FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Labour confusion
Labour confusion
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
 | |||
"Last week the Labour Party told us all that the nation has a huge crisis, where millions of children go with out a meals and are literally starving because of the Conservative Government. Today they say the same number are obese due to fats sugar and Tv advertising, all caused by the inadequate Conservatives. My question is do labour have any idea what they are saying on a day to basis " In short, No, Labour haven't got a clue what they are talking about. | |||
"Last week the Labour Party told us all that the nation has a huge crisis, where millions of children go with out a meals and are literally starving because of the Conservative Government. Today they say the same number are obese due to fats sugar and Tv advertising, all caused by the inadequate Conservatives. My question is do labour have any idea what they are saying on a day to basis " They don't want to admit that the starving people are those who prioritise their addicitions over food purchases and people with shite lives like to eat comfort food (i.e. high fat / sugar). Anything is more popular than telling people to actually take personal responsibility and deal with the underlying causes of problems. People with perpetual problems are also a reliable source of votes as long as you make minimal progress to help them rather than get them out of the shit. | |||
"i'd say they're exactly like you in the same respect " lol | |||
"Last week the Labour Party told us all that the nation has a huge crisis, where millions of children go with out a meals and are literally starving because of the Conservative Government. Today they say the same number are obese due to fats sugar and Tv advertising, all caused by the inadequate Conservatives. My question is do labour have any idea what they are saying on a day to basis They don't want to admit that the starving people are those who prioritise their addicitions over food purchases and people with shite lives like to eat comfort food (i.e. high fat / sugar). Anything is more popular than telling people to actually take personal responsibility and deal with the underlying causes of problems. People with perpetual problems are also a reliable source of votes as long as you make minimal progress to help them rather than get them out of the shit. " Is that like giving a hand out rather than a hand up, a bit like saying you know what love buying that 52" TV from bright house on 300% interest is not the brightest of moves, why don't you buy an ALDI special for £40 instead | |||
| |||
"Last week the Labour Party told us all that the nation has a huge crisis, where millions of children go with out a meals and are literally starving because of the Conservative Government. Today they say the same number are obese due to fats sugar and Tv advertising, all caused by the inadequate Conservatives. My question is do labour have any idea what they are saying on a day to basis They don't want to admit that the starving people are those who prioritise their addicitions over food purchases and people with shite lives like to eat comfort food (i.e. high fat / sugar). Anything is more popular than telling people to actually take personal responsibility and deal with the underlying causes of problems. People with perpetual problems are also a reliable source of votes as long as you make minimal progress to help them rather than get them out of the shit. Is that like giving a hand out rather than a hand up, a bit like saying you know what love buying that 52" TV from bright house on 300% interest is not the brightest of moves, why don't you buy an ALDI special for £40 instead" In short because when you have a shite life you turn to short term pleasures because there is no reason to believe the future will have more please than the present. Ergo they have no ability and or incentive to delay gratification. Their behaviour is actually frighteningly rational if you look at it from their point of view. | |||
"Last week the Labour Party told us all that the nation has a huge crisis, where millions of children go with out a meals and are literally starving because of the Conservative Government. Today they say the same number are obese due to fats sugar and Tv advertising, all caused by the inadequate Conservatives. My question is do labour have any idea what they are saying on a day to basis " More trolling bollocks! | |||
"Last week the Labour Party told us all that the nation has a huge crisis, where millions of children go with out a meals and are literally starving because of the Conservative Government. Today they say the same number are obese due to fats sugar and Tv advertising, all caused by the inadequate Conservatives. My question is do labour have any idea what they are saying on a day to basis They don't want to admit that the starving people are those who prioritise their addicitions over food purchases and people with shite lives like to eat comfort food (i.e. high fat / sugar). Anything is more popular than telling people to actually take personal responsibility and deal with the underlying causes of problems. People with perpetual problems are also a reliable source of votes as long as you make minimal progress to help them rather than get them out of the shit. Is that like giving a hand out rather than a hand up, a bit like saying you know what love buying that 52" TV from bright house on 300% interest is not the brightest of moves, why don't you buy an ALDI special for £40 instead In short because when you have a shite life you turn to short term pleasures because there is no reason to believe the future will have more please than the present. Ergo they have no ability and or incentive to delay gratification. Their behaviour is actually frighteningly rational if you look at it from their point of view. " Why when you travel through the social housing estates are there so many eggs on legs, if they have had their benefits to below a subsistence level | |||
| |||
"We should tax sugar and fat and subsidize fruit and veg. "Let's be honest fruit and veg are not expensive items | |||
"Last week the Labour Party told us all that the nation has a huge crisis, where millions of children go with out a meals and are literally starving because of the Conservative Government. Today they say the same number are obese due to fats sugar and Tv advertising, all caused by the inadequate Conservatives. My question is do labour have any idea what they are saying on a day to basis More trolling bollocks! " Little johnny's mother was sure his teacher must have it in for him when he was turned down for the school debating team | |||
"Last week the Labour Party told us all that the nation has a huge crisis, where millions of children go with out a meals and are literally starving because of the Conservative Government. Today they say the same number are obese due to fats sugar and Tv advertising, all caused by the inadequate Conservatives. My question is do labour have any idea what they are saying on a day to basis More trolling bollocks! Little johnny's mother was sure his teacher must have it in for him when he was turned down for the school debating team " Lol | |||
"Last week the Labour Party told us all that the nation has a huge crisis, where millions of children go with out a meals and are literally starving because of the Conservative Government. Today they say the same number are obese due to fats sugar and Tv advertising, all caused by the inadequate Conservatives. My question is do labour have any idea what they are saying on a day to basis They don't want to admit that the starving people are those who prioritise their addicitions over food purchases and people with shite lives like to eat comfort food (i.e. high fat / sugar). Anything is more popular than telling people to actually take personal responsibility and deal with the underlying causes of problems. People with perpetual problems are also a reliable source of votes as long as you make minimal progress to help them rather than get them out of the shit. Is that like giving a hand out rather than a hand up, a bit like saying you know what love buying that 52" TV from bright house on 300% interest is not the brightest of moves, why don't you buy an ALDI special for £40 instead In short because when you have a shite life you turn to short term pleasures because there is no reason to believe the future will have more please than the present. Ergo they have no ability and or incentive to delay gratification. Their behaviour is actually frighteningly rational if you look at it from their point of view. Why when you travel through the social housing estates are there so many eggs on legs, if they have had their benefits to below a subsistence level" In a high wage economy the main reason birthrates are low is because education is expensive and without education your kids won't get high paying jobs. If you have zero ambition for your children and an underlying desire to be loved by something then it's rational to have lots of kids. | |||
"Last week the Labour Party told us all that the nation has a huge crisis, where millions of children go with out a meals and are literally starving because of the Conservative Government. Today they say the same number are obese due to fats sugar and Tv advertising, all caused by the inadequate Conservatives. My question is do labour have any idea what they are saying on a day to basis " A little bit like Theresa May who denies professionals like nurses and teachers use food banks. Massive denial about the state the country is in and the working poor. It's the 'I'm alright Jack' attitude. | |||
"Last week the Labour Party told us all that the nation has a huge crisis, where millions of children go with out a meals and are literally starving because of the Conservative Government. Today they say the same number are obese due to fats sugar and Tv advertising, all caused by the inadequate Conservatives. My question is do labour have any idea what they are saying on a day to basis A little bit like Theresa May who denies professionals like nurses and teachers use food banks. Massive denial about the state the country is in and the working poor. It's the 'I'm alright Jack' attitude. " If people with minimum wage jobs can feed themselves then it does seem odd that people with above minimum wage jobs couldn't. I do think nurses and soldiers are the two most chronically underpaid groups, but not to starvation levels. | |||
"Last week the Labour Party told us all that the nation has a huge crisis, where millions of children go with out a meals and are literally starving because of the Conservative Government. Today they say the same number are obese due to fats sugar and Tv advertising, all caused by the inadequate Conservatives. My question is do labour have any idea what they are saying on a day to basis A little bit like Theresa May who denies professionals like nurses and teachers use food banks. Massive denial about the state the country is in and the working poor. It's the 'I'm alright Jack' attitude. " I know plenty of teachers and non of them use a food bacnk People might choose to use a food bank for many different reasons, but I doubt that if you actually drill down on the persons life that you could actually make a direct link to the Theresa May | |||
"Last week the Labour Party told us all that the nation has a huge crisis, where millions of children go with out a meals and are literally starving because of the Conservative Government. Today they say the same number are obese due to fats sugar and Tv advertising, all caused by the inadequate Conservatives. My question is do labour have any idea what they are saying on a day to basis They don't want to admit that the starving people are those who prioritise their addicitions over food purchases and people with shite lives like to eat comfort food (i.e. high fat / sugar). Anything is more popular than telling people to actually take personal responsibility and deal with the underlying causes of problems. People with perpetual problems are also a reliable source of votes as long as you make minimal progress to help them rather than get them out of the shit. Is that like giving a hand out rather than a hand up, a bit like saying you know what love buying that 52" TV from bright house on 300% interest is not the brightest of moves, why don't you buy an ALDI special for £40 instead In short because when you have a shite life you turn to short term pleasures because there is no reason to believe the future will have more please than the present. Ergo they have no ability and or incentive to delay gratification. Their behaviour is actually frighteningly rational if you look at it from their point of view. " Thats why in North Korea they eat their desert first. | |||
"Last week the Labour Party told us all that the nation has a huge crisis, where millions of children go with out a meals and are literally starving because of the Conservative Government. Today they say the same number are obese due to fats sugar and Tv advertising, all caused by the inadequate Conservatives. My question is do labour have any idea what they are saying on a day to basis A little bit like Theresa May who denies professionals like nurses and teachers use food banks. Massive denial about the state the country is in and the working poor. It's the 'I'm alright Jack' attitude. I know plenty of teachers and non of them use a food bacnk People might choose to use a food bank for many different reasons, but I doubt that if you actually drill down on the persons life that you could actually make a direct link to the Theresa May" You know plenty of teachers? Now you’re going to tell us you work in education!  | |||
"Last week the Labour Party told us all that the nation has a huge crisis, where millions of children go with out a meals and are literally starving because of the Conservative Government. Today they say the same number are obese due to fats sugar and Tv advertising, all caused by the inadequate Conservatives. My question is do labour have any idea what they are saying on a day to basis A little bit like Theresa May who denies professionals like nurses and teachers use food banks. Massive denial about the state the country is in and the working poor. It's the 'I'm alright Jack' attitude. I know plenty of teachers and non of them use a food bacnk People might choose to use a food bank for many different reasons, but I doubt that if you actually drill down on the persons life that you could actually make a direct link to the Theresa May You know plenty of teachers? Now you’re going to tell us you work in education! "Wel, or daughter in law doesn't use food bank, or does she not qualify as a year 2 teacher My friend who works in special needs in schooling for 18 years doesn't use them and neither do her family who also teach | |||
| |||
"Last week the Labour Party told us all that the nation has a huge crisis, where millions of children go with out a meals and are literally starving because of the Conservative Government. Today they say the same number are obese due to fats sugar and Tv advertising, all caused by the inadequate Conservatives. My question is do labour have any idea what they are saying on a day to basis " Ah right, thanks for clearing that up for us. Labour have no idea what is going on and it is right and proper for the bottom 70% to loose 10% of their wealth so the top 100 families can double theirs. Those at the top are there by right, nothing to do with being born into privilege and the untermensch need to know their place and be respectful of their betters. After all it is impossible for there to be a link between sloth, greed, and obesity at one end of a scale and poverty, deprivation and malnourishment at the other end of the scale. OP, it is clear from your posts where your loyalties lie and nothing I or anyone will say will change alter your political views. But mark my words, while you are busy lining your own pockets and helping to take everything from those less privileged than you, those with real privilege see you as nothing more than another in the queue to be stripped of everything and returned to penury when your turn comes and it is not that far away. | |||
"Last week the Labour Party told us all that the nation has a huge crisis, where millions of children go with out a meals and are literally starving because of the Conservative Government. Today they say the same number are obese due to fats sugar and Tv advertising, all caused by the inadequate Conservatives. My question is do labour have any idea what they are saying on a day to basis Ah right, thanks for clearing that up for us. Labour have no idea what is going on and it is right and proper for the bottom 70% to loose 10% of their wealth so the top 100 families can double theirs. Those at the top are there by right, nothing to do with being born into privilege and the untermensch need to know their place and be respectful of their betters. After all it is impossible for there to be a link between sloth, greed, and obesity at one end of a scale and poverty, deprivation and malnourishment at the other end of the scale. OP, it is clear from your posts where your loyalties lie and nothing I or anyone will say will change alter your political views. But mark my words, while you are busy lining your own pockets and helping to take everything from those less privileged than you, those with real privilege see you as nothing more than another in the queue to be stripped of everything and returned to penury when your turn comes and it is not that far away. " Put him in the gulag eh comrade | |||
"Last week the Labour Party told us all that the nation has a huge crisis, where millions of children go with out a meals and are literally starving because of the Conservative Government. Today they say the same number are obese due to fats sugar and Tv advertising, all caused by the inadequate Conservatives. My question is do labour have any idea what they are saying on a day to basis A little bit like Theresa May who denies professionals like nurses and teachers use food banks. Massive denial about the state the country is in and the working poor. It's the 'I'm alright Jack' attitude. I know plenty of teachers and non of them use a food bacnk People might choose to use a food bank for many different reasons, but I doubt that if you actually drill down on the persons life that you could actually make a direct link to the Theresa May You know plenty of teachers? Now you’re going to tell us you work in education!
Wel, or daughter in law doesn't use food bank, or does she not qualify as a year 2 teacher
My friend who works in special needs in schooling for 18 years doesn't use them and neither do her family who also teach
"This is hardly plenty. Food bank vouchers are given out by agencies for those who need .... lots of people here in denial with our venerable PM then. Blaming the victims or just denying they exist? | |||
"Last week the Labour Party told us all that the nation has a huge crisis, where millions of children go with out a meals and are literally starving because of the Conservative Government. Today they say the same number are obese due to fats sugar and Tv advertising, all caused by the inadequate Conservatives. My question is do labour have any idea what they are saying on a day to basis Ah right, thanks for clearing that up for us. Labour have no idea what is going on and it is right and proper for the bottom 70% to loose 10% of their wealth so the top 100 families can double theirs. Those at the top are there by right, nothing to do with being born into privilege and the untermensch need to know their place and be respectful of their betters. After all it is impossible for there to be a link between sloth, greed, and obesity at one end of a scale and poverty, deprivation and malnourishment at the other end of the scale. OP, it is clear from your posts where your loyalties lie and nothing I or anyone will say will change alter your political views. But mark my words, while you are busy lining your own pockets and helping to take everything from those less privileged than you, those with real privilege see you as nothing more than another in the queue to be stripped of everything and returned to penury when your turn comes and it is not that far away. " The ten richest people in the world are; bill gates, amancia ortega, warren buffett, jeff bezos, charles koch, david koch, carlos slim, mark zuckerberg, larry ellison and ingvar kamprad. How many of them were born billionaires and associated with sloth? | |||
"Last week the Labour Party told us all that the nation has a huge crisis, where millions of children go with out a meals and are literally starving because of the Conservative Government. Today they say the same number are obese due to fats sugar and Tv advertising, all caused by the inadequate Conservatives. My question is do labour have any idea what they are saying on a day to basis Ah right, thanks for clearing that up for us. Labour have no idea what is going on and it is right and proper for the bottom 70% to loose 10% of their wealth so the top 100 families can double theirs. Those at the top are there by right, nothing to do with being born into privilege and the untermensch need to know their place and be respectful of their betters. After all it is impossible for there to be a link between sloth, greed, and obesity at one end of a scale and poverty, deprivation and malnourishment at the other end of the scale. OP, it is clear from your posts where your loyalties lie and nothing I or anyone will say will change alter your political views. But mark my words, while you are busy lining your own pockets and helping to take everything from those less privileged than you, those with real privilege see you as nothing more than another in the queue to be stripped of everything and returned to penury when your turn comes and it is not that far away. The ten richest people in the world are; bill gates, amancia ortega, warren buffett, jeff bezos, charles koch, david koch, carlos slim, mark zuckerberg, larry ellison and ingvar kamprad. How many of them were born billionaires and associated with sloth? " Its not how you made it.Its what you do with it once you make billions.I admire many billionaires not all. | |||
"Last week the Labour Party told us all that the nation has a huge crisis, where millions of children go with out a meals and are literally starving because of the Conservative Government. Today they say the same number are obese due to fats sugar and Tv advertising, all caused by the inadequate Conservatives. My question is do labour have any idea what they are saying on a day to basis Ah right, thanks for clearing that up for us. Labour have no idea what is going on and it is right and proper for the bottom 70% to loose 10% of their wealth so the top 100 families can double theirs. Those at the top are there by right, nothing to do with being born into privilege and the untermensch need to know their place and be respectful of their betters. After all it is impossible for there to be a link between sloth, greed, and obesity at one end of a scale and poverty, deprivation and malnourishment at the other end of the scale. OP, it is clear from your posts where your loyalties lie and nothing I or anyone will say will change alter your political views. But mark my words, while you are busy lining your own pockets and helping to take everything from those less privileged than you, those with real privilege see you as nothing more than another in the queue to be stripped of everything and returned to penury when your turn comes and it is not that far away. " Luckily I'm lying on my premier inn bed whilst having the luxury of working away from home for another 4 nights. I'm not wealthy but neither am I poor I don't begrudge those who have been fortunate enough to generate a lot of wealth for themselves and their families I know many people who by comparison are extremely wealthy in comparison to me, my father in law being one of them Most of them do a huge amount to help others who are less fortunate than themselves. As do I As for privilege as grew up piss poor as did my friends and family who have made a good living for themselves Bloody hell my father in law grew up in a house of 7 and shared a bed with 4 others, so I'm guessing he is amazingly lucky to have come from such a privileged back ground But back to lying on my bed, now that was a bit of luck, because if I had been stood up I would have fell over with laughter at your statement. Good luck for the future, it might get bumpy as it has so often done, but determination good health and a will to succeed should get you through it | |||
"Last week the Labour Party told us all that the nation has a huge crisis, where millions of children go with out a meals and are literally starving because of the Conservative Government. Today they say the same number are obese due to fats sugar and Tv advertising, all caused by the inadequate Conservatives. My question is do labour have any idea what they are saying on a day to basis Ah right, thanks for clearing that up for us. Labour have no idea what is going on and it is right and proper for the bottom 70% to loose 10% of their wealth so the top 100 families can double theirs. Those at the top are there by right, nothing to do with being born into privilege and the untermensch need to know their place and be respectful of their betters. After all it is impossible for there to be a link between sloth, greed, and obesity at one end of a scale and poverty, deprivation and malnourishment at the other end of the scale. OP, it is clear from your posts where your loyalties lie and nothing I or anyone will say will change alter your political views. But mark my words, while you are busy lining your own pockets and helping to take everything from those less privileged than you, those with real privilege see you as nothing more than another in the queue to be stripped of everything and returned to penury when your turn comes and it is not that far away. Put him in the gulag eh comrade" Please sir I'm just a poor conservative, please forgive for believing that I can dream and hope for a better future for all Please forgive me for working hard so my family can have a good life free from oppression and fear. For only having the children I could afford to rear and care for in a responsible manner. Please forgive me working since I was old enough to hold a shovel, and for knocking on doors as a kid offering to menial jobs in peopl S gardens Please forgive me having 2 paper rounds as my mum was to poor to by me a bike so I bought my own. Please forgive me caring for those who are in need of assistance, for I comrade am the worse kind of human | |||
