT
In the mid eighties when I was plod I worked on a very deprived council estate in the North West. Lots of second and third generation full time unemployed with no concept of a work ethic. Majority of them had the biggest latest TV's and VHS Video players. Am I generalising? A bit, maybe, but not by much. Of course you kept impartial and non judgemental? Inasmuch as I made no comments that weren't factual, yes. I dealt with them every day, it was an area with a high crime rate so either as victims or perpetrators. There were a significant number of families where neither they, their parents, or their adult children had been in regular work. The girls in their late teens were particularly depressing to talk to, their aspirations being limited to getting pregnant so they qualified for a house, like their mums or their older sisters had done. A significant number of the households had the equipment to which I referred. Perhaps it's you judging me?
|
|
|
Post by kris on Oct 24, 2020 17:01:27 GMT
Of course you kept impartial and non judgemental? Inasmuch as I made no comments that weren't factual, yes. I dealt with them every day, it was an area with a high crime rate so either as victims or perpetrators. There were a significant number of families where neither they, their parents, or their adult children had been in regular work. The girls in their late teens were particularly depressing to talk to, their aspirations being limited to getting pregnant so they qualified for a house, like their mums or their older sisters had done. A significant number of the households had the equipment to which I referred. Perhaps it's you judging me? I wasn’t in the position of being an officer of the law on the said estate.
|
|
|
Post by twbm2 on Oct 24, 2020 17:21:21 GMT
Inasmuch as I made no comments that weren't factual, yes. I dealt with them every day, it was an area with a high crime rate so either as victims or perpetrators. There were a significant number of families where neither they, their parents, or their adult children had been in regular work. The girls in their late teens were particularly depressing to talk to, their aspirations being limited to getting pregnant so they qualified for a house, like their mums or their older sisters had done. A significant number of the households had the equipment to which I referred. Perhaps it's you judging me? I wasn’t in the position of being an officer of the law on the said estate. Not sure how that affects you feeling you can make assumptions about my attitudes towards the residents then, or now.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Oct 24, 2020 17:24:35 GMT
I wasn’t in the position of being an officer of the law on the said estate. Not sure how that affects you feeling you can make assumptions about my attitudes towards the residents then, or now. I asked a question, your the one making assumptions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2020 17:31:23 GMT
I find it amusing the way this whole work thing is trotted out as being the right way to behave.
It seems pretty obvious that the basic problem with society as a whole is that people spend their time doing work which will inevitably lead to the whole "very rich person" problem.
The welfare state is a funny one as well. Basically a way for people with more than anyone could ever need to take money from the workers to pay those who CBA in order that the CBA class and the workers don't suddenly figure it out and go and break down the doors of the people with more than anyone could ever need..
It's a well set up system but it is fundamentally flawed.
|
|
|
Post by twbm2 on Oct 24, 2020 17:36:41 GMT
Not sure how that affects you feeling you can make assumptions about my attitudes towards the residents then, or now. I asked a question, your the one making assumptions. You posed a clear inference that I was being judgemental, as a question. I responded. Your style of debate since we first engaged on CWDF years ago has always been to twist what has been said if you find yourself being responded to with reasonably presented facts that disprove your contentions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2020 17:42:30 GMT
I bet if it was now it would be the phones.
It has been proven over and over again that people who are on the "breadline" will prioritise things like sky or mobile phone payments over food.
Possibly because they know that a food bank will give you food but it won't give you a top up voucher.
It's just the way it is. Nothing particularly new about the welfare state scam which is designed to protect those that "have" from those that "have not".
Fear based policy is always a winner.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Oct 24, 2020 18:15:59 GMT
Of course you kept impartial and non judgemental? Inasmuch as I made no comments that weren't factual, yes. I dealt with them every day, it was an area with a high crime rate so either as victims or perpetrators. There were a significant number of families where neither they, their parents, or their adult children had been in regular work. The girls in their late teens were particularly depressing to talk to, their aspirations being limited to getting pregnant so they qualified for a house, like their mums or their older sisters had done. A significant number of the households had the equipment to which I referred. Perhaps it's you judging me? I think it's clear that some people who struggle could do better than they do with what they have. The problem is that any discussion around this is effectively banned. If children are hungry the only solution is to give their parents more money, says society. You have to wonder how effective this solution is. Putting the cost to one side, if you give parents who may not be managing their money in the best way i.e. to ensure that their kids are fed more money, where is the guarantee that they will then start to manage their finances in a better way? If they don't, what is the solution, just keep throwing more and more money at them in the hope that eventually some of it may stick? Why is debate around this effectively banned?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2020 18:25:18 GMT
Even worse is the parasites who turn up and strip the money and give the kids shit food.
Gov gives £2.30 per child "per meal taken" for free school meals. That's a lot of money for a mass-produced lunch. I'm not at all surprised celebrities have spotted this potential earner.
It's a fucked system.
|
|