"The ten richest people in the world are; bill gates, amancia ortega, warren buffett, jeff bezos, charles koch, david koch, carlos slim, mark zuckerberg, larry ellison and ingvar kamprad. How many of them were born billionaires and associated with sloth? " Going through your 10... Bill Gates, senior IBM programmer who produced the first fatally flawed version of DOS for IBM. Then convinced IBM to give him the intellectual rights to DOS which he then fixed and added the windows front page user interface to. So, Bill Gate, arguably a successful criminal. Koch brothers... Born into wealth, father invented the thermal cracking process and property of Koch industries used in every oil refinery in the world. Koch industries have gained a reputation for corruption since the brothers took over. So again arguably successful criminals. Mark Zuckerberg. Accused of staling much of the ideas and intellectual property of his student roommates that were used to make facebook while in Harvard. So again, arguably a successful criminal. There seems to be a bit of a recurring theme. I have not read anything much about the others on your list except I do know that Warren Buffett did say the global financial risis was poetic justice and asked why he only paid 20% tax on his annual income of millions while his employees paid 33% on 10's of thousands and how anyone could consider that right. | |||
"The ten richest people in the world are; bill gates, amancia ortega, warren buffett, jeff bezos, charles koch, david koch, carlos slim, mark zuckerberg, larry ellison and ingvar kamprad. How many of them were born billionaires and associated with sloth? Going through your 10... Bill Gates, senior IBM programmer who produced the first fatally flawed version of DOS for IBM. Then convinced IBM to give him the intellectual rights to DOS which he then fixed and added the windows front page user interface to. So, Bill Gate, arguably a successful criminal. Koch brothers... Born into wealth, father invented the thermal cracking process and property of Koch industries used in every oil refinery in the world. Koch industries have gained a reputation for corruption since the brothers took over. So again arguably successful criminals. Mark Zuckerberg. Accused of staling much of the ideas and intellectual property of his student roommates that were used to make facebook while in Harvard. So again, arguably a successful criminal. There seems to be a bit of a recurring theme. I have not read anything much about the others on your list except I do know that Warren Buffett did say the global financial risis was poetic justice and asked why he only paid 20% tax on his annual income of millions while his employees paid 33% on 10's of thousands and how anyone could consider that right." See i know you to be a quite intelligent person but sometimes you are blinded by ideological nonsense. You don't get to go around deciding who is a criminal and who isn't, we have standards for that already and none of your examples meet them. It's very common for people to make up frivolous law suites against successful people, especially in America. You can't steal an idea, there's no such concept and Warren Buffett has frequently argued for higher taxes on the rich, he just won't pay them unilaterally. It seems that you just want to smear people who have been successful which does a disservice to some of your better points. I'll ask you the same question i ask often on here because people on the left tend not to grasp it's implications even if they know the answer - what is the root cause of real increases in the national wealth of an economy? | |||
"See i know you to be a quite intelligent person but sometimes you are blinded by ideological nonsense. You don't get to go around deciding who is a criminal and who isn't, we have standards for that already and none of your examples meet them. It's very common for people to make up frivolous law suites against successful people, especially in America. You can't steal an idea, there's no such concept and Warren Buffett has frequently argued for higher taxes on the rich, he just won't pay them unilaterally. It seems that you just want to smear people who have been successful which does a disservice to some of your better points. I'll ask you the same question i ask often on here because people on the left tend not to grasp it's implications even if they know the answer - what is the root cause of real increases in the national wealth of an economy? " I'll first answer your question, then I'll address your points to my post. Increase in national wealth is achieved only in one way, by increasing economic activity by adding value to products. There are 3 ways of adding value to products, firstly by extraction or production of raw materials, second by transformation of raw materials into finished goods and thirdly by transportation of either raw materials or finished from markets of surplus to markets of shortage. There are a number of ways of inflating measures of economic activity that we in the UK have become very adapt at, we call them 'financial services' but in reality they do not increase economic activity but reduce it. My reply to your comments about my last post are simple. I said 'arguably' and 'successful criminals'. Successful criminals don't get convicted, that is essentially the definition of being a successful criminal. The majority of those who control the majority of the property and wealth of the world have arrived in their places of privilege by the most dubious of means, some the acts have been by their forebears or ancestors, some by the individuals themselves. But regardless of the method of gaining wealth the simple fact is by hoarding wealth economic activity is restricted and growth is reduced or reversed. I am not against aspiration, I am not even against greed (it is a fantastic motivator), I am against unregulated avarice, and I believe we have entered an era of unregulated avarice and the cost is going to be more than the majority will be able to afford. | |||
"See i know you to be a quite intelligent person but sometimes you are blinded by ideological nonsense. You don't get to go around deciding who is a criminal and who isn't, we have standards for that already and none of your examples meet them. It's very common for people to make up frivolous law suites against successful people, especially in America. You can't steal an idea, there's no such concept and Warren Buffett has frequently argued for higher taxes on the rich, he just won't pay them unilaterally. It seems that you just want to smear people who have been successful which does a disservice to some of your better points. I'll ask you the same question i ask often on here because people on the left tend not to grasp it's implications even if they know the answer - what is the root cause of real increases in the national wealth of an economy? I'll first answer your question, then I'll address your points to my post. Increase in national wealth is achieved only in one way, by increasing economic activity by adding value to products. There are 3 ways of adding value to products, firstly by extraction or production of raw materials, second by transformation of raw materials into finished goods and thirdly by transportation of either raw materials or finished from markets of surplus to markets of shortage. There are a number of ways of inflating measures of economic activity that we in the UK have become very adapt at, we call them 'financial services' but in reality they do not increase economic activity but reduce it. My reply to your comments about my last post are simple. I said 'arguably' and 'successful criminals'. Successful criminals don't get convicted, that is essentially the definition of being a successful criminal. The majority of those who control the majority of the property and wealth of the world have arrived in their places of privilege by the most dubious of means, some the acts have been by their forebears or ancestors, some by the individuals themselves. But regardless of the method of gaining wealth the simple fact is by hoarding wealth economic activity is restricted and growth is reduced or reversed. I am not against aspiration, I am not even against greed (it is a fantastic motivator), I am against unregulated avarice, and I believe we have entered an era of unregulated avarice and the cost is going to be more than the majority will be able to afford." There we go, sensible season is back. Now your point about hoarding wealth is very important because it's not well understood but using terms like sloth and greed just alientates what you are saying from the people that need to understand it. The real problem with too much wealth at 'the top' is not is not that they don't deserve it or they didn't earn it, it's that it potentially can destroy capitalism by preventing money from going to where it can best enable growth. But then the people i cited have given away billions and billions voluntarily so greed is really the wrong term to apply to a man who has given away $28bn that he personally earned. I didn't 100% agree with your root cause answer but it was good enough, productivity is the magic word i was looking for. Since adding value to same quantity of goods and services each year doesn't create growth. You need to create more goods and services using the same or less inputs. The ten people i named have contributed more to that goal than any government, trade union or german philosopher could even dream of. With the possible exception of Mark Zuckerberg. | |||
"See i know you to be a quite intelligent person but sometimes you are blinded by ideological nonsense. You don't get to go around deciding who is a criminal and who isn't, we have standards for that already and none of your examples meet them. It's very common for people to make up frivolous law suites against successful people, especially in America. You can't steal an idea, there's no such concept and Warren Buffett has frequently argued for higher taxes on the rich, he just won't pay them unilaterally. It seems that you just want to smear people who have been successful which does a disservice to some of your better points. I'll ask you the same question i ask often on here because people on the left tend not to grasp it's implications even if they know the answer - what is the root cause of real increases in the national wealth of an economy? I'll first answer your question, then I'll address your points to my post. Increase in national wealth is achieved only in one way, by increasing economic activity by adding value to products. There are 3 ways of adding value to products, firstly by extraction or production of raw materials, second by transformation of raw materials into finished goods and thirdly by transportation of either raw materials or finished from markets of surplus to markets of shortage. There are a number of ways of inflating measures of economic activity that we in the UK have become very adapt at, we call them 'financial services' but in reality they do not increase economic activity but reduce it. My reply to your comments about my last post are simple. I said 'arguably' and 'successful criminals'. Successful criminals don't get convicted, that is essentially the definition of being a successful criminal. The majority of those who control the majority of the property and wealth of the world have arrived in their places of privilege by the most dubious of means, some the acts have been by their forebears or ancestors, some by the individuals themselves. But regardless of the method of gaining wealth the simple fact is by hoarding wealth economic activity is restricted and growth is reduced or reversed. I am not against aspiration, I am not even against greed (it is a fantastic motivator), I am against unregulated avarice, and I believe we have entered an era of unregulated avarice and the cost is going to be more than the majority will be able to afford. There we go, sensible season is back. Now your point about hoarding wealth is very important because it's not well understood but using terms like sloth and greed just alientates what you are saying from the people that need to understand it. The real problem with too much wealth at 'the top' is not is not that they don't deserve it or they didn't earn it, it's that it potentially can destroy capitalism by preventing money from going to where it can best enable growth. But then the people i cited have given away billions and billions voluntarily so greed is really the wrong term to apply to a man who has given away $28bn that he personally earned. I didn't 100% agree with your root cause answer but it was good enough, productivity is the magic word i was looking for. Since adding value to same quantity of goods and services each year doesn't create growth. You need to create more goods and services using the same or less inputs. The ten people i named have contributed more to that goal than any government, trade union or german philosopher could even dream of. With the possible exception of Mark Zuckerberg. " It must be said your reasoning and views certainly make a lot of sense | |||
"See i know you to be a quite intelligent person but sometimes you are blinded by ideological nonsense. You don't get to go around deciding who is a criminal and who isn't, we have standards for that already and none of your examples meet them. It's very common for people to make up frivolous law suites against successful people, especially in America. You can't steal an idea, there's no such concept and Warren Buffett has frequently argued for higher taxes on the rich, he just won't pay them unilaterally. It seems that you just want to smear people who have been successful which does a disservice to some of your better points. I'll ask you the same question i ask often on here because people on the left tend not to grasp it's implications even if they know the answer - what is the root cause of real increases in the national wealth of an economy? I'll first answer your question, then I'll address your points to my post. Increase in national wealth is achieved only in one way, by increasing economic activity by adding value to products. There are 3 ways of adding value to products, firstly by extraction or production of raw materials, second by transformation of raw materials into finished goods and thirdly by transportation of either raw materials or finished from markets of surplus to markets of shortage. There are a number of ways of inflating measures of economic activity that we in the UK have become very adapt at, we call them 'financial services' but in reality they do not increase economic activity but reduce it. My reply to your comments about my last post are simple. I said 'arguably' and 'successful criminals'. Successful criminals don't get convicted, that is essentially the definition of being a successful criminal. The majority of those who control the majority of the property and wealth of the world have arrived in their places of privilege by the most dubious of means, some the acts have been by their forebears or ancestors, some by the individuals themselves. But regardless of the method of gaining wealth the simple fact is by hoarding wealth economic activity is restricted and growth is reduced or reversed. I am not against aspiration, I am not even against greed (it is a fantastic motivator), I am against unregulated avarice, and I believe we have entered an era of unregulated avarice and the cost is going to be more than the majority will be able to afford." You said earlier that I will have my wealth stripped from me by the greedy elite, can you tell me when this will happen so that I can plan for it | |||
"See i know you to be a quite intelligent person but sometimes you are blinded by ideological nonsense. You don't get to go around deciding who is a criminal and who isn't, we have standards for that already and none of your examples meet them. It's very common for people to make up frivolous law suites against successful people, especially in America. You can't steal an idea, there's no such concept and Warren Buffett has frequently argued for higher taxes on the rich, he just won't pay them unilaterally. It seems that you just want to smear people who have been successful which does a disservice to some of your better points. I'll ask you the same question i ask often on here because people on the left tend not to grasp it's implications even if they know the answer - what is the root cause of real increases in the national wealth of an economy? I'll first answer your question, then I'll address your points to my post. Increase in national wealth is achieved only in one way, by increasing economic activity by adding value to products. There are 3 ways of adding value to products, firstly by extraction or production of raw materials, second by transformation of raw materials into finished goods and thirdly by transportation of either raw materials or finished from markets of surplus to markets of shortage. There are a number of ways of inflating measures of economic activity that we in the UK have become very adapt at, we call them 'financial services' but in reality they do not increase economic activity but reduce it. My reply to your comments about my last post are simple. I said 'arguably' and 'successful criminals'. Successful criminals don't get convicted, that is essentially the definition of being a successful criminal. The majority of those who control the majority of the property and wealth of the world have arrived in their places of privilege by the most dubious of means, some the acts have been by their forebears or ancestors, some by the individuals themselves. But regardless of the method of gaining wealth the simple fact is by hoarding wealth economic activity is restricted and growth is reduced or reversed. I am not against aspiration, I am not even against greed (it is a fantastic motivator), I am against unregulated avarice, and I believe we have entered an era of unregulated avarice and the cost is going to be more than the majority will be able to afford. There we go, sensible season is back. Now your point about hoarding wealth is very important because it's not well understood but using terms like sloth and greed just alientates what you are saying from the people that need to understand it. The real problem with too much wealth at 'the top' is not is not that they don't deserve it or they didn't earn it, it's that it potentially can destroy capitalism by preventing money from going to where it can best enable growth. But then the people i cited have given away billions and billions voluntarily so greed is really the wrong term to apply to a man who has given away $28bn that he personally earned. I didn't 100% agree with your root cause answer but it was good enough, productivity is the magic word i was looking for. Since adding value to same quantity of goods and services each year doesn't create growth. You need to create more goods and services using the same or less inputs. The ten people i named have contributed more to that goal than any government, trade union or german philosopher could even dream of. With the possible exception of Mark Zuckerberg. It must be said your reasoning and views certainly make a lot of sense " I'm more confortable with debate than compliments | |||
"See i know you to be a quite intelligent person but sometimes you are blinded by ideological nonsense. You don't get to go around deciding who is a criminal and who isn't, we have standards for that already and none of your examples meet them. It's very common for people to make up frivolous law suites against successful people, especially in America. You can't steal an idea, there's no such concept and Warren Buffett has frequently argued for higher taxes on the rich, he just won't pay them unilaterally. It seems that you just want to smear people who have been successful which does a disservice to some of your better points. I'll ask you the same question i ask often on here because people on the left tend not to grasp it's implications even if they know the answer - what is the root cause of real increases in the national wealth of an economy? I'll first answer your question, then I'll address your points to my post. Increase in national wealth is achieved only in one way, by increasing economic activity by adding value to products. There are 3 ways of adding value to products, firstly by extraction or production of raw materials, second by transformation of raw materials into finished goods and thirdly by transportation of either raw materials or finished from markets of surplus to markets of shortage. There are a number of ways of inflating measures of economic activity that we in the UK have become very adapt at, we call them 'financial services' but in reality they do not increase economic activity but reduce it. My reply to your comments about my last post are simple. I said 'arguably' and 'successful criminals'. Successful criminals don't get convicted, that is essentially the definition of being a successful criminal. The majority of those who control the majority of the property and wealth of the world have arrived in their places of privilege by the most dubious of means, some the acts have been by their forebears or ancestors, some by the individuals themselves. But regardless of the method of gaining wealth the simple fact is by hoarding wealth economic activity is restricted and growth is reduced or reversed. I am not against aspiration, I am not even against greed (it is a fantastic motivator), I am against unregulated avarice, and I believe we have entered an era of unregulated avarice and the cost is going to be more than the majority will be able to afford. There we go, sensible season is back. Now your point about hoarding wealth is very important because it's not well understood but using terms like sloth and greed just alientates what you are saying from the people that need to understand it. The real problem with too much wealth at 'the top' is not is not that they don't deserve it or they didn't earn it, it's that it potentially can destroy capitalism by preventing money from going to where it can best enable growth. But then the people i cited have given away billions and billions voluntarily so greed is really the wrong term to apply to a man who has given away $28bn that he personally earned. I didn't 100% agree with your root cause answer but it was good enough, productivity is the magic word i was looking for. Since adding value to same quantity of goods and services each year doesn't create growth. You need to create more goods and services using the same or less inputs. The ten people i named have contributed more to that goal than any government, trade union or german philosopher could even dream of. With the possible exception of Mark Zuckerberg. It must be said your reasoning and views certainly make a lot of sense
I'm more confortable with debate than compliments"RIP and PIP Reprimand in private Praise in public It's nice to pay a compliment or 2 Far better to give a pressie than to receive | |||
"You said earlier that I will have my wealth stripped from me by the greedy elite, can you tell me when this will happen so that I can plan for it" Your in the middle of the largest upward redistribution of wealth in history and you are so well conditioned that not only do you refuse to see what is all around you, you are actually actively supporting and campaigning for more of the same. By the way, exactly what do you think the global financial crisis of 2007 was? Or the housing bubble and negative equity of the late 80's leading to the repossession scandal of the 90's (repeated in 2008). Or maybe you haven't heard of austerity or made the link between all these financial crisis's and their economic reality? | |||
"You said earlier that I will have my wealth stripped from me by the greedy elite, can you tell me when this will happen so that I can plan for it Your in the middle of the largest upward redistribution of wealth in history and you are so well conditioned that not only do you refuse to see what is all around you, you are actually actively supporting and campaigning for more of the same. By the way, exactly what do you think the global financial crisis of 2007 was? Or the housing bubble and negative equity of the late 80's leading to the repossession scandal of the 90's (repeated in 2008). Or maybe you haven't heard of austerity or made the link between all these financial crisis's and their economic reality?" I've never lived have I, gifted individual I mean loosing my job 3 years ago and giving to find a new source of income, what ever was I thinking Seeking work 250 miles away from home in the 90's I've seen the bubbles experienced the consequences, but what I do is dust myself off and get on with it. Or Else would have do what seem think is the easier option, sit there and moan about how unfair life is. | |||
"Last week the Labour Party told us all that the nation has a huge crisis, where millions of children go with out a meals and are literally starving because of the Conservative Government. Today they say the same number are obese due to fats sugar and Tv advertising, all caused by the inadequate Conservatives. My question is do labour have any idea what they are saying on a day to basis They don't want to admit that the starving people are those who prioritise their addicitions over food purchases and people with shite lives like to eat comfort food (i.e. high fat / sugar). " What utter bs. Processed foods (high in sugar/fat) are cheaper. | |||
| |||
"Last week the Labour Party told us all that the nation has a huge crisis, where millions of children go with out a meals and are literally starving because of the Conservative Government. Today they say the same number are obese due to fats sugar and Tv advertising, all caused by the inadequate Conservatives. My question is do labour have any idea what they are saying on a day to basis They don't want to admit that the starving people are those who prioritise their addicitions over food purchases and people with shite lives like to eat comfort food (i.e. high fat / sugar). Anything is more popular than telling people to actually take personal responsibility and deal with the underlying causes of problems. People with perpetual problems are also a reliable source of votes as long as you make minimal progress to help them rather than get them out of the shit. Is that like giving a hand out rather than a hand up, a bit like saying you know what love buying that 52" TV from bright house on 300% interest is not the brightest of moves, why don't you buy an ALDI special for £40 instead In short because when you have a shite life you turn to short term pleasures because there is no reason to believe the future will have more please than the present. Ergo they have no ability and or incentive to delay gratification. Their behaviour is actually frighteningly rational if you look at it from their point of view. Why when you travel through the social housing estates are there so many eggs on legs, if they have had their benefits to below a subsistence level" Are you for real? Do you think that everybody in social housing is on benefits? | |||
"Last week the Labour Party told us all that the nation has a huge crisis, where millions of children go with out a meals and are literally starving because of the Conservative Government. Today they say the same number are obese due to fats sugar and Tv advertising, all caused by the inadequate Conservatives. My question is do labour have any idea what they are saying on a day to basis They don't want to admit that the starving people are those who prioritise their addicitions over food purchases and people with shite lives like to eat comfort food (i.e. high fat / sugar). What utter bs. Processed foods (high in sugar/fat) are cheaper." ALDI avocados 49p each Apples 79p a bag Bananas 1.19 Charlotte potatoes 79p a kg Butternut squash 79p Yeah real food is proper expensive Trouble is most of the fat idle sit at home mums are too bone idle to get off their fat benefit funded ass to actually cook a decent meal. I mean it would them actually coming of face book and doing something useful | |||
"Last week the Labour Party told us all that the nation has a huge crisis, where millions of children go with out a meals and are literally starving because of the Conservative Government. Today they say the same number are obese due to fats sugar and Tv advertising, all caused by the inadequate Conservatives. My question is do labour have any idea what they are saying on a day to basis They don't want to admit that the starving people are those who prioritise their addicitions over food purchases and people with shite lives like to eat comfort food (i.e. high fat / sugar). Anything is more popular than telling people to actually take personal responsibility and deal with the underlying causes of problems. People with perpetual problems are also a reliable source of votes as long as you make minimal progress to help them rather than get them out of the shit. Is that like giving a hand out rather than a hand up, a bit like saying you know what love buying that 52" TV from bright house on 300% interest is not the brightest of moves, why don't you buy an ALDI special for £40 instead In short because when you have a shite life you turn to short term pleasures because there is no reason to believe the future will have more please than the present. Ergo they have no ability and or incentive to delay gratification. Their behaviour is actually frighteningly rational if you look at it from their point of view. Why when you travel through the social housing estates are there so many eggs on legs, if they have had their benefits to below a subsistence level Are you for real? Do you think that everybody in social housing is on benefits?" I no I don't but too many of them are and having always been benefit sucking scroats | |||
"cheaper than what?" Cheaper than sources of proteins. | |||
"Last week the Labour Party told us all that the nation has a huge crisis, where millions of children go with out a meals and are literally starving because of the Conservative Government. Today they say the same number are obese due to fats sugar and Tv advertising, all caused by the inadequate Conservatives. My question is do labour have any idea what they are saying on a day to basis They don't want to admit that the starving people are those who prioritise their addicitions over food purchases and people with shite lives like to eat comfort food (i.e. high fat / sugar). Anything is more popular than telling people to actually take personal responsibility and deal with the underlying causes of problems. People with perpetual problems are also a reliable source of votes as long as you make minimal progress to help them rather than get them out of the shit. " | |||
"cheaper than what? Cheaper than sources of proteins." that doesn't make sense | |||
"Last week the Labour Party told us all that the nation has a huge crisis, where millions of children go with out a meals and are literally starving because of the Conservative Government. Today they say the same number are obese due to fats sugar and Tv advertising, all caused by the inadequate Conservatives. My question is do labour have any idea what they are saying on a day to basis They don't want to admit that the starving people are those who prioritise their addicitions over food purchases and people with shite lives like to eat comfort food (i.e. high fat / sugar). What utter bs. Processed foods (high in sugar/fat) are cheaper. ALDI avocados 49p each Apples 79p a bag Bananas 1.19 Charlotte potatoes 79p a kg Butternut squash 79p Yeah real food is proper expensive Trouble is most of the fat idle sit at home mums are too bone idle to get off their fat benefit funded ass to actually cook a decent meal. I mean it would them actually coming of face book and doing something useful " Proteins are essential for good health, funny you have only mentioned fruit and veg. Aldi isn't in every town and village so access to these cheaper stores begets transport costs. | |||
"cheaper than what? Cheaper than sources of proteins." ALDI 12 eggs 79p cheaper than chip shop chips Turkey mince low in fat high in protein mix with a tin of tomatoes and a few onions chuck in some seasoning less than a £ per head 2egg omelette bit of cheese on top some chorizo and onions about 40p per head | |||
"Last week the Labour Party told us all that the nation has a huge crisis, where millions of children go with out a meals and are literally starving because of the Conservative Government. Today they say the same number are obese due to fats sugar and Tv advertising, all caused by the inadequate Conservatives. My question is do labour have any idea what they are saying on a day to basis They don't want to admit that the starving people are those who prioritise their addicitions over food purchases and people with shite lives like to eat comfort food (i.e. high fat / sugar). Anything is more popular than telling people to actually take personal responsibility and deal with the underlying causes of problems. People with perpetual problems are also a reliable source of votes as long as you make minimal progress to help them rather than get them out of the shit. Is that like giving a hand out rather than a hand up, a bit like saying you know what love buying that 52" TV from bright house on 300% interest is not the brightest of moves, why don't you buy an ALDI special for £40 instead In short because when you have a shite life you turn to short term pleasures because there is no reason to believe the future will have more please than the present. Ergo they have no ability and or incentive to delay gratification. Their behaviour is actually frighteningly rational if you look at it from their point of view. Why when you travel through the social housing estates are there so many eggs on legs, if they have had their benefits to below a subsistence level Are you for real? Do you think that everybody in social housing is on benefits? I no I don't but too many of them are and having always been benefit sucking scroats" Aren't you just the nicest human being. As for always have been on benefits - errmmm yeah right. I grew up in social housing. My parents and neighbours all worked damn hard. | |||
"Last week the Labour Party told us all that the nation has a huge crisis, where millions of children go with out a meals and are literally starving because of the Conservative Government. Today they say the same number are obese due to fats sugar and Tv advertising, all caused by the inadequate Conservatives. My question is do labour have any idea what they are saying on a day to basis They don't want to admit that the starving people are those who prioritise their addicitions over food purchases and people with shite lives like to eat comfort food (i.e. high fat / sugar). What utter bs. Processed foods (high in sugar/fat) are cheaper. ALDI avocados 49p each Apples 79p a bag Bananas 1.19 Charlotte potatoes 79p a kg Butternut squash 79p Yeah real food is proper expensive Trouble is most of the fat idle sit at home mums are too bone idle to get off their fat benefit funded ass to actually cook a decent meal. I mean it would them actually coming of face book and doing something useful Proteins are essential for good health, funny you have only mentioned fruit and veg. Aldi isn't in every town and village so access to these cheaper stores begets transport costs." Go to Lidl try the co op Visit sainsbury PM on Tuesday fresh meat half price | |||
"Last week the Labour Party told us all that the nation has a huge crisis, where millions of children go with out a meals and are literally starving because of the Conservative Government. Today they say the same number are obese due to fats sugar and Tv advertising, all caused by the inadequate Conservatives. My question is do labour have any idea what they are saying on a day to basis They don't want to admit that the starving people are those who prioritise their addicitions over food purchases and people with shite lives like to eat comfort food (i.e. high fat / sugar). What utter bs. Processed foods (high in sugar/fat) are cheaper. ALDI avocados 49p each Apples 79p a bag Bananas 1.19 Charlotte potatoes 79p a kg Butternut squash 79p Yeah real food is proper expensive Trouble is most of the fat idle sit at home mums are too bone idle to get off their fat benefit funded ass to actually cook a decent meal. I mean it would them actually coming of face book and doing something useful Proteins are essential for good health, funny you have only mentioned fruit and veg. Aldi isn't in every town and village so access to these cheaper stores begets transport costs." Processed foods have very little protein in them, protein is made up of ammino acids, poor quality meat has less ammino acids to start with and then the processing destroys whats left. In terms of healthy diet, where there is a will there is a way. | |||
"Last week the Labour Party told us all that the nation has a huge crisis, where millions of children go with out a meals and are literally starving because of the Conservative Government. Today they say the same number are obese due to fats sugar and Tv advertising, all caused by the inadequate Conservatives. My question is do labour have any idea what they are saying on a day to basis A little bit like Theresa May who denies professionals like nurses and teachers use food banks. Massive denial about the state the country is in and the working poor. It's the 'I'm alright Jack' attitude. I know plenty of teachers and non of them use a food bacnk People might choose to use a food bank for many different reasons, but I doubt that if you actually drill down on the persons life that you could actually make a direct link to the Theresa May You know plenty of teachers? Now you’re going to tell us you work in education!
Wel, or daughter in law doesn't use food bank, or does she not qualify as a year 2 teacher
My friend who works in special needs in schooling for 18 years doesn't use them and neither do her family who also teach
This is hardly plenty. Food bank vouchers are given out by agencies for those who need .... lots of people here in denial with our venerable PM then. Blaming the victims or just denying they exist?"And of course people who attend food banks love to tell all their friends and family about it!  | |||
"Last week the Labour Party told us all that the nation has a huge crisis, where millions of children go with out a meals and are literally starving because of the Conservative Government. Today they say the same number are obese due to fats sugar and Tv advertising, all caused by the inadequate Conservatives. My question is do labour have any idea what they are saying on a day to basis They don't want to admit that the starving people are those who prioritise their addicitions over food purchases and people with shite lives like to eat comfort food (i.e. high fat / sugar). Anything is more popular than telling people to actually take personal responsibility and deal with the underlying causes of problems. People with perpetual problems are also a reliable source of votes as long as you make minimal progress to help them rather than get them out of the shit. Is that like giving a hand out rather than a hand up, a bit like saying you know what love buying that 52" TV from bright house on 300% interest is not the brightest of moves, why don't you buy an ALDI special for £40 instead In short because when you have a shite life you turn to short term pleasures because there is no reason to believe the future will have more please than the present. Ergo they have no ability and or incentive to delay gratification. Their behaviour is actually frighteningly rational if you look at it from their point of view. Why when you travel through the social housing estates are there so many eggs on legs, if they have had their benefits to below a subsistence level Are you for real? Do you think that everybody in social housing is on benefits? I no I don't but too many of them are and having always been benefit sucking scroats Aren't you just the nicest human being. As for always have been on benefits - errmmm yeah right. I grew up in social housing. My parents and neighbours all worked damn hard." Thanks. So what did you think of those who didn't work at all and could have worked. I'm guessing you really thought that's fair | |||
"cheaper than what? Cheaper than sources of proteins. that doesn't make sense" Processed foods are cheaper than cuts of meat, lumps of cheese, nuts, vegetarian alternatives. | |||
"Last week the Labour Party told us all that the nation has a huge crisis, where millions of children go with out a meals and are literally starving because of the Conservative Government. Today they say the same number are obese due to fats sugar and Tv advertising, all caused by the inadequate Conservatives. My question is do labour have any idea what they are saying on a day to basis A little bit like Theresa May who denies professionals like nurses and teachers use food banks. Massive denial about the state the country is in and the working poor. It's the 'I'm alright Jack' attitude. I know plenty of teachers and non of them use a food bacnk People might choose to use a food bank for many different reasons, but I doubt that if you actually drill down on the persons life that you could actually make a direct link to the Theresa May You know plenty of teachers? Now you’re going to tell us you work in education!
Wel, or daughter in law doesn't use food bank, or does she not qualify as a year 2 teacher
My friend who works in special needs in schooling for 18 years doesn't use them and neither do her family who also teach
This is hardly plenty. Food bank vouchers are given out by agencies for those who need .... lots of people here in denial with our venerable PM then. Blaming the victims or just denying they exist?
And of course people who attend food banks love to tell all their friends and family about it! "Don't tell me your an expert in food banks and the attendence rates and user profile as well. | |||
"cheaper than what? Cheaper than sources of proteins. that doesn't make sense Processed foods are cheaper than cuts of meat, lumps of cheese, nuts, vegetarian alternatives." Utter crap.. so how are the people who you say live far from the high street and supermarkets like ALDI getting cheap processed food in the village store and buying it from the farm gate | |||
"Last week the Labour Party told us all that the nation has a huge crisis, where millions of children go with out a meals and are literally starving because of the Conservative Government. Today they say the same number are obese due to fats sugar and Tv advertising, all caused by the inadequate Conservatives. My question is do labour have any idea what they are saying on a day to basis They don't want to admit that the starving people are those who prioritise their addicitions over food purchases and people with shite lives like to eat comfort food (i.e. high fat / sugar). Anything is more popular than telling people to actually take personal responsibility and deal with the underlying causes of problems. People with perpetual problems are also a reliable source of votes as long as you make minimal progress to help them rather than get them out of the shit. Is that like giving a hand out rather than a hand up, a bit like saying you know what love buying that 52" TV from bright house on 300% interest is not the brightest of moves, why don't you buy an ALDI special for £40 instead In short because when you have a shite life you turn to short term pleasures because there is no reason to believe the future will have more please than the present. Ergo they have no ability and or incentive to delay gratification. Their behaviour is actually frighteningly rational if you look at it from their point of view. Why when you travel through the social housing estates are there so many eggs on legs, if they have had their benefits to below a subsistence level Are you for real? Do you think that everybody in social housing is on benefits? I no I don't but too many of them are and having always been benefit sucking scroats Aren't you just the nicest human being. As for always have been on benefits - errmmm yeah right. I grew up in social housing. My parents and neighbours all worked damn hard. Thanks. So what did you think of those who didn't work at all and could have worked. I'm guessing you really thought that's fair " I cannot recall ever knowing anyone in the street who didn't work. Life was a struggle and you kept your nose out of other people's business simply because you were occupied with your own struggles. You may look down your nose at those less fortunate than yourself but don't expect everyone else to! | |||
"Last week the Labour Party told us all that the nation has a huge crisis, where millions of children go with out a meals and are literally starving because of the Conservative Government. Today they say the same number are obese due to fats sugar and Tv advertising, all caused by the inadequate Conservatives. My question is do labour have any idea what they are saying on a day to basis They don't want to admit that the starving people are those who prioritise their addicitions over food purchases and people with shite lives like to eat comfort food (i.e. high fat / sugar). What utter bs. Processed foods (high in sugar/fat) are cheaper. ALDI avocados 49p each Apples 79p a bag Bananas 1.19 Charlotte potatoes 79p a kg Butternut squash 79p Yeah real food is proper expensive Trouble is most of the fat idle sit at home mums are too bone idle to get off their fat benefit funded ass to actually cook a decent meal. I mean it would them actually coming of face book and doing something useful Proteins are essential for good health, funny you have only mentioned fruit and veg. Aldi isn't in every town and village so access to these cheaper stores begets transport costs. Processed foods have very little protein in them, protein is made up of ammino acids, poor quality meat has less ammino acids to start with and then the processing destroys whats left. In terms of healthy diet, where there is a will there is a way. " This is an interesting one. Data this year from the Institute of Economic Affairs found that healthy foods actually tend to be cheaper than unhealthy ones. However a YouGov survey earlier this year found that 70% of households think the opposite is true. So maybe it's a perception thing. In all honesty we never had much growing up but we did have healthy meals. However I do think it's a bit cynical to assume most people are lazy. I think in a lot of cases people just need a few more life skills. | |||
"Last week the Labour Party told us all that the nation has a huge crisis, where millions of children go with out a meals and are literally starving because of the Conservative Government. Today they say the same number are obese due to fats sugar and Tv advertising, all caused by the inadequate Conservatives. My question is do labour have any idea what they are saying on a day to basis They don't want to admit that the starving people are those who prioritise their addicitions over food purchases and people with shite lives like to eat comfort food (i.e. high fat / sugar). Anything is more popular than telling people to actually take personal responsibility and deal with the underlying causes of problems. People with perpetual problems are also a reliable source of votes as long as you make minimal progress to help them rather than get them out of the shit. Is that like giving a hand out rather than a hand up, a bit like saying you know what love buying that 52" TV from bright house on 300% interest is not the brightest of moves, why don't you buy an ALDI special for £40 instead In short because when you have a shite life you turn to short term pleasures because there is no reason to believe the future will have more please than the present. Ergo they have no ability and or incentive to delay gratification. Their behaviour is actually frighteningly rational if you look at it from their point of view. Why when you travel through the social housing estates are there so many eggs on legs, if they have had their benefits to below a subsistence level Are you for real? Do you think that everybody in social housing is on benefits? I no I don't but too many of them are and having always been benefit sucking scroats Aren't you just the nicest human being. As for always have been on benefits - errmmm yeah right. I grew up in social housing. My parents and neighbours all worked damn hard." In the past he has described people like you as "scum" and the other day he started up a thread about how people on benefits should be forcibly sterilised. He's lovely isn't he. | |||
"This is an interesting one. Data this year from the Institute of Economic Affairs found that healthy foods actually tend to be cheaper than unhealthy ones. However a YouGov survey earlier this year found that 70% of households think the opposite is true. So maybe it's a perception thing. In all honesty we never had much growing up but we did have healthy meals. However I do think it's a bit cynical to assume most people are lazy. I think in a lot of cases people just need a few more life skills." this | |||
"cheaper than what? Cheaper than sources of proteins. that doesn't make sense Processed foods are cheaper than cuts of meat, lumps of cheese, nuts, vegetarian alternatives. Utter crap.. so how are the people who you say live far from the high street and supermarkets like ALDI getting cheap processed food in the village store and buying it from the farm gate" Evidence why it is crap? I have to drive 10 miles to Aldi. I find it cheaper than the co-op. | |||
"Last week the Labour Party told us all that the nation has a huge crisis, where millions of children go with out a meals and are literally starving because of the Conservative Government. Today they say the same number are obese due to fats sugar and Tv advertising, all caused by the inadequate Conservatives. My question is do labour have any idea what they are saying on a day to basis A little bit like Theresa May who denies professionals like nurses and teachers use food banks. Massive denial about the state the country is in and the working poor. It's the 'I'm alright Jack' attitude. I know plenty of teachers and non of them use a food bacnk People might choose to use a food bank for many different reasons, but I doubt that if you actually drill down on the persons life that you could actually make a direct link to the Theresa May You know plenty of teachers? Now you’re going to tell us you work in education!
Wel, or daughter in law doesn't use food bank, or does she not qualify as a year 2 teacher
My friend who works in special needs in schooling for 18 years doesn't use them and neither do her family who also teach
This is hardly plenty. Food bank vouchers are given out by agencies for those who need .... lots of people here in denial with our venerable PM then. Blaming the victims or just denying they exist?
And of course people who attend food banks love to tell all their friends and family about it!
Don't tell me your an expert in food banks and the attendence rates and user profile as well."I do know a bit about foodbanks as it happens. | |||
"You said earlier that I will have my wealth stripped from me by the greedy elite, can you tell me when this will happen so that I can plan for it Your in the middle of the largest upward redistribution of wealth in history and you are so well conditioned that not only do you refuse to see what is all around you, you are actually actively supporting and campaigning for more of the same. By the way, exactly what do you think the global financial crisis of 2007 was? Or the housing bubble and negative equity of the late 80's leading to the repossession scandal of the 90's (repeated in 2008). Or maybe you haven't heard of austerity or made the link between all these financial crisis's and their economic reality?" Do you suppose that billionaires are really strongly motivated to become even bigger billionaires? Would you disagree with Adam Smith's analysis that the two greatest drives in society are the desire for money and the desire for glory? | |||
"Last week the Labour Party told us all that the nation has a huge crisis, where millions of children go with out a meals and are literally starving because of the Conservative Government. Today they say the same number are obese due to fats sugar and Tv advertising, all caused by the inadequate Conservatives. My question is do labour have any idea what they are saying on a day to basis A little bit like Theresa May who denies professionals like nurses and teachers use food banks. Massive denial about the state the country is in and the working poor. It's the 'I'm alright Jack' attitude. I know plenty of teachers and non of them use a food bacnk People might choose to use a food bank for many different reasons, but I doubt that if you actually drill down on the persons life that you could actually make a direct link to the Theresa May You know plenty of teachers? Now you’re going to tell us you work in education!
Wel, or daughter in law doesn't use food bank, or does she not qualify as a year 2 teacher
My friend who works in special needs in schooling for 18 years doesn't use them and neither do her family who also teach
This is hardly plenty. Food bank vouchers are given out by agencies for those who need .... lots of people here in denial with our venerable PM then. Blaming the victims or just denying they exist?
And of course people who attend food banks love to tell all their friends and family about it!
Don't tell me your an expert in food banks and the attendence rates and user profile as well.
I do know a bit about foodbanks as it happens. "What's your best moving line, do mind home brands | |||
"cheaper than what? Cheaper than sources of proteins. that doesn't make sense Processed foods are cheaper than cuts of meat, lumps of cheese, nuts, vegetarian alternatives. Utter crap.. so how are the people who you say live far from the high street and supermarkets like ALDI getting cheap processed food in the village store and buying it from the farm gate Evidence why it is crap? I have to drive 10 miles to Aldi. I find it cheaper than the co-op." 10 miles isn't far, it's about 5 miles at least each for us to any major supermarket | |||
"Last week the Labour Party told us all that the nation has a huge crisis, where millions of children go with out a meals and are literally starving because of the Conservative Government. Today they say the same number are obese due to fats sugar and Tv advertising, all caused by the inadequate Conservatives. My question is do labour have any idea what they are saying on a day to basis A little bit like Theresa May who denies professionals like nurses and teachers use food banks. Massive denial about the state the country is in and the working poor. It's the 'I'm alright Jack' attitude. I know plenty of teachers and non of them use a food bacnk People might choose to use a food bank for many different reasons, but I doubt that if you actually drill down on the persons life that you could actually make a direct link to the Theresa May You know plenty of teachers? Now you’re going to tell us you work in education!
Wel, or daughter in law doesn't use food bank, or does she not qualify as a year 2 teacher
My friend who works in special needs in schooling for 18 years doesn't use them and neither do her family who also teach
This is hardly plenty. Food bank vouchers are given out by agencies for those who need .... lots of people here in denial with our venerable PM then. Blaming the victims or just denying they exist?
And of course people who attend food banks love to tell all their friends and family about it!
Don't tell me your an expert in food banks and the attendence rates and user profile as well.
I do know a bit about foodbanks as it happens.
What's your best moving line, do mind home brands"That doesn't even make sense. | |||
"Last week the Labour Party told us all that the nation has a huge crisis, where millions of children go with out a meals and are literally starving because of the Conservative Government. Today they say the same number are obese due to fats sugar and Tv advertising, all caused by the inadequate Conservatives. My question is do labour have any idea what they are saying on a day to basis They don't want to admit that the starving people are those who prioritise their addicitions over food purchases and people with shite lives like to eat comfort food (i.e. high fat / sugar). What utter bs. Processed foods (high in sugar/fat) are cheaper. ALDI avocados 49p each Apples 79p a bag Bananas 1.19 Charlotte potatoes 79p a kg Butternut squash 79p Yeah real food is proper expensive Trouble is most of the fat idle sit at home mums are too bone idle to get off their fat benefit funded ass to actually cook a decent meal. I mean it would them actually coming of face book and doing something useful Proteins are essential for good health, funny you have only mentioned fruit and veg. Aldi isn't in every town and village so access to these cheaper stores begets transport costs. Processed foods have very little protein in them, protein is made up of ammino acids, poor quality meat has less ammino acids to start with and then the processing destroys whats left. In terms of healthy diet, where there is a will there is a way. This is an interesting one. Data this year from the Institute of Economic Affairs found that healthy foods actually tend to be cheaper than unhealthy ones. However a YouGov survey earlier this year found that 70% of households think the opposite is true. So maybe it's a perception thing. In all honesty we never had much growing up but we did have healthy meals. However I do think it's a bit cynical to assume most people are lazy. I think in a lot of cases people just need a few more life skills." Being a student I wouldn't trust evidence from one source. Also it is well known data can be skewed. Let's just look at facts (any supermarket) - white bread, white sugar, white rice all processed and all cheaper than their natural state counterparts. Organic foods more expensive than modified foods. Caged hen eggs cheaper than free range. Quality cuts of meat more expensive than fatty cuts (compare back and streaky bacon), steaks or filets (prime cuts) more expensive than mince or burgers. | |||
"This is an interesting one. Data this year from the Institute of Economic Affairs found that healthy foods actually tend to be cheaper than unhealthy ones. However a YouGov survey earlier this year found that 70% of households think the opposite is true. So maybe it's a perception thing. In all honesty we never had much growing up but we did have healthy meals. However I do think it's a bit cynical to assume most people are lazy. I think in a lot of cases people just need a few more life skills. this "I can agree with the life skills statement But let's be honest TV is full of advise on how to cook cheaply simply and with taste and health Simple tinnmeals are so easy, a few sausages sliced tatties onions carrots etc slam it in the oven even add a bit of wine for a fancy taste | |||
"cheaper than what? Cheaper than sources of proteins. that doesn't make sense Processed foods are cheaper than cuts of meat, lumps of cheese, nuts, vegetarian alternatives. Utter crap.. so how are the people who you say live far from the high street and supermarkets like ALDI getting cheap processed food in the village store and buying it from the farm gate Evidence why it is crap? I have to drive 10 miles to Aldi. I find it cheaper than the co-op. 10 miles isn't far, it's about 5 miles at least each for us to any major supermarket " It's not far if you drive. Did you decide to ignore the bit about transport costs? Not everybody can drive or afford public transport! | |||
"Last week the Labour Party told us all that the nation has a huge crisis, where millions of children go with out a meals and are literally starving because of the Conservative Government. Today they say the same number are obese due to fats sugar and Tv advertising, all caused by the inadequate Conservatives. My question is do labour have any idea what they are saying on a day to basis They don't want to admit that the starving people are those who prioritise their addicitions over food purchases and people with shite lives like to eat comfort food (i.e. high fat / sugar). What utter bs. Processed foods (high in sugar/fat) are cheaper. ALDI avocados 49p each Apples 79p a bag Bananas 1.19 Charlotte potatoes 79p a kg Butternut squash 79p Yeah real food is proper expensive Trouble is most of the fat idle sit at home mums are too bone idle to get off their fat benefit funded ass to actually cook a decent meal. I mean it would them actually coming of face book and doing something useful Proteins are essential for good health, funny you have only mentioned fruit and veg. Aldi isn't in every town and village so access to these cheaper stores begets transport costs. Processed foods have very little protein in them, protein is made up of ammino acids, poor quality meat has less ammino acids to start with and then the processing destroys whats left. In terms of healthy diet, where there is a will there is a way. This is an interesting one. Data this year from the Institute of Economic Affairs found that healthy foods actually tend to be cheaper than unhealthy ones. However a YouGov survey earlier this year found that 70% of households think the opposite is true. So maybe it's a perception thing. In all honesty we never had much growing up but we did have healthy meals. However I do think it's a bit cynical to assume most people are lazy. I think in a lot of cases people just need a few more life skills. Being a student I wouldn't trust evidence from one source. Also it is well known data can be skewed. Let's just look at facts (any supermarket) - white bread, white sugar, white rice all processed and all cheaper than their natural state counterparts. Organic foods more expensive than modified foods. Caged hen eggs cheaper than free range. Quality cuts of meat more expensive than fatty cuts (compare back and streaky bacon), steaks or filets (prime cuts) more expensive than mince or burgers." To be honest my initial gut reaction was with you. But having googled some articles and thought about it I'm less sure. Maybe I've been lucky but in my home town (no longer there) we have a massive market in the city centre and the fruit and veg is about one third of the price of Tesco. So I think healthy cooking on a budget is possible, but it does involve time and knowledge that not everyone has. | |||
"This is an interesting one. Data this year from the Institute of Economic Affairs found that healthy foods actually tend to be cheaper than unhealthy ones. However a YouGov survey earlier this year found that 70% of households think the opposite is true. So maybe it's a perception thing. In all honesty we never had much growing up but we did have healthy meals. However I do think it's a bit cynical to assume most people are lazy. I think in a lot of cases people just need a few more life skills. this
I can agree with the life skills statement
But let's be honest TV is full of advise on how to cook cheaply simply and with taste and health
Simple tinnmeals are so easy, a few sausages sliced tatties onions carrots etc slam it in the oven even add a bit of wine for a fancy taste"Sausages are processed foods. | |||
"Last week the Labour Party told us all that the nation has a huge crisis, where millions of children go with out a meals and are literally starving because of the Conservative Government. Today they say the same number are obese due to fats sugar and Tv advertising, all caused by the inadequate Conservatives. My question is do labour have any idea what they are saying on a day to basis They don't want to admit that the starving people are those who prioritise their addicitions over food purchases and people with shite lives like to eat comfort food (i.e. high fat / sugar). What utter bs. Processed foods (high in sugar/fat) are cheaper. ALDI avocados 49p each Apples 79p a bag Bananas 1.19 Charlotte potatoes 79p a kg Butternut squash 79p Yeah real food is proper expensive Trouble is most of the fat idle sit at home mums are too bone idle to get off their fat benefit funded ass to actually cook a decent meal. I mean it would them actually coming of face book and doing something useful Proteins are essential for good health, funny you have only mentioned fruit and veg. Aldi isn't in every town and village so access to these cheaper stores begets transport costs. Processed foods have very little protein in them, protein is made up of ammino acids, poor quality meat has less ammino acids to start with and then the processing destroys whats left. In terms of healthy diet, where there is a will there is a way. This is an interesting one. Data this year from the Institute of Economic Affairs found that healthy foods actually tend to be cheaper than unhealthy ones. However a YouGov survey earlier this year found that 70% of households think the opposite is true. So maybe it's a perception thing. In all honesty we never had much growing up but we did have healthy meals. However I do think it's a bit cynical to assume most people are lazy. I think in a lot of cases people just need a few more life skills. Being a student I wouldn't trust evidence from one source. Also it is well known data can be skewed. Let's just look at facts (any supermarket) - white bread, white sugar, white rice all processed and all cheaper than their natural state counterparts. Organic foods more expensive than modified foods. Caged hen eggs cheaper than free range. Quality cuts of meat more expensive than fatty cuts (compare back and streaky bacon), steaks or filets (prime cuts) more expensive than mince or burgers. To be honest my initial gut reaction was with you. But having googled some articles and thought about it I'm less sure. Maybe I've been lucky but in my home town (no longer there) we have a massive market in the city centre and the fruit and veg is about one third of the price of Tesco. So I think healthy cooking on a budget is possible, but it does involve time and knowledge that not everyone has." And accessibility. It is possible to cook healthy on a budget. Though when shopping with a little money and faced with cheap alternatives, the majority of people will shop cheaply. Obesity figures are higher in more deprived areas of the country - it's no coincidence. | |||
| |||
"This is an interesting one. Data this year from the Institute of Economic Affairs found that healthy foods actually tend to be cheaper than unhealthy ones. However a YouGov survey earlier this year found that 70% of households think the opposite is true. So maybe it's a perception thing. In all honesty we never had much growing up but we did have healthy meals. However I do think it's a bit cynical to assume most people are lazy. I think in a lot of cases people just need a few more life skills. this
I can agree with the life skills statement
But let's be honest TV is full of advise on how to cook cheaply simply and with taste and health
Simple tinnmeals are so easy, a few sausages sliced tatties onions carrots etc slam it in the oven even add a bit of wine for a fancy taste
Sausages are processed foods."With fuck all protein in them | |||
"Last week the Labour Party told us all that the nation has a huge crisis, where millions of children go with out a meals and are literally starving because of the Conservative Government. Today they say the same number are obese due to fats sugar and Tv advertising, all caused by the inadequate Conservatives. My question is do labour have any idea what they are saying on a day to basis They don't want to admit that the starving people are those who prioritise their addicitions over food purchases and people with shite lives like to eat comfort food (i.e. high fat / sugar). What utter bs. Processed foods (high in sugar/fat) are cheaper. ALDI avocados 49p each Apples 79p a bag Bananas 1.19 Charlotte potatoes 79p a kg Butternut squash 79p Yeah real food is proper expensive Trouble is most of the fat idle sit at home mums are too bone idle to get off their fat benefit funded ass to actually cook a decent meal. I mean it would them actually coming of face book and doing something useful Proteins are essential for good health, funny you have only mentioned fruit and veg. Aldi isn't in every town and village so access to these cheaper stores begets transport costs. Processed foods have very little protein in them, protein is made up of ammino acids, poor quality meat has less ammino acids to start with and then the processing destroys whats left. In terms of healthy diet, where there is a will there is a way. This is an interesting one. Data this year from the Institute of Economic Affairs found that healthy foods actually tend to be cheaper than unhealthy ones. However a YouGov survey earlier this year found that 70% of households think the opposite is true. So maybe it's a perception thing. In all honesty we never had much growing up but we did have healthy meals. However I do think it's a bit cynical to assume most people are lazy. I think in a lot of cases people just need a few more life skills. Being a student I wouldn't trust evidence from one source. Also it is well known data can be skewed. Let's just look at facts (any supermarket) - white bread, white sugar, white rice all processed and all cheaper than their natural state counterparts. Organic foods more expensive than modified foods. Caged hen eggs cheaper than free range. Quality cuts of meat more expensive than fatty cuts (compare back and streaky bacon), steaks or filets (prime cuts) more expensive than mince or burgers. To be honest my initial gut reaction was with you. But having googled some articles and thought about it I'm less sure. Maybe I've been lucky but in my home town (no longer there) we have a massive market in the city centre and the fruit and veg is about one third of the price of Tesco. So I think healthy cooking on a budget is possible, but it does involve time and knowledge that not everyone has. And accessibility. It is possible to cook healthy on a budget. Though when shopping with a little money and faced with cheap alternatives, the majority of people will shop cheaply. Obesity figures are higher in more deprived areas of the country - it's no coincidence." I definitely think there's a linkage, even if not necessarily the direct cost of food. There's a lot more challenges to being poor than just being skint. | |||
"Anyway back to politics - Vote labour and stop the destruction of the public services." Vote labour and see the destruction of the country that I love, I'd sooner poke hot needles in my eyes We need strong leadership more than ever, not a moaning activist who couldn't be trusted to take his turn at the kettle making the team brews. | |||
"This is an interesting one. Data this year from the Institute of Economic Affairs found that healthy foods actually tend to be cheaper than unhealthy ones. However a YouGov survey earlier this year found that 70% of households think the opposite is true. So maybe it's a perception thing. In all honesty we never had much growing up but we did have healthy meals. However I do think it's a bit cynical to assume most people are lazy. I think in a lot of cases people just need a few more life skills. this
I can agree with the life skills statement
But let's be honest TV is full of advise on how to cook cheaply simply and with taste and health
Simple tinnmeals are so easy, a few sausages sliced tatties onions carrots etc slam it in the oven even add a bit of wine for a fancy taste
Sausages are processed foods.
With fuck all protein in them "You need to find yourself a decent butcher | |||
"cheaper than what? Cheaper than sources of proteins. that doesn't make sense Processed foods are cheaper than cuts of meat, lumps of cheese, nuts, vegetarian alternatives. Utter crap.. so how are the people who you say live far from the high street and supermarkets like ALDI getting cheap processed food in the village store and buying it from the farm gate Evidence why it is crap? I have to drive 10 miles to Aldi. I find it cheaper than the co-op. 10 miles isn't far, it's about 5 miles at least each for us to any major supermarket It's not far if you drive. Did you decide to ignore the bit about transport costs? Not everybody can drive or afford public transport! " Unfortunately it's impossible to find a solution that meets everybody's needs But if your finding somewhere to buy crappy food, I'm sure the same people can find somewhere to buy decent food | |||
"This is an interesting one. Data this year from the Institute of Economic Affairs found that healthy foods actually tend to be cheaper than unhealthy ones. However a YouGov survey earlier this year found that 70% of households think the opposite is true. So maybe it's a perception thing. In all honesty we never had much growing up but we did have healthy meals. However I do think it's a bit cynical to assume most people are lazy. I think in a lot of cases people just need a few more life skills. this
I can agree with the life skills statement
But let's be honest TV is full of advise on how to cook cheaply simply and with taste and health
Simple tinnmeals are so easy, a few sausages sliced tatties onions carrots etc slam it in the oven even add a bit of wine for a fancy taste
Sausages are processed foods.
With fuck all protein in them
You need to find yourself a decent butcher"If they've not all closed because of Tesco, etc | |||
"Last week the Labour Party told us all that the nation has a huge crisis, where millions of children go with out a meals and are literally starving because of the Conservative Government. Today they say the same number are obese due to fats sugar and Tv advertising, all caused by the inadequate Conservatives. My question is do labour have any idea what they are saying on a day to basis They don't want to admit that the starving people are those who prioritise their addicitions over food purchases and people with shite lives like to eat comfort food (i.e. high fat / sugar). Anything is more popular than telling people to actually take personal responsibility and deal with the underlying causes of problems. People with perpetual problems are also a reliable source of votes as long as you make minimal progress to help them rather than get them out of the shit. Is that like giving a hand out rather than a hand up, a bit like saying you know what love buying that 52" TV from bright house on 300% interest is not the brightest of moves, why don't you buy an ALDI special for £40 instead In short because when you have a shite life you turn to short term pleasures because there is no reason to believe the future will have more please than the present. Ergo they have no ability and or incentive to delay gratification. Their behaviour is actually frighteningly rational if you look at it from their point of view. Why when you travel through the social housing estates are there so many eggs on legs, if they have had their benefits to below a subsistence level Are you for real? Do you think that everybody in social housing is on benefits? I no I don't but too many of them are and having always been benefit sucking scroats Aren't you just the nicest human being. As for always have been on benefits - errmmm yeah right. I grew up in social housing. My parents and neighbours all worked damn hard. In the past he has described people like you as "scum" and the other day he started up a thread about how people on benefits should be forcibly sterilised. He's lovely isn't he. "So the social housing estates that were built mainly on the A1 corridor, known as the overspill of London, housed scum? Oh dear, that's a huge number of people to alienate. 
Well this member of the scum brigade has worked hard to leave social housing and buy a house, outright.
I still don't look down on others though  | |||
"Anyway back to politics - Vote labour and stop the destruction of the public services. Vote labour and see the destruction of the country that I love, I'd sooner poke hot needles in my eyes We need strong leadership more than ever, not a moaning activist who couldn't be trusted to take his turn at the kettle making the team brews." Poke hot needles in your eyes and then pay a doctor/nurse to treat them... As there will soon be no NHS. | |||
"cheaper than what? Cheaper than sources of proteins. that doesn't make sense Processed foods are cheaper than cuts of meat, lumps of cheese, nuts, vegetarian alternatives. Utter crap.. so how are the people who you say live far from the high street and supermarkets like ALDI getting cheap processed food in the village store and buying it from the farm gate Evidence why it is crap? I have to drive 10 miles to Aldi. I find it cheaper than the co-op. 10 miles isn't far, it's about 5 miles at least each for us to any major supermarket It's not far if you drive. Did you decide to ignore the bit about transport costs? Not everybody can drive or afford public transport! Unfortunately it's impossible to find a solution that meets everybody's needs But if your finding somewhere to buy crappy food, I'm sure the same people can find somewhere to buy decent food " An awfully composed paragraph (let alone poor grammar): how can you allude to me and the same people? It's gobbledygook. As for me buying crappy food, where was that mentioned? | |||
"Anyway back to politics - Vote labour and stop the destruction of the public services. Vote labour and see the destruction of the country that I love, I'd sooner poke hot needles in my eyes We need strong leadership more than ever, not a moaning activist who couldn't be trusted to take his turn at the kettle making the team brews. Poke hot needles in your eyes and then pay a doctor/nurse to treat them... As there will soon be no NHS." Maybe we can replace it with one of the 17 other health care systems that deliver superior health care according to the WHO. | |||
"Maybe we can replace it with one of the 17 other health care systems that deliver superior health care according to the WHO. " Name one of these systems please (remembering that the WHO use 6 different measures to rate countries healthcare systems and nay like Spain, Italy and France have systems very similar to the NHS but spend much more per head than the the UK). | |||
"Maybe we can replace it with one of the 17 other health care systems that deliver superior health care according to the WHO. Name one of these systems please (remembering that the WHO use 6 different measures to rate countries healthcare systems and nay like Spain, Italy and France have systems very similar to the NHS but spend much more per head than the the UK)." Switzerland or Netherlands, i prefer the idea of mandatory insurance schemes. NHS usually comes out well in rankings that measure inputs not outcomes and factor in the cost, as you allude to. Health care isn't one of those things i want the tesco value version of. Having to wait 2 weeks to see a GP for 15 minutes is effectively 'emergency only' healthcare anyway. If I'm writhing in pain, a trip through A&E will take 10-16 hours and they always try and skimp on the good pain killers. Can't get good drugs over the counter without a trip to the GP. | |||
| |||
"Labour have always been confused....about many things...including Europe. And for a very long time. A few quotes from their "greatest ever" leader: 1. 'Above all the EEC takes away Britains freedom to follow the sort of economic policies we need' Tony Blair writing in his personal manifesto when standing for Parliament in Beaconsfield 1982 2. 'We'll negotiate a withdrawal from the EEC which has drained our natural resources and destroyed jobs' Tony Blair when standing for Parliament in Sedgefield 1983 3. 'On the day we remember the legend that St. George slayed a dragon to protect England, some would argue that there is another dragon to be slayed - Europe' Tony Blair in an interview in The Sun on St. Georges day 1997 4. 'I am a passionate pro-European, I always have been' Tony Blair speaking to the EU Parliament in 2005 " A much slower u-turn than Commandant May then? | |||
"Last week the Labour Party told us all that the nation has a huge crisis, where millions of children go with out a meals and are literally starving because of the Conservative Government. Today they say the same number are obese due to fats sugar and Tv advertising, all caused by the inadequate Conservatives. My question is do labour have any idea what they are saying on a day to basis " No not even on a minute by minute basis | |||
"Last week the Labour Party told us all that the nation has a huge crisis, where millions of children go with out a meals and are literally starving because of the Conservative Government. Today they say the same number are obese due to fats sugar and Tv advertising, all caused by the inadequate Conservatives. My question is do labour have any idea what they are saying on a day to basis " That is labour,talking sny old shite lol | |||
"Switzerland or Netherlands, i prefer the idea of mandatory insurance schemes. NHS usually comes out well in rankings that measure inputs not outcomes and factor in the cost, as you allude to. Health care isn't one of those things i want the tesco value version of. Having to wait 2 weeks to see a GP for 15 minutes is effectively 'emergency only' healthcare anyway. If I'm writhing in pain, a trip through A&E will take 10-16 hours and they always try and skimp on the good pain killers. Can't get good drugs over the counter without a trip to the GP." So you like and would recommend Switzerland's health model as one to adopt. According to the WHO the Swiss have the second highest cost per capita for health care in the world (UK 26) but only manage to come 20 in overall performance (UK 18), 26 on overall level of health (UK 24), 10 on attainment of goals (distribution) (UK 2), 8 attainment of goals (DALE)(UK 14). However they did manage to come second in attainment of goals (UK 9), but considering how much they spend that is not so difficult to do. The second country you picked was the Netherlands: Spending per capita 9 (UK 26), overall performance 17 (UK 18), overall level of health 19 (UK 24), attainment of goals (distribution) 15 (UK 2), attainment of goals (DALE) 13 (UK 14), attainment of goals 8 (UK 9). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems_in_2000 Last full set of WHO figures I could find, but considering that the 2016 WHO report makes no changes to the rankings in regard to overall proformance then it seems safe to assume (unless you can show different) that the other rankings will not have changed significantly. http://www.who.int/healthinfo/paper30.pdf Now considering the above are you suggesting that we increase our health spending to the levels of Switzerland where I would suggest going on the other figures our NHS would rank number 1 in all areas going on our present performance. Note that our performance regardless of how measured is better than that of anyone bar Japan when compared to our spending per capita. I suggest you should do a little independent fact checking rather than rely on politically biased propaganda before making judgements on such important issues as the future of the NHS. | |||
"Switzerland or Netherlands, i prefer the idea of mandatory insurance schemes. NHS usually comes out well in rankings that measure inputs not outcomes and factor in the cost, as you allude to. Health care isn't one of those things i want the tesco value version of. Having to wait 2 weeks to see a GP for 15 minutes is effectively 'emergency only' healthcare anyway. If I'm writhing in pain, a trip through A&E will take 10-16 hours and they always try and skimp on the good pain killers. Can't get good drugs over the counter without a trip to the GP. So you like and would recommend Switzerland's health model as one to adopt. According to the WHO the Swiss have the second highest cost per capita for health care in the world (UK 26) but only manage to come 20 in overall performance (UK 18), 26 on overall level of health (UK 24), 10 on attainment of goals (distribution) (UK 2), 8 attainment of goals (DALE)(UK 14). However they did manage to come second in attainment of goals (UK 9), but considering how much they spend that is not so difficult to do. The second country you picked was the Netherlands: Spending per capita 9 (UK 26), overall performance 17 (UK 18), overall level of health 19 (UK 24), attainment of goals (distribution) 15 (UK 2), attainment of goals (DALE) 13 (UK 14), attainment of goals 8 (UK 9). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems_in_2000 Last full set of WHO figures I could find, but considering that the 2016 WHO report makes no changes to the rankings in regard to overall proformance then it seems safe to assume (unless you can show different) that the other rankings will not have changed significantly. http://www.who.int/healthinfo/paper30.pdf Now considering the above are you suggesting that we increase our health spending to the levels of Switzerland where I would suggest going on the other figures our NHS would rank number 1 in all areas going on our present performance. Note that our performance regardless of how measured is better than that of anyone bar Japan when compared to our spending per capita. I suggest you should do a little independent fact checking rather than rely on politically biased propaganda before making judgements on such important issues as the future of the NHS. " I prefer the measures the EHCI use than the WHO since they are more outcome based than simply measuring GPs per head which means nothing to me since i can't get an appointment in any kind of timeframe it would be useful. Switzerland and Netherlands come out far better in EHCI measures, but the UK doesn't. The UK also has the worst waiting times in europe which suggests my experience is not unique. I don't see the point in cheap, crappy health care - it's a false economy. | |||
"We should tax sugar and fat and subsidize fruit and veg. "Too much fructose (a sugar found in fruits) is actually harmful to the eyes. Also fruits that tend to leave bits in the mouth (citrus fruits, grapes etc) or fruits high in acidity, which most are, are worse for teeth than most boiled sweets. | |||
"Last week the Labour Party told us all that the nation has a huge crisis, where millions of children go with out a meals and are literally starving because of the Conservative Government. Today they say the same number are obese due to fats sugar and Tv advertising, all caused by the inadequate Conservatives. My question is do labour have any idea what they are saying on a day to basis A little bit like Theresa May who denies professionals like nurses and teachers use food banks. Massive denial about the state the country is in and the working poor. It's the 'I'm alright Jack' attitude. " She didn't deny it did she? I never heard her denying it. Can you back that statement up with a link? | |||
"We should tax sugar and fat and subsidize fruit and veg.
Too much fructose (a sugar found in fruits) is actually harmful to the eyes. Also fruits that tend to leave bits in the mouth (citrus fruits, grapes etc) or fruits high in acidity, which most are, are worse for teeth than most boiled sweets."Shit! If only someone would invent a device to pick bits out of teeth. I've got bits of orange stuck since 1989, it does a number on your breathe i tell thee | |||
"Anyway back to politics - Vote labour and stop the destruction of the public services. Vote labour and see the destruction of the country that I love, I'd sooner poke hot needles in my eyes We need strong leadership more than ever, not a moaning activist who couldn't be trusted to take his turn at the kettle making the team brews. Poke hot needles in your eyes and then pay a doctor/nurse to treat them... As there will soon be no NHS." Why are certain sections of society obsessed with the NHS, it is not the saviour of the UK The whole of the medical profession is not as portrayed by labour. Many individuals are crap it what they do and how they do it It's not free unless of course you won't work for a living, like a huge section of our society has learnt only to well A huge number of the Drs who were trained by the state prefer to ply their trade and help you jump the queue if you are willing to pay them for the privilege | |||
"Anyway back to politics - Vote labour and stop the destruction of the public services. Vote labour and see the destruction of the country that I love, I'd sooner poke hot needles in my eyes We need strong leadership more than ever, not a moaning activist who couldn't be trusted to take his turn at the kettle making the team brews. Poke hot needles in your eyes and then pay a doctor/nurse to treat them... As there will soon be no NHS. Why are certain sections of society obsessed with the NHS, it is not the saviour of the UK The whole of the medical profession is not as portrayed by labour. Many individuals are crap it what they do and how they do it It's not free unless of course you won't work for a living, like a huge section of our society has learnt only to well A huge number of the Drs who were trained by the state prefer to ply their trade and help you jump the queue if you are willing to pay them for the privilege " It's also up their with sports direct for exploiting its workforce in my opinion. | |||
"We should tax sugar and fat and subsidize fruit and veg.
Too much fructose (a sugar found in fruits) is actually harmful to the eyes. Also fruits that tend to leave bits in the mouth (citrus fruits, grapes etc) or fruits high in acidity, which most are, are worse for teeth than most boiled sweets.
Shit! If only someone would invent a device to pick bits out of teeth. I've got bits of orange stuck since 1989, it does a number on your breathe i tell thee"Would that be a tepe stickor dental flossing that your on about I've heard some people have given up on birch sticks and use the modern brush system coupled with a cleaning agent I do believe that there are people who will also cleanse your teeth for a small fee, these people are calling themselves a oral hygienist | |||
"Last week the Labour Party told us all that the nation has a huge crisis, where millions of children go with out a meals and are literally starving because of the Conservative Government. Today they say the same number are obese due to fats sugar and Tv advertising, all caused by the inadequate Conservatives. My question is do labour have any idea what they are saying on a day to basis A little bit like Theresa May who denies professionals like nurses and teachers use food banks. Massive denial about the state the country is in and the working poor. It's the 'I'm alright Jack' attitude. She didn't deny it did she? I never heard her denying it. Can you back that statement up with a link?" If she didn't then she should have. It's patent nonsense to say teachers can't afford food. It's just a question of basic maths. | |||
| |||
"Cutting your cloth. Lots of people are over stretched and plead poverty. They blame anyone but themselves for their financial mismanagement. I have never earned a big wage but have worked hard doing anything I could to pay my way. I don't live in a big house or drive a new car but its all paid for. Get real folks and take responsibility for your own lives stop blaming polaticians." I have a new policy I'd like all the parties to adopt. A free 2 week school trip for all 13-year olds to their choice of india, thailand or haiti so they can see what real fucking poverty is and won't grow up to be so whingy. This policy would be funded by increases in economic productivity than come from the reduction in self pity. | |||
"Cutting your cloth. Lots of people are over stretched and plead poverty. They blame anyone but themselves for their financial mismanagement. I have never earned a big wage but have worked hard doing anything I could to pay my way. I don't live in a big house or drive a new car but its all paid for. Get real folks and take responsibility for your own lives stop blaming polaticians. I have a new policy I'd like all the parties to adopt. A free 2 week school trip for all 13-year olds to their choice of india, thailand or haiti so they can see what real fucking poverty is and won't grow up to be so whingy. This policy would be funded by increases in economic productivity than come from the reduction in self pity. "It's got to said you make more sense then anybody in the political section And I could not feel pity for any teacher or nurse using a food bank, they get a reasonable salary so should have no need for a food bank. Mortgage rates are at an al, time low so that should not be factor, house prices have recovered so they shouldn't be in negative equity. If you can't afford where you live sell up and get what you can afford In the same way if you smoke and drink and think others should feed you, you need to get a life | |||
"Anyway back to politics - Vote labour and stop the destruction of the public services. Vote labour and see the destruction of the country that I love, I'd sooner poke hot needles in my eyes We need strong leadership more than ever, not a moaning activist who couldn't be trusted to take his turn at the kettle making the team brews. Poke hot needles in your eyes and then pay a doctor/nurse to treat them... As there will soon be no NHS. Why are certain sections of society obsessed with the NHS, it is not the saviour of the UK The whole of the medical profession is not as portrayed by labour. Many individuals are crap it what they do and how they do it It's not free unless of course you won't work for a living, like a huge section of our society has learnt only to well A huge number of the Drs who were trained by the state prefer to ply their trade and help you jump the queue if you are willing to pay them for the privilege It's also up their with sports direct for exploiting its workforce in my opinion." You're not wrong but mainly due to poor funding and targets. | |||
"Anyway back to politics - Vote labour and stop the destruction of the public services. Vote labour and see the destruction of the country that I love, I'd sooner poke hot needles in my eyes We need strong leadership more than ever, not a moaning activist who couldn't be trusted to take his turn at the kettle making the team brews. Poke hot needles in your eyes and then pay a doctor/nurse to treat them... As there will soon be no NHS. Why are certain sections of society obsessed with the NHS, it is not the saviour of the UK The whole of the medical profession is not as portrayed by labour. Many individuals are crap it what they do and how they do it It's not free unless of course you won't work for a living, like a huge section of our society has learnt only to well A huge number of the Drs who were trained by the state prefer to ply their trade and help you jump the queue if you are willing to pay them for the privilege It's also up their with sports direct for exploiting its workforce in my opinion." .???.. | |||
"Cutting your cloth. Lots of people are over stretched and plead poverty. They blame anyone but themselves for their financial mismanagement. I have never earned a big wage but have worked hard doing anything I could to pay my way. I don't live in a big house or drive a new car but its all paid for. Get real folks and take responsibility for your own lives stop blaming polaticians. I have a new policy I'd like all the parties to adopt. A free 2 week school trip for all 13-year olds to their choice of india, thailand or haiti so they can see what real fucking poverty is and won't grow up to be so whingy. This policy would be funded by increases in economic productivity than come from the reduction in self pity. "I'm stating this from memory so may err. There is abject poverty (third world) and relative. It holds no value to compare the two. I imagine the Joseph Rowntree Foundation would make a clear argument. | |||
"Anyway back to politics - Vote labour and stop the destruction of the public services. Vote labour and see the destruction of the country that I love, I'd sooner poke hot needles in my eyes We need strong leadership more than ever, not a moaning activist who couldn't be trusted to take his turn at the kettle making the team brews. Poke hot needles in your eyes and then pay a doctor/nurse to treat them... As there will soon be no NHS. Why are certain sections of society obsessed with the NHS, it is not the saviour of the UK The whole of the medical profession is not as portrayed by labour. Many individuals are crap it what they do and how they do it It's not free unless of course you won't work for a living, like a huge section of our society has learnt only to well A huge number of the Drs who were trained by the state prefer to ply their trade and help you jump the queue if you are willing to pay them for the privilege It's also up their with sports direct for exploiting its workforce in my opinion. You're not wrong but mainly due to poor funding and targets." Honestly i have so much respect for nurses but they are in some state of stockholm syndrome. They suffer from the same problem as teachers in the sense that the minister for health or education is a highly sought after political post. This means two things in practice: 1. We will get health and eduction ministers who know nothing about health or education and care even less, they just want the position 2. They will use the position to bolster their CV, this means short term, arbitary changes that usually aren't well thought out and performance metrics that can't be missed Nurses take the brunt of this bullshit as do teachers in education. | |||
"Cutting your cloth. Lots of people are over stretched and plead poverty. They blame anyone but themselves for their financial mismanagement. I have never earned a big wage but have worked hard doing anything I could to pay my way. I don't live in a big house or drive a new car but its all paid for. Get real folks and take responsibility for your own lives stop blaming polaticians. I have a new policy I'd like all the parties to adopt. A free 2 week school trip for all 13-year olds to their choice of india, thailand or haiti so they can see what real fucking poverty is and won't grow up to be so whingy. This policy would be funded by increases in economic productivity than come from the reduction in self pity.
I'm stating this from memory so may err. There is abject poverty (third world) and relative. It holds no value to compare the two. I imagine the Joseph Rowntree Foundation would make a clear argument."Relative poverty is an oxymoron. | |||
"Cutting your cloth. Lots of people are over stretched and plead poverty. They blame anyone but themselves for their financial mismanagement. I have never earned a big wage but have worked hard doing anything I could to pay my way. I don't live in a big house or drive a new car but its all paid for. Get real folks and take responsibility for your own lives stop blaming polaticians. I have a new policy I'd like all the parties to adopt. A free 2 week school trip for all 13-year olds to their choice of india, thailand or haiti so they can see what real fucking poverty is and won't grow up to be so whingy. This policy would be funded by increases in economic productivity than come from the reduction in self pity.
I'm stating this from memory so may err. There is abject poverty (third world) and relative. It holds no value to compare the two. I imagine the Joseph Rowntree Foundation would make a clear argument."Your either skint hungry and homeless and have no idea where you can get some cash food and creature comforts from or your not There is no reason for family to be hungry in the UK, unless of course your parents are incapable or have bred beyound their actually ability to be able to provide I think you find many areas of the world where it is nigh on impossible to get help and assistance from the state | |||
"Cutting your cloth. Lots of people are over stretched and plead poverty. They blame anyone but themselves for their financial mismanagement. I have never earned a big wage but have worked hard doing anything I could to pay my way. I don't live in a big house or drive a new car but its all paid for. Get real folks and take responsibility for your own lives stop blaming polaticians. I have a new policy I'd like all the parties to adopt. A free 2 week school trip for all 13-year olds to their choice of india, thailand or haiti so they can see what real fucking poverty is and won't grow up to be so whingy. This policy would be funded by increases in economic productivity than come from the reduction in self pity.
It's got to said you make more sense then anybody in the political section
And I could not feel pity for any teacher or nurse using a food bank, they get a reasonable salary so should have no need for a food bank.
Mortgage rates are at an al, time low so that should not be factor, house prices have recovered so they shouldn't be in negative equity. If you can't afford where you live sell up and get what you can afford
In the same way if you smoke and drink and think others should feed you, you need to get a life"That's purely due to sharing opinions . You really don't have a clue.
Btw I cannot imagine any public sector worker would want your sympathy.
To be fair, I think you write crap just to rankle people. | |||
"Cutting your cloth. Lots of people are over stretched and plead poverty. They blame anyone but themselves for their financial mismanagement. I have never earned a big wage but have worked hard doing anything I could to pay my way. I don't live in a big house or drive a new car but its all paid for. Get real folks and take responsibility for your own lives stop blaming polaticians. I have a new policy I'd like all the parties to adopt. A free 2 week school trip for all 13-year olds to their choice of india, thailand or haiti so they can see what real fucking poverty is and won't grow up to be so whingy. This policy would be funded by increases in economic productivity than come from the reduction in self pity.
I'm stating this from memory so may err. There is abject poverty (third world) and relative. It holds no value to compare the two. I imagine the Joseph Rowntree Foundation would make a clear argument.
Relative poverty is an oxymoron."Perhaps but it exists. | |||
"Cutting your cloth. Lots of people are over stretched and plead poverty. They blame anyone but themselves for their financial mismanagement. I have never earned a big wage but have worked hard doing anything I could to pay my way. I don't live in a big house or drive a new car but its all paid for. Get real folks and take responsibility for your own lives stop blaming polaticians. I have a new policy I'd like all the parties to adopt. A free 2 week school trip for all 13-year olds to their choice of india, thailand or haiti so they can see what real fucking poverty is and won't grow up to be so whingy. This policy would be funded by increases in economic productivity than come from the reduction in self pity.
I'm stating this from memory so may err. There is abject poverty (third world) and relative. It holds no value to compare the two. I imagine the Joseph Rowntree Foundation would make a clear argument.
Your either skint hungry and homeless and have no idea where you can get some cash food and creature comforts from or your not
There is no reason for family to be hungry in the UK, unless of course your parents are incapable or have bred beyound their actually ability to be able to provide
I think you find many areas of the world where it is nigh on impossible to get help and assistance from the state
"No reason to be hungry and yet food banks exist... | |||
"Cutting your cloth. Lots of people are over stretched and plead poverty. They blame anyone but themselves for their financial mismanagement. I have never earned a big wage but have worked hard doing anything I could to pay my way. I don't live in a big house or drive a new car but its all paid for. Get real folks and take responsibility for your own lives stop blaming polaticians. I have a new policy I'd like all the parties to adopt. A free 2 week school trip for all 13-year olds to their choice of india, thailand or haiti so they can see what real fucking poverty is and won't grow up to be so whingy. This policy would be funded by increases in economic productivity than come from the reduction in self pity.
I'm stating this from memory so may err. There is abject poverty (third world) and relative. It holds no value to compare the two. I imagine the Joseph Rowntree Foundation would make a clear argument.
Relative poverty is an oxymoron.
Perhaps but it exists. "Yes in some 1984 alterntaive relity where words have no permanent meaning. | |||
"Cutting your cloth. Lots of people are over stretched and plead poverty. They blame anyone but themselves for their financial mismanagement. I have never earned a big wage but have worked hard doing anything I could to pay my way. I don't live in a big house or drive a new car but its all paid for. Get real folks and take responsibility for your own lives stop blaming polaticians. I have a new policy I'd like all the parties to adopt. A free 2 week school trip for all 13-year olds to their choice of india, thailand or haiti so they can see what real fucking poverty is and won't grow up to be so whingy. This policy would be funded by increases in economic productivity than come from the reduction in self pity.
It's got to said you make more sense then anybody in the political section
And I could not feel pity for any teacher or nurse using a food bank, they get a reasonable salary so should have no need for a food bank.
Mortgage rates are at an al, time low so that should not be factor, house prices have recovered so they shouldn't be in negative equity. If you can't afford where you live sell up and get what you can afford
In the same way if you smoke and drink and think others should feed you, you need to get a life
That's purely due to sharing opinions . You really don't have a clue.
Btw I cannot imagine any public sector worker would want your sympathy.
To be fair, I think you write crap just to rankle people."The public sector should stop whinging, there are far more disadvantaged peeps in the private sector And it's not really a sector I have much if any sympathy for. I might have sympathy for individual, but that would never be based on the sector that they work in, but would be based on their personal circumstances Just because some one chooses to work in the public sector, it shouldn't entitle them to immediate sympathy Bloody hell soapy and doppy live next door to me, both work in the police, are fortunate enough to retire early on an extremely generous pension Should I drop them a food parcel off as they must be proper skint, what with only getting a 250k lump sum each And I've never known 2 people to have so much time of sick in my entire life. | |||
"Cutting your cloth. Lots of people are over stretched and plead poverty. They blame anyone but themselves for their financial mismanagement. I have never earned a big wage but have worked hard doing anything I could to pay my way. I don't live in a big house or drive a new car but its all paid for. Get real folks and take responsibility for your own lives stop blaming polaticians. I have a new policy I'd like all the parties to adopt. A free 2 week school trip for all 13-year olds to their choice of india, thailand or haiti so they can see what real fucking poverty is and won't grow up to be so whingy. This policy would be funded by increases in economic productivity than come from the reduction in self pity.
I'm stating this from memory so may err. There is abject poverty (third world) and relative. It holds no value to compare the two. I imagine the Joseph Rowntree Foundation would make a clear argument.
Relative poverty is an oxymoron.
Perhaps but it exists.
Yes in some 1984 alterntaive relity where words have no permanent meaning. "Ha! Words evolve and as such may not have a permanent meaning. Try listening to Susie Dent on Countdown .
Poverty in this nation is relative to it's wealth = no alternative reality needed. | |||
"Cutting your cloth. Lots of people are over stretched and plead poverty. They blame anyone but themselves for their financial mismanagement. I have never earned a big wage but have worked hard doing anything I could to pay my way. I don't live in a big house or drive a new car but its all paid for. Get real folks and take responsibility for your own lives stop blaming polaticians. I have a new policy I'd like all the parties to adopt. A free 2 week school trip for all 13-year olds to their choice of india, thailand or haiti so they can see what real fucking poverty is and won't grow up to be so whingy. This policy would be funded by increases in economic productivity than come from the reduction in self pity.
It's got to said you make more sense then anybody in the political section
And I could not feel pity for any teacher or nurse using a food bank, they get a reasonable salary so should have no need for a food bank.
Mortgage rates are at an al, time low so that should not be factor, house prices have recovered so they shouldn't be in negative equity. If you can't afford where you live sell up and get what you can afford
In the same way if you smoke and drink and think others should feed you, you need to get a life
That's purely due to sharing opinions . You really don't have a clue.
Btw I cannot imagine any public sector worker would want your sympathy.
To be fair, I think you write crap just to rankle people.
The public sector should stop whinging, there are far more disadvantaged peeps in the private sector
And it's not really a sector I have much if any sympathy for.
I might have sympathy for individual, but that would never be based on the sector that they work in, but would be based on their personal circumstances
Just because some one chooses to work in the public sector, it shouldn't entitle them to immediate sympathy
Bloody hell soapy and doppy live next door to me, both work in the police, are fortunate enough to retire early on an extremely generous pension
Should I drop them a food parcel off as they must be proper skint, what with only getting a 250k lump sum each
And I've never known 2 people to have so much time of sick in my entire life."What bit of not wanting your sympathy do you not get? | |||
"Cutting your cloth. Lots of people are over stretched and plead poverty. They blame anyone but themselves for their financial mismanagement. I have never earned a big wage but have worked hard doing anything I could to pay my way. I don't live in a big house or drive a new car but its all paid for. Get real folks and take responsibility for your own lives stop blaming polaticians. I have a new policy I'd like all the parties to adopt. A free 2 week school trip for all 13-year olds to their choice of india, thailand or haiti so they can see what real fucking poverty is and won't grow up to be so whingy. This policy would be funded by increases in economic productivity than come from the reduction in self pity.
I'm stating this from memory so may err. There is abject poverty (third world) and relative. It holds no value to compare the two. I imagine the Joseph Rowntree Foundation would make a clear argument.
Your either skint hungry and homeless and have no idea where you can get some cash food and creature comforts from or your not
There is no reason for family to be hungry in the UK, unless of course your parents are incapable or have bred beyound their actually ability to be able to provide
I think you find many areas of the world where it is nigh on impossible to get help and assistance from the state
No reason to be hungry and yet food banks exist..."And were introduced under Labour. Food banks create food banks not hunger | |||
"Cutting your cloth. Lots of people are over stretched and plead poverty. They blame anyone but themselves for their financial mismanagement. I have never earned a big wage but have worked hard doing anything I could to pay my way. I don't live in a big house or drive a new car but its all paid for. Get real folks and take responsibility for your own lives stop blaming polaticians. I have a new policy I'd like all the parties to adopt. A free 2 week school trip for all 13-year olds to their choice of india, thailand or haiti so they can see what real fucking poverty is and won't grow up to be so whingy. This policy would be funded by increases in economic productivity than come from the reduction in self pity.
It's got to said you make more sense then anybody in the political section
And I could not feel pity for any teacher or nurse using a food bank, they get a reasonable salary so should have no need for a food bank.
Mortgage rates are at an al, time low so that should not be factor, house prices have recovered so they shouldn't be in negative equity. If you can't afford where you live sell up and get what you can afford
In the same way if you smoke and drink and think others should feed you, you need to get a life
That's purely due to sharing opinions . You really don't have a clue.
Btw I cannot imagine any public sector worker would want your sympathy.
To be fair, I think you write crap just to rankle people.
The public sector should stop whinging, there are far more disadvantaged peeps in the private sector
And it's not really a sector I have much if any sympathy for.
I might have sympathy for individual, but that would never be based on the sector that they work in, but would be based on their personal circumstances
Just because some one chooses to work in the public sector, it shouldn't entitle them to immediate sympathy
Bloody hell soapy and doppy live next door to me, both work in the police, are fortunate enough to retire early on an extremely generous pension
Should I drop them a food parcel off as they must be proper skint, what with only getting a 250k lump sum each
And I've never known 2 people to have so much time of sick in my entire life.
What bit of not wanting your sympathy do you not get?"You obviously failed to read, I said I offer my sympathy based on the individuals need, and you don't meet my criteria so no sympathy was or has been offered to you. | |||
"Cutting your cloth. Lots of people are over stretched and plead poverty. They blame anyone but themselves for their financial mismanagement. I have never earned a big wage but have worked hard doing anything I could to pay my way. I don't live in a big house or drive a new car but its all paid for. Get real folks and take responsibility for your own lives stop blaming polaticians. I have a new policy I'd like all the parties to adopt. A free 2 week school trip for all 13-year olds to their choice of india, thailand or haiti so they can see what real fucking poverty is and won't grow up to be so whingy. This policy would be funded by increases in economic productivity than come from the reduction in self pity.
I'm stating this from memory so may err. There is abject poverty (third world) and relative. It holds no value to compare the two. I imagine the Joseph Rowntree Foundation would make a clear argument.
Your either skint hungry and homeless and have no idea where you can get some cash food and creature comforts from or your not
There is no reason for family to be hungry in the UK, unless of course your parents are incapable or have bred beyound their actually ability to be able to provide
I think you find many areas of the world where it is nigh on impossible to get help and assistance from the state
No reason to be hungry and yet food banks exist...
And were introduced under Labour. Food banks create food banks not hunger"Sssssh they think labour are saviour of all of the problems in society, what with them having access to the magic money tree. They can double the pay and conditions for public sector workers Ensure more ailments are treated, deliver better schools filled with a multitude of interpreters to help the kids along Deliver better roads increase the number of bobbies on the beat, correct the climate, and punish them nasty conservative voters for having evil thoughts | |||
"Cutting your cloth. Lots of people are over stretched and plead poverty. They blame anyone but themselves for their financial mismanagement. I have never earned a big wage but have worked hard doing anything I could to pay my way. I don't live in a big house or drive a new car but its all paid for. Get real folks and take responsibility for your own lives stop blaming polaticians. I have a new policy I'd like all the parties to adopt. A free 2 week school trip for all 13-year olds to their choice of india, thailand or haiti so they can see what real fucking poverty is and won't grow up to be so whingy. This policy would be funded by increases in economic productivity than come from the reduction in self pity.
I'm stating this from memory so may err. There is abject poverty (third world) and relative. It holds no value to compare the two. I imagine the Joseph Rowntree Foundation would make a clear argument.
Relative poverty is an oxymoron.
Perhaps but it exists.
Yes in some 1984 alterntaive relity where words have no permanent meaning.
Ha! Words evolve and as such may not have a permanent meaning. Try listening to Susie Dent on Countdown .
Poverty in this nation is relative to it's wealth = no alternative reality needed."Usually the people pushing the evolution of words are trying desperately to flog some kind of product, service or idea that has already flopped under another name. "Let's rebrand communism as socialism comrad and hope nobody pushes us to define the difference". | |||
.
Actually don't benefits come fortnightly? I don't know  . | |||
" Sssssh they think labour are saviour of all of the problems in society, what with them having access to the magic money tree. They can double the pay and conditions for public sector workers Ensure more ailments are treated, deliver better schools filled with a multitude of interpreters to help the kids along Deliver better roads increase the number of bobbies on the beat, correct the climate, and punish them nasty conservative voters for having evil thoughts" And indeed they would do all those things.... then hand the resulting massive frigging deficit over to a Tory government to fix, and spend the next few parliaments whining about the national debt getting bigger without at any point explaining the difference between debt and deficit to those who are gullible enough to believe their nonsense. | |||
"I'll have to respond later as I need to go shopping and feed my six starving children with my weekly benefits .
Actually don't benefits come fortnightly? I don't know ."You will be needing 2 trolleys if its the big shop, get in Sainsbury's but the fish meat its at least 50% cheaper after 16.00 on a Tuesday, fill the freezer up with fresh protein | |||
"Cutting your cloth. Lots of people are over stretched and plead poverty. They blame anyone but themselves for their financial mismanagement. I have never earned a big wage but have worked hard doing anything I could to pay my way. I don't live in a big house or drive a new car but its all paid for. Get real folks and take responsibility for your own lives stop blaming polaticians. I have a new policy I'd like all the parties to adopt. A free 2 week school trip for all 13-year olds to their choice of india, thailand or haiti so they can see what real fucking poverty is and won't grow up to be so whingy. This policy would be funded by increases in economic productivity than come from the reduction in self pity.
I'm stating this from memory so may err. There is abject poverty (third world) and relative. It holds no value to compare the two. I imagine the Joseph Rowntree Foundation would make a clear argument.
Relative poverty is an oxymoron.
Perhaps but it exists.
Yes in some 1984 alterntaive relity where words have no permanent meaning.
Ha! Words evolve and as such may not have a permanent meaning. Try listening to Susie Dent on Countdown .
Poverty in this nation is relative to it's wealth = no alternative reality needed.
Usually the people pushing the evolution of words are trying desperately to flog some kind of product, service or idea that has already flopped under another name. "Let's rebrand communism as socialism comrad and hope nobody pushes us to define the difference". "Actually this has tickled my fancy so I'll respond now. Have you ever looked in a dictionary? It states the origin of the word. It may break the word down and give the meaning of its root part. I'm guessing words predating the industrial revolution have no capitalistic influence of trying to flog something.  | |||
"I'll have to respond later as I need to go shopping and feed my six starving children with my weekly benefits .
Actually don't benefits come fortnightly? I don't know .
You will be needing 2 trolleys if its the big shop, get in Sainsbury's but the fish meat its at least 50% cheaper after 16.00 on a Tuesday, fill the freezer up with fresh protein"Actually I prefer the medallion beef steaks in Aldi, but thanks for the tip. | |||
"Cutting your cloth. Lots of people are over stretched and plead poverty. They blame anyone but themselves for their financial mismanagement. I have never earned a big wage but have worked hard doing anything I could to pay my way. I don't live in a big house or drive a new car but its all paid for. Get real folks and take responsibility for your own lives stop blaming polaticians. I have a new policy I'd like all the parties to adopt. A free 2 week school trip for all 13-year olds to their choice of india, thailand or haiti so they can see what real fucking poverty is and won't grow up to be so whingy. This policy would be funded by increases in economic productivity than come from the reduction in self pity.
It's got to said you make more sense then anybody in the political section
And I could not feel pity for any teacher or nurse using a food bank, they get a reasonable salary so should have no need for a food bank.
Mortgage rates are at an al, time low so that should not be factor, house prices have recovered so they shouldn't be in negative equity. If you can't afford where you live sell up and get what you can afford
In the same way if you smoke and drink and think others should feed you, you need to get a life
That's purely due to sharing opinions . You really don't have a clue.
Btw I cannot imagine any public sector worker would want your sympathy.
To be fair, I think you write crap just to rankle people.
The public sector should stop whinging, there are far more disadvantaged peeps in the private sector
And it's not really a sector I have much if any sympathy for.
I might have sympathy for individual, but that would never be based on the sector that they work in, but would be based on their personal circumstances
Just because some one chooses to work in the public sector, it shouldn't entitle them to immediate sympathy
Bloody hell soapy and doppy live next door to me, both work in the police, are fortunate enough to retire early on an extremely generous pension
Should I drop them a food parcel off as they must be proper skint, what with only getting a 250k lump sum each
And I've never known 2 people to have so much time of sick in my entire life.
What bit of not wanting your sympathy do you not get?
You obviously failed to read, I said I offer my sympathy based on the individuals need, and you don't meet my criteria so no sympathy was or has been offered to you."No! It is you who has failed read. You keep trying to make this personal but I have been writing on behalf of public sector workers who won't want your sympathy. To be honest the whinging I hear is about funding cuts and therefore service cuts. | |||
"Cutting your cloth. Lots of people are over stretched and plead poverty. They blame anyone but themselves for their financial mismanagement. I have never earned a big wage but have worked hard doing anything I could to pay my way. I don't live in a big house or drive a new car but its all paid for. Get real folks and take responsibility for your own lives stop blaming polaticians. I have a new policy I'd like all the parties to adopt. A free 2 week school trip for all 13-year olds to their choice of india, thailand or haiti so they can see what real fucking poverty is and won't grow up to be so whingy. This policy would be funded by increases in economic productivity than come from the reduction in self pity.
It's got to said you make more sense then anybody in the political section
And I could not feel pity for any teacher or nurse using a food bank, they get a reasonable salary so should have no need for a food bank.
Mortgage rates are at an al, time low so that should not be factor, house prices have recovered so they shouldn't be in negative equity. If you can't afford where you live sell up and get what you can afford
In the same way if you smoke and drink and think others should feed you, you need to get a life
That's purely due to sharing opinions . You really don't have a clue.
Btw I cannot imagine any public sector worker would want your sympathy.
To be fair, I think you write crap just to rankle people.
The public sector should stop whinging, there are far more disadvantaged peeps in the private sector
And it's not really a sector I have much if any sympathy for.
I might have sympathy for individual, but that would never be based on the sector that they work in, but would be based on their personal circumstances
Just because some one chooses to work in the public sector, it shouldn't entitle them to immediate sympathy
Bloody hell soapy and doppy live next door to me, both work in the police, are fortunate enough to retire early on an extremely generous pension
Should I drop them a food parcel off as they must be proper skint, what with only getting a 250k lump sum each
And I've never known 2 people to have so much time of sick in my entire life."I highly doubt that anyone with £250k in the bank would chose to live next door to you! | |||
"Labour have always been confused....about many things...including Europe. And for a very long time. A few quotes from their "greatest ever" leader: 1. 'Above all the EEC takes away Britains freedom to follow the sort of economic policies we need' Tony Blair writing in his personal manifesto when standing for Parliament in Beaconsfield 1982 2. 'We'll negotiate a withdrawal from the EEC which has drained our natural resources and destroyed jobs' Tony Blair when standing for Parliament in Sedgefield 1983 3. 'On the day we remember the legend that St. George slayed a dragon to protect England, some would argue that there is another dragon to be slayed - Europe' Tony Blair in an interview in The Sun on St. Georges day 1997 4. 'I am a passionate pro-European, I always have been' Tony Blair speaking to the EU Parliament in 2005 " You missed this bit. Copyright Vernon Coleman 2006 Now I know the sites you clearly visit it explains a lot. | |||
"Cutting your cloth. Lots of people are over stretched and plead poverty. They blame anyone but themselves for their financial mismanagement. I have never earned a big wage but have worked hard doing anything I could to pay my way. I don't live in a big house or drive a new car but its all paid for. Get real folks and take responsibility for your own lives stop blaming polaticians. I have a new policy I'd like all the parties to adopt. A free 2 week school trip for all 13-year olds to their choice of india, thailand or haiti so they can see what real fucking poverty is and won't grow up to be so whingy. This policy would be funded by increases in economic productivity than come from the reduction in self pity.
I'm stating this from memory so may err. There is abject poverty (third world) and relative. It holds no value to compare the two. I imagine the Joseph Rowntree Foundation would make a clear argument.
Relative poverty is an oxymoron.
Perhaps but it exists.
Yes in some 1984 alterntaive relity where words have no permanent meaning. "Sorry but I disagree with this statement. If people in the UK aren't relatively poor to others they also can't be relatively wealthy compared to the developed world. However, I do agree with your earlier statement about some people having no idea how much better their life is than others. I worked in Haiti for a while and I've literally seen people eat mud because they were so hungry. But that still doesn't mean inequality within the UK isn't a problem. | |||
"Last week the Labour Party told us all that the nation has a huge crisis, where millions of children go with out a meals and are literally starving because of the Conservative Government. Today they say the same number are obese due to fats sugar and Tv advertising, all caused by the inadequate Conservatives. My question is do labour have any idea what they are saying on a day to basis A little bit like Theresa May who denies professionals like nurses and teachers use food banks. Massive denial about the state the country is in and the working poor. It's the 'I'm alright Jack' attitude. She didn't deny it did she? I never heard her denying it. Can you back that statement up with a link? If she didn't then she should have. It's patent nonsense to say teachers can't afford food. It's just a question of basic maths. " Well she didn't deny it because she couldn't deny it. Neither could she deny it for any other profession or trade. If she did it would only take someone to find one to prove her wrong. It's a good statement to make to try and get some sort of outrage response but, without some sort of indication of the percentage of teachers and nurses using food banks as both a proportion of the total number of nurses and teachers, and the total number of people using food banks, it really tells no one anything at all. | |||
"Cutting your cloth. Lots of people are over stretched and plead poverty. They blame anyone but themselves for their financial mismanagement. I have never earned a big wage but have worked hard doing anything I could to pay my way. I don't live in a big house or drive a new car but its all paid for. Get real folks and take responsibility for your own lives stop blaming polaticians. I have a new policy I'd like all the parties to adopt. A free 2 week school trip for all 13-year olds to their choice of india, thailand or haiti so they can see what real fucking poverty is and won't grow up to be so whingy. This policy would be funded by increases in economic productivity than come from the reduction in self pity.
I'm stating this from memory so may err. There is abject poverty (third world) and relative. It holds no value to compare the two. I imagine the Joseph Rowntree Foundation would make a clear argument.
Relative poverty is an oxymoron.
Perhaps but it exists.
Yes in some 1984 alterntaive relity where words have no permanent meaning.
Sorry but I disagree with this statement.
If people in the UK aren't relatively poor to others they also can't be relatively wealthy compared to the developed world.
However, I do agree with your earlier statement about some people having no idea how much better their life is than others.
I worked in Haiti for a while and I've literally seen people eat mud because they were so hungry.
But that still doesn't mean inequality within the UK isn't a problem. "I have no issue saying people are relatively poor. But poverty is the word i object to. Poverty is an absolute standard where you don't have one of the following (and maybe some I've missed): - enough calories to sustain yourself - your body is not at the right temperate - you can't access a doctor for a serious problem - you don't have enough drinking water - your clothes don't shield you from the weather What's even more heart breaking is that most people in the world that have one or more of these issues were born into it. They never made bad choices like the smack heads who make up the overwhelmingly majority of people in this country who could legitimately tick one of those boxes. I'm sorry but in this country if you sat outside mcdonalds and said "i can't afford food" then someone would buy you a meal within 45 minutes. You basically need an addicition or to be horrendous at managing money to fall into that category here since the welfare system will provide a subsistence living. | |||
"Last week the Labour Party told us all that the nation has a huge crisis, where millions of children go with out a meals and are literally starving because of the Conservative Government. Today they say the same number are obese due to fats sugar and Tv advertising, all caused by the inadequate Conservatives. My question is do labour have any idea what they are saying on a day to basis A little bit like Theresa May who denies professionals like nurses and teachers use food banks. Massive denial about the state the country is in and the working poor. It's the 'I'm alright Jack' attitude. She didn't deny it did she? I never heard her denying it. Can you back that statement up with a link? If she didn't then she should have. It's patent nonsense to say teachers can't afford food. It's just a question of basic maths. Well she didn't deny it because she couldn't deny it. Neither could she deny it for any other profession or trade. If she did it would only take someone to find one to prove her wrong. It's a good statement to make to try and get some sort of outrage response but, without some sort of indication of the percentage of teachers and nurses using food banks as both a proportion of the total number of nurses and teachers, and the total number of people using food banks, it really tells no one anything at all." Likewise you only need to show that most nurses and teachers don't need to use food banks to eat, so then it prompts the question why some of them do? Teachers starting salary is £22k and nurses similar? How do they think people on minimum wage afford to eat? | |||
"Cutting your cloth. Lots of people are over stretched and plead poverty. They blame anyone but themselves for their financial mismanagement. I have never earned a big wage but have worked hard doing anything I could to pay my way. I don't live in a big house or drive a new car but its all paid for. Get real folks and take responsibility for your own lives stop blaming polaticians. I have a new policy I'd like all the parties to adopt. A free 2 week school trip for all 13-year olds to their choice of india, thailand or haiti so they can see what real fucking poverty is and won't grow up to be so whingy. This policy would be funded by increases in economic productivity than come from the reduction in self pity.
I'm stating this from memory so may err. There is abject poverty (third world) and relative. It holds no value to compare the two. I imagine the Joseph Rowntree Foundation would make a clear argument.
Relative poverty is an oxymoron.
Perhaps but it exists.
Yes in some 1984 alterntaive relity where words have no permanent meaning.
Sorry but I disagree with this statement.
If people in the UK aren't relatively poor to others they also can't be relatively wealthy compared to the developed world.
However, I do agree with your earlier statement about some people having no idea how much better their life is than others.
I worked in Haiti for a while and I've literally seen people eat mud because they were so hungry.
But that still doesn't mean inequality within the UK isn't a problem.
I have no issue saying people are relatively poor. But poverty is the word i object to. Poverty is an absolute standard where you don't have one of the following (and maybe some I've missed):
- enough calories to sustain yourself
- your body is not at the right temperate
- you can't access a doctor for a serious problem
- you don't have enough drinking water
- your clothes don't shield you from the weather
What's even more heart breaking is that most people in the world that have one or more of these issues were born into it. They never made bad choices like the smack heads who make up the overwhelmingly majority of people in this country who could legitimately tick one of those boxes. I'm sorry but in this country if you sat outside mcdonalds and said "i can't afford food" then someone would buy you a meal within 45 minutes. You basically need an addicition or to be horrendous at managing money to fall into that category here since the welfare system will provide a subsistence living. "To be honest I think you're splitting hairs on the difference between "poor" and "poverty". Also, what about the "smack heads" in the UK who were born into shit circumstances through no fault of their own. Yes, perhaps you can lay the blame with their parents but does that mean you condemn the kids? And yes, it's probably easier to break the cycle of relative poverty than the cycle of extreme poverty, but again I think it's cynical to assume that a majority of people are lazy or stupid. | |||
"Last week the Labour Party told us all that the nation has a huge crisis, where millions of children go with out a meals and are literally starving because of the Conservative Government. Today they say the same number are obese due to fats sugar and Tv advertising, all caused by the inadequate Conservatives. My question is do labour have any idea what they are saying on a day to basis A little bit like Theresa May who denies professionals like nurses and teachers use food banks. Massive denial about the state the country is in and the working poor. It's the 'I'm alright Jack' attitude. She didn't deny it did she? I never heard her denying it. Can you back that statement up with a link? If she didn't then she should have. It's patent nonsense to say teachers can't afford food. It's just a question of basic maths. Well she didn't deny it because she couldn't deny it. Neither could she deny it for any other profession or trade. If she did it would only take someone to find one to prove her wrong. It's a good statement to make to try and get some sort of outrage response but, without some sort of indication of the percentage of teachers and nurses using food banks as both a proportion of the total number of nurses and teachers, and the total number of people using food banks, it really tells no one anything at all. Likewise you only need to show that most nurses and teachers don't need to use food banks to eat, so then it prompts the question why some of them do? Teachers starting salary is £22k and nurses similar? How do they think people on minimum wage afford to eat? " some have high rent, high petrol costs, high parking charges, high childcare costs, arrears, debts, people just think its good just to scrape by day in day out. they say majority of people are 3 months from being thrown out house. | |||
" To be honest I think you're splitting hairs on the difference between "poor" and "poverty". Also, what about the "smack heads" in the UK who were born into shit circumstances through no fault of their own. Yes, perhaps you can lay the blame with their parents but does that mean you condemn the kids? And yes, it's probably easier to break the cycle of relative poverty than the cycle of extreme poverty, but again I think it's cynical to assume that a majority of people are lazy or stupid." Do you believe in free will? Not everyone does so I'm genuinely asking you | |||
" To be honest I think you're splitting hairs on the difference between "poor" and "poverty". Also, what about the "smack heads" in the UK who were born into shit circumstances through no fault of their own. Yes, perhaps you can lay the blame with their parents but does that mean you condemn the kids? And yes, it's probably easier to break the cycle of relative poverty than the cycle of extreme poverty, but again I think it's cynical to assume that a majority of people are lazy or stupid. Do you believe in free will? Not everyone does so I'm genuinely asking you" I absolutely do. | |||
"Cutting your cloth. Lots of people are over stretched and plead poverty. They blame anyone but themselves for their financial mismanagement. I have never earned a big wage but have worked hard doing anything I could to pay my way. I don't live in a big house or drive a new car but its all paid for. Get real folks and take responsibility for your own lives stop blaming polaticians. I have a new policy I'd like all the parties to adopt. A free 2 week school trip for all 13-year olds to their choice of india, thailand or haiti so they can see what real fucking poverty is and won't grow up to be so whingy. This policy would be funded by increases in economic productivity than come from the reduction in self pity.
I'm stating this from memory so may err. There is abject poverty (third world) and relative. It holds no value to compare the two. I imagine the Joseph Rowntree Foundation would make a clear argument.
Relative poverty is an oxymoron.
Perhaps but it exists.
Yes in some 1984 alterntaive relity where words have no permanent meaning.
Ha! Words evolve and as such may not have a permanent meaning. Try listening to Susie Dent on Countdown .
Poverty in this nation is relative to it's wealth = no alternative reality needed."But your not addressing the fundamental problem with relative poverty in that it does not actually measure real poverty. For example between 1997 and 2007 while both the rich and the poor got richer using relative poverty (less than 60% of average earning) more people fell into poverty. Conversely between 2007 and 2012, while everyone got poorer, using relative poverty, less people were actually in poverty. Whilst I would except that some form of measuring poverty relative to over all total wealth is necessary, there is clearly something wrong with a measurement for poverty that says more people are in poverty when they're actually better off and less people in poverty when they're actually worse off. | |||
" To be honest I think you're splitting hairs on the difference between "poor" and "poverty". Also, what about the "smack heads" in the UK who were born into shit circumstances through no fault of their own. Yes, perhaps you can lay the blame with their parents but does that mean you condemn the kids? And yes, it's probably easier to break the cycle of relative poverty than the cycle of extreme poverty, but again I think it's cynical to assume that a majority of people are lazy or stupid. Do you believe in free will? Not everyone does so I'm genuinely asking you I absolutely do. " So do i - fistbump? Anyway, so the difference is that the future smack head born into shit circumstances only effects to probability they will make bad decisions (no real good can ever really come from long term usage). Where as the mud eating child in haiti never had a choice to make. Although I'm not keen of the wording, yes liberty does mean you condemn the kids because people have the freedom to make bad choices as well as good ones. Liberty isn't a perfect scenario, i just consider it better on balance than an ever authoritarian state. I think an objective reading of history for life in america / europe vrs soviet union / nazi Germany or Mao's china makes that choice pretty straight forward. | |||
"Cutting your cloth. Lots of people are over stretched and plead poverty. They blame anyone but themselves for their financial mismanagement. I have never earned a big wage but have worked hard doing anything I could to pay my way. I don't live in a big house or drive a new car but its all paid for. Get real folks and take responsibility for your own lives stop blaming polaticians. I have a new policy I'd like all the parties to adopt. A free 2 week school trip for all 13-year olds to their choice of india, thailand or haiti so they can see what real fucking poverty is and won't grow up to be so whingy. This policy would be funded by increases in economic productivity than come from the reduction in self pity.
It's got to said you make more sense then anybody in the political section
And I could not feel pity for any teacher or nurse using a food bank, they get a reasonable salary so should have no need for a food bank.
Mortgage rates are at an al, time low so that should not be factor, house prices have recovered so they shouldn't be in negative equity. If you can't afford where you live sell up and get what you can afford
In the same way if you smoke and drink and think others should feed you, you need to get a life
That's purely due to sharing opinions . You really don't have a clue.
Btw I cannot imagine any public sector worker would want your sympathy.
To be fair, I think you write crap just to rankle people.
The public sector should stop whinging, there are far more disadvantaged peeps in the private sector
And it's not really a sector I have much if any sympathy for.
I might have sympathy for individual, but that would never be based on the sector that they work in, but would be based on their personal circumstances
Just because some one chooses to work in the public sector, it shouldn't entitle them to immediate sympathy
Bloody hell soapy and doppy live next door to me, both work in the police, are fortunate enough to retire early on an extremely generous pension
Should I drop them a food parcel off as they must be proper skint, what with only getting a 250k lump sum each
And I've never known 2 people to have so much time of sick in my entire life.
What bit of not wanting your sympathy do you not get?
You obviously failed to read, I said I offer my sympathy based on the individuals need, and you don't meet my criteria so no sympathy was or has been offered to you.
No! It is you who has failed read. You keep trying to make this personal but I have been writing on behalf of public sector workers who won't want your sympathy.
To be honest the whinging I hear is about funding cuts and therefore service cuts."Have you been elected by those who work in public sector as their official spokesperson | |||
"Cutting your cloth. Lots of people are over stretched and plead poverty. They blame anyone but themselves for their financial mismanagement. I have never earned a big wage but have worked hard doing anything I could to pay my way. I don't live in a big house or drive a new car but its all paid for. Get real folks and take responsibility for your own lives stop blaming polaticians. I have a new policy I'd like all the parties to adopt. A free 2 week school trip for all 13-year olds to their choice of india, thailand or haiti so they can see what real fucking poverty is and won't grow up to be so whingy. This policy would be funded by increases in economic productivity than come from the reduction in self pity.
I'm stating this from memory so may err. There is abject poverty (third world) and relative. It holds no value to compare the two. I imagine the Joseph Rowntree Foundation would make a clear argument.
Relative poverty is an oxymoron.
Perhaps but it exists.
Yes in some 1984 alterntaive relity where words have no permanent meaning.
Ha! Words evolve and as such may not have a permanent meaning. Try listening to Susie Dent on Countdown .
Poverty in this nation is relative to it's wealth = no alternative reality needed.
But your not addressing the fundamental problem with relative poverty in that it does not actually measure real poverty. For example between 1997 and 2007 while both the rich and the poor got richer using relative poverty (less than 60% of average earning) more people fell into poverty. Conversely between 2007 and 2012, while everyone got poorer, using relative poverty, less people were actually in poverty.
Whilst I would except that some form of measuring poverty relative to over all total wealth is necessary, there is clearly something wrong with a measurement for poverty that says more people are in poverty when they're actually better off and less people in poverty when they're actually worse off."In other words the research is basically made up crap, which has no actual reality in the UK | |||
"We should tax sugar and fat and subsidize fruit and veg.
Too much fructose (a sugar found in fruits) is actually harmful to the eyes. Also fruits that tend to leave bits in the mouth (citrus fruits, grapes etc) or fruits high in acidity, which most are, are worse for teeth than most boiled sweets."what a load of cobblers | |||
"Cutting your cloth. Lots of people are over stretched and plead poverty. They blame anyone but themselves for their financial mismanagement. I have never earned a big wage but have worked hard doing anything I could to pay my way. I don't live in a big house or drive a new car but its all paid for. Get real folks and take responsibility for your own lives stop blaming polaticians. I have a new policy I'd like all the parties to adopt. A free 2 week school trip for all 13-year olds to their choice of india, thailand or haiti so they can see what real fucking poverty is and won't grow up to be so whingy. This policy would be funded by increases in economic productivity than come from the reduction in self pity.
I'm stating this from memory so may err. There is abject poverty (third world) and relative. It holds no value to compare the two. I imagine the Joseph Rowntree Foundation would make a clear argument.
Relative poverty is an oxymoron.
Perhaps but it exists.
Yes in some 1984 alterntaive relity where words have no permanent meaning.
Ha! Words evolve and as such may not have a permanent meaning. Try listening to Susie Dent on Countdown .
Poverty in this nation is relative to it's wealth = no alternative reality needed.
But your not addressing the fundamental problem with relative poverty in that it does not actually measure real poverty. For example between 1997 and 2007 while both the rich and the poor got richer using relative poverty (less than 60% of average earning) more people fell into poverty. Conversely between 2007 and 2012, while everyone got poorer, using relative poverty, less people were actually in poverty.
Whilst I would except that some form of measuring poverty relative to over all total wealth is necessary, there is clearly something wrong with a measurement for poverty that says more people are in poverty when they're actually better off and less people in poverty when they're actually worse off."https://www.jrf.org.uk/ I mentioned that the Joseph Rowntree Foundation could put the case of relative poverty forward, so here's the link. | |||
" To be honest I think you're splitting hairs on the difference between "poor" and "poverty". Also, what about the "smack heads" in the UK who were born into shit circumstances through no fault of their own. Yes, perhaps you can lay the blame with their parents but does that mean you condemn the kids? And yes, it's probably easier to break the cycle of relative poverty than the cycle of extreme poverty, but again I think it's cynical to assume that a majority of people are lazy or stupid. Do you believe in free will? Not everyone does so I'm genuinely asking you I absolutely do. So do i - fistbump? Anyway, so the difference is that the future smack head born into shit circumstances only effects to probability they will make bad decisions (no real good can ever really come from long term usage). Where as the mud eating child in haiti never had a choice to make. Although I'm not keen of the wording, yes liberty does mean you condemn the kids because people have the freedom to make bad choices as well as good ones. Liberty isn't a perfect scenario, i just consider it better on balance than an ever authoritarian state. I think an objective reading of history for life in america / europe vrs soviet union / nazi Germany or Mao's china makes that choice pretty straight forward. " I'll take a fistbump  (although maybe I shouldn't say that on a swingers site).
But I'm not entirely sure I get your point exactly.
While I do think some people don't do themselves any favours I also think others are genuinely born into hard situations in this country.
So if you can extend the sympathy to the Haitian child why not also in the case of the UK?
Don't get me wrong, you do have to draw a line somewhere, but I also honestly think that most people do the right thing given the help and the opportunity.
| |||
"Cutting your cloth. Lots of people are over stretched and plead poverty. They blame anyone but themselves for their financial mismanagement. I have never earned a big wage but have worked hard doing anything I could to pay my way. I don't live in a big house or drive a new car but its all paid for. Get real folks and take responsibility for your own lives stop blaming polaticians. I have a new policy I'd like all the parties to adopt. A free 2 week school trip for all 13-year olds to their choice of india, thailand or haiti so they can see what real fucking poverty is and won't grow up to be so whingy. This policy would be funded by increases in economic productivity than come from the reduction in self pity.
It's got to said you make more sense then anybody in the political section
And I could not feel pity for any teacher or nurse using a food bank, they get a reasonable salary so should have no need for a food bank.
Mortgage rates are at an al, time low so that should not be factor, house prices have recovered so they shouldn't be in negative equity. If you can't afford where you live sell up and get what you can afford
In the same way if you smoke and drink and think others should feed you, you need to get a life
That's purely due to sharing opinions . You really don't have a clue.
Btw I cannot imagine any public sector worker would want your sympathy.
To be fair, I think you write crap just to rankle people.
The public sector should stop whinging, there are far more disadvantaged peeps in the private sector
And it's not really a sector I have much if any sympathy for.
I might have sympathy for individual, but that would never be based on the sector that they work in, but would be based on their personal circumstances
Just because some one chooses to work in the public sector, it shouldn't entitle them to immediate sympathy
Bloody hell soapy and doppy live next door to me, both work in the police, are fortunate enough to retire early on an extremely generous pension
Should I drop them a food parcel off as they must be proper skint, what with only getting a 250k lump sum each
And I've never known 2 people to have so much time of sick in my entire life.
What bit of not wanting your sympathy do you not get?
You obviously failed to read, I said I offer my sympathy based on the individuals need, and you don't meet my criteria so no sympathy was or has been offered to you.
No! It is you who has failed read. You keep trying to make this personal but I have been writing on behalf of public sector workers who won't want your sympathy.
To be honest the whinging I hear is about funding cuts and therefore service cuts.
Have you been elected by those who work in public sector as their official spokesperson"I was waiting for this . Just advocating for them | |||
"Cutting your cloth. Lots of people are over stretched and plead poverty. They blame anyone but themselves for their financial mismanagement. I have never earned a big wage but have worked hard doing anything I could to pay my way. I don't live in a big house or drive a new car but its all paid for. Get real folks and take responsibility for your own lives stop blaming polaticians. I have a new policy I'd like all the parties to adopt. A free 2 week school trip for all 13-year olds to their choice of india, thailand or haiti so they can see what real fucking poverty is and won't grow up to be so whingy. This policy would be funded by increases in economic productivity than come from the reduction in self pity.
I'm stating this from memory so may err. There is abject poverty (third world) and relative. It holds no value to compare the two. I imagine the Joseph Rowntree Foundation would make a clear argument.
Relative poverty is an oxymoron.
Perhaps but it exists.
Yes in some 1984 alterntaive relity where words have no permanent meaning.
Ha! Words evolve and as such may not have a permanent meaning. Try listening to Susie Dent on Countdown .
Poverty in this nation is relative to it's wealth = no alternative reality needed.
But your not addressing the fundamental problem with relative poverty in that it does not actually measure real poverty. For example between 1997 and 2007 while both the rich and the poor got richer using relative poverty (less than 60% of average earning) more people fell into poverty. Conversely between 2007 and 2012, while everyone got poorer, using relative poverty, less people were actually in poverty.
Whilst I would except that some form of measuring poverty relative to over all total wealth is necessary, there is clearly something wrong with a measurement for poverty that says more people are in poverty when they're actually better off and less people in poverty when they're actually worse off.
In other words the research is basically made up crap, which has no actual reality in the UK"And it ignores the fact that a lot of wealth is cumulative. If our parents invented a cure for a disease then we live with the benefit of said cure but do not incur the majority of the cost. Which is why, over time, it is actually very difficult for living standards to fall except when you live in anarchy. | |||
" To be honest I think you're splitting hairs on the difference between "poor" and "poverty". Also, what about the "smack heads" in the UK who were born into shit circumstances through no fault of their own. Yes, perhaps you can lay the blame with their parents but does that mean you condemn the kids? And yes, it's probably easier to break the cycle of relative poverty than the cycle of extreme poverty, but again I think it's cynical to assume that a majority of people are lazy or stupid. Do you believe in free will? Not everyone does so I'm genuinely asking you I absolutely do. So do i - fistbump? Anyway, so the difference is that the future smack head born into shit circumstances only effects to probability they will make bad decisions (no real good can ever really come from long term usage). Where as the mud eating child in haiti never had a choice to make. Although I'm not keen of the wording, yes liberty does mean you condemn the kids because people have the freedom to make bad choices as well as good ones. Liberty isn't a perfect scenario, i just consider it better on balance than an ever authoritarian state. I think an objective reading of history for life in america / europe vrs soviet union / nazi Germany or Mao's china makes that choice pretty straight forward. I'll take a fistbump (although maybe I shouldn't say that on a swingers site).
But I'm not entirely sure I get your point exactly.
While I do think some people don't do themselves any favours I also think others are genuinely born into hard situations in this country.
So if you can extend the sympathy to the Haitian child why not also in the case of the UK?
Don't get me wrong, you do have to draw a line somewhere, but I also honestly think that most people do the right thing given the help and the opportunity.
"Because one has choice and the other doesn't. There are no circumstances in the UK that you can be born into that predestin you to poverty, but the same cannot be said of haiti. Personally i also have a strong dislike of hard drug users since their habit is one of the main reasons countries like Afghanistan are the way they are. | |||
" To be honest I think you're splitting hairs on the difference between "poor" and "poverty". Also, what about the "smack heads" in the UK who were born into shit circumstances through no fault of their own. Yes, perhaps you can lay the blame with their parents but does that mean you condemn the kids? And yes, it's probably easier to break the cycle of relative poverty than the cycle of extreme poverty, but again I think it's cynical to assume that a majority of people are lazy or stupid. Do you believe in free will? Not everyone does so I'm genuinely asking you I absolutely do. So do i - fistbump? Anyway, so the difference is that the future smack head born into shit circumstances only effects to probability they will make bad decisions (no real good can ever really come from long term usage). Where as the mud eating child in haiti never had a choice to make. Although I'm not keen of the wording, yes liberty does mean you condemn the kids because people have the freedom to make bad choices as well as good ones. Liberty isn't a perfect scenario, i just consider it better on balance than an ever authoritarian state. I think an objective reading of history for life in america / europe vrs soviet union / nazi Germany or Mao's china makes that choice pretty straight forward. I'll take a fistbump (although maybe I shouldn't say that on a swingers site).
But I'm not entirely sure I get your point exactly.
While I do think some people don't do themselves any favours I also think others are genuinely born into hard situations in this country.
So if you can extend the sympathy to the Haitian child why not also in the case of the UK?
Don't get me wrong, you do have to draw a line somewhere, but I also honestly think that most people do the right thing given the help and the opportunity.
Because one has choice and the other doesn't. There are no circumstances in the UK that you can be born into that predestin you to poverty, but the same cannot be said of haiti.
Personally i also have a strong dislike of hard drug users since their habit is one of the main reasons countries like Afghanistan are the way they are. "https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/uk-poverty-causes-costs-and-solutions | |||
" To be honest I think you're splitting hairs on the difference between "poor" and "poverty". Also, what about the "smack heads" in the UK who were born into shit circumstances through no fault of their own. Yes, perhaps you can lay the blame with their parents but does that mean you condemn the kids? And yes, it's probably easier to break the cycle of relative poverty than the cycle of extreme poverty, but again I think it's cynical to assume that a majority of people are lazy or stupid. Do you believe in free will? Not everyone does so I'm genuinely asking you I absolutely do. So do i - fistbump? Anyway, so the difference is that the future smack head born into shit circumstances only effects to probability they will make bad decisions (no real good can ever really come from long term usage). Where as the mud eating child in haiti never had a choice to make. Although I'm not keen of the wording, yes liberty does mean you condemn the kids because people have the freedom to make bad choices as well as good ones. Liberty isn't a perfect scenario, i just consider it better on balance than an ever authoritarian state. I think an objective reading of history for life in america / europe vrs soviet union / nazi Germany or Mao's china makes that choice pretty straight forward. I'll take a fistbump (although maybe I shouldn't say that on a swingers site).
But I'm not entirely sure I get your point exactly.
While I do think some people don't do themselves any favours I also think others are genuinely born into hard situations in this country.
So if you can extend the sympathy to the Haitian child why not also in the case of the UK?
Don't get me wrong, you do have to draw a line somewhere, but I also honestly think that most people do the right thing given the help and the opportunity.
Because one has choice and the other doesn't. There are no circumstances in the UK that you can be born into that predestin you to poverty, but the same cannot be said of haiti.
Personally i also have a strong dislike of hard drug users since their habit is one of the main reasons countries like Afghanistan are the way they are.
https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/uk-poverty-causes-costs-and-solutions
"Could you maybe give a few bullet points that describe which aspects you rate from this? I'm happy to allow spoilers | |||
" To be honest I think you're splitting hairs on the difference between "poor" and "poverty". Also, what about the "smack heads" in the UK who were born into shit circumstances through no fault of their own. Yes, perhaps you can lay the blame with their parents but does that mean you condemn the kids? And yes, it's probably easier to break the cycle of relative poverty than the cycle of extreme poverty, but again I think it's cynical to assume that a majority of people are lazy or stupid. Do you believe in free will? Not everyone does so I'm genuinely asking you I absolutely do. So do i - fistbump? Anyway, so the difference is that the future smack head born into shit circumstances only effects to probability they will make bad decisions (no real good can ever really come from long term usage). Where as the mud eating child in haiti never had a choice to make. Although I'm not keen of the wording, yes liberty does mean you condemn the kids because people have the freedom to make bad choices as well as good ones. Liberty isn't a perfect scenario, i just consider it better on balance than an ever authoritarian state. I think an objective reading of history for life in america / europe vrs soviet union / nazi Germany or Mao's china makes that choice pretty straight forward. I'll take a fistbump (although maybe I shouldn't say that on a swingers site).
But I'm not entirely sure I get your point exactly.
While I do think some people don't do themselves any favours I also think others are genuinely born into hard situations in this country.
So if you can extend the sympathy to the Haitian child why not also in the case of the UK?
Don't get me wrong, you do have to draw a line somewhere, but I also honestly think that most people do the right thing given the help and the opportunity.
Because one has choice and the other doesn't. There are no circumstances in the UK that you can be born into that predestin you to poverty, but the same cannot be said of haiti.
Personally i also have a strong dislike of hard drug users since their habit is one of the main reasons countries like Afghanistan are the way they are.
https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/uk-poverty-causes-costs-and-solutions
Could you maybe give a few bullet points that describe which aspects you rate from this? I'm happy to allow spoilers"God no - I haven't downloaded the PDFs lol. | |||
" To be honest I think you're splitting hairs on the difference between "poor" and "poverty". Also, what about the "smack heads" in the UK who were born into shit circumstances through no fault of their own. Yes, perhaps you can lay the blame with their parents but does that mean you condemn the kids? And yes, it's probably easier to break the cycle of relative poverty than the cycle of extreme poverty, but again I think it's cynical to assume that a majority of people are lazy or stupid. Do you believe in free will? Not everyone does so I'm genuinely asking you I absolutely do. So do i - fistbump? Anyway, so the difference is that the future smack head born into shit circumstances only effects to probability they will make bad decisions (no real good can ever really come from long term usage). Where as the mud eating child in haiti never had a choice to make. Although I'm not keen of the wording, yes liberty does mean you condemn the kids because people have the freedom to make bad choices as well as good ones. Liberty isn't a perfect scenario, i just consider it better on balance than an ever authoritarian state. I think an objective reading of history for life in america / europe vrs soviet union / nazi Germany or Mao's china makes that choice pretty straight forward. I'll take a fistbump (although maybe I shouldn't say that on a swingers site).
But I'm not entirely sure I get your point exactly.
While I do think some people don't do themselves any favours I also think others are genuinely born into hard situations in this country.
So if you can extend the sympathy to the Haitian child why not also in the case of the UK?
Don't get me wrong, you do have to draw a line somewhere, but I also honestly think that most people do the right thing given the help and the opportunity.
Because one has choice and the other doesn't. There are no circumstances in the UK that you can be born into that predestin you to poverty, but the same cannot be said of haiti.
Personally i also have a strong dislike of hard drug users since their habit is one of the main reasons countries like Afghanistan are the way they are. "Sorry, I think I misunderstood you earlier on smack head (I wasn't being so literal before). However, I still don't fully agree. What about some kid literally born to drug addicts and introduced at a very young age. Yes, at some point they become old enough to make their own choices but their already going to be pretty f*cked up at that point. Ultimately I do think that people have a lot more opportunity here but I also think many do get a shitty deal to start. And they don't any more choice about that. And here's a genuine question for you. Do you honestly think that everyone in this country gets the same opportunities regardless of their starting point? | |||
| |||
""Society creates the crime, the criminal commits it."" So you don't believe in free will then? | |||
" To be honest I think you're splitting hairs on the difference between "poor" and "poverty". Also, what about the "smack heads" in the UK who were born into shit circumstances through no fault of their own. Yes, perhaps you can lay the blame with their parents but does that mean you condemn the kids? And yes, it's probably easier to break the cycle of relative poverty than the cycle of extreme poverty, but again I think it's cynical to assume that a majority of people are lazy or stupid. Do you believe in free will? Not everyone does so I'm genuinely asking you I absolutely do. So do i - fistbump? Anyway, so the difference is that the future smack head born into shit circumstances only effects to probability they will make bad decisions (no real good can ever really come from long term usage). Where as the mud eating child in haiti never had a choice to make. Although I'm not keen of the wording, yes liberty does mean you condemn the kids because people have the freedom to make bad choices as well as good ones. Liberty isn't a perfect scenario, i just consider it better on balance than an ever authoritarian state. I think an objective reading of history for life in america / europe vrs soviet union / nazi Germany or Mao's china makes that choice pretty straight forward. I'll take a fistbump (although maybe I shouldn't say that on a swingers site).
But I'm not entirely sure I get your point exactly.
While I do think some people don't do themselves any favours I also think others are genuinely born into hard situations in this country.
So if you can extend the sympathy to the Haitian child why not also in the case of the UK?
Don't get me wrong, you do have to draw a line somewhere, but I also honestly think that most people do the right thing given the help and the opportunity.
Because one has choice and the other doesn't. There are no circumstances in the UK that you can be born into that predestin you to poverty, but the same cannot be said of haiti.
Personally i also have a strong dislike of hard drug users since their habit is one of the main reasons countries like Afghanistan are the way they are.
Sorry, I think I misunderstood you earlier on smack head (I wasn't being so literal before).
However, I still don't fully agree. What about some kid literally born to drug addicts and introduced at a very young age.
Yes, at some point they become old enough to make their own choices but their already going to be pretty f*cked up at that point.
Ultimately I do think that people have a lot more opportunity here but I also think many do get a shitty deal to start. And they don't any more choice about that.
And here's a genuine question for you. Do you honestly think that everyone in this country gets the same opportunities regardless of their starting point?"No not at all. But I'm just saying it's a matter of probability if you believe in free will. So what I'm saying is that middle class mandy has a 95% chance of making choices that allow her to enjoy marrying a man who treats her well, having kids and foreign holidays. Whilst smackhead baby sammy has a 20% chance of making those good decisions and correspondingly an 80% probability of having a stint in prison, encountering domestic violence and living in a shite house. But 20% is still better than 0% which is what most haiti kids get. | |||
""Society creates the crime, the criminal commits it." So you don't believe in free will then? " The point is waaaaaay over there.... | |||
" To be honest I think you're splitting hairs on the difference between "poor" and "poverty". Also, what about the "smack heads" in the UK who were born into shit circumstances through no fault of their own. Yes, perhaps you can lay the blame with their parents but does that mean you condemn the kids? And yes, it's probably easier to break the cycle of relative poverty than the cycle of extreme poverty, but again I think it's cynical to assume that a majority of people are lazy or stupid. Do you believe in free will? Not everyone does so I'm genuinely asking you I absolutely do. So do i - fistbump? Anyway, so the difference is that the future smack head born into shit circumstances only effects to probability they will make bad decisions (no real good can ever really come from long term usage). Where as the mud eating child in haiti never had a choice to make. Although I'm not keen of the wording, yes liberty does mean you condemn the kids because people have the freedom to make bad choices as well as good ones. Liberty isn't a perfect scenario, i just consider it better on balance than an ever authoritarian state. I think an objective reading of history for life in america / europe vrs soviet union / nazi Germany or Mao's china makes that choice pretty straight forward. I'll take a fistbump (although maybe I shouldn't say that on a swingers site).
But I'm not entirely sure I get your point exactly.
While I do think some people don't do themselves any favours I also think others are genuinely born into hard situations in this country.
So if you can extend the sympathy to the Haitian child why not also in the case of the UK?
Don't get me wrong, you do have to draw a line somewhere, but I also honestly think that most people do the right thing given the help and the opportunity.
Because one has choice and the other doesn't. There are no circumstances in the UK that you can be born into that predestin you to poverty, but the same cannot be said of haiti.
Personally i also have a strong dislike of hard drug users since their habit is one of the main reasons countries like Afghanistan are the way they are.
https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/uk-poverty-causes-costs-and-solutions
Could you maybe give a few bullet points that describe which aspects you rate from this? I'm happy to allow spoilers
God no - I haven't downloaded the PDFs lol."It's a 370 page report but I think the intro is quite good (covers both arguments which are both necessary): "The level of poverty in the UK is shameful. This should be a place where everyone can achieve a decent, secure standard of living. Instead, millions of people – many from working families – are struggling to meet their needs. People in poverty experience daily insecurity and uncertainty, and are excluded from the norms of a wealthy society, facing impossible decisions about money, and getting into debt. Poverty causes families significant harm, affecting people’s health and well-being, eroding confidence and capability, and damaging life chances. But it also damages wider society and the economy, depriving it of the skills and talents of people who could otherwise contribute. People experiencing poverty are treated with pity, scorn or even disgust – emotions that prevent action. Together these emotions create a sense that poverty in the UK is about a group of people who are entirely different from the rest of us with different motivations and desires. In reality, poverty can affect almost anyone. It fundamentally affects how communities work, and the ability of families to nurture and support. It affects the economy, costing the public purse £78 billion a year and £70 billion in benefits. The continued existence of high levels of poverty in this country is not a problem for ‘them’ – it is a problem for everyone who wants to see a stronger, safer, more sustainable society. It is easy to be blinded by simplistic and superficial responses. You can blame individuals for the bad decisions they make, and fool yourself into believing it could never happen to you. Or you can blame national structures – if only the system of tax and benefits could be fundamentally redesigned, and structural inequality abolished, then poverty could be ended. These two arguments have run their course. Neither argument is an accurate explanation of poverty in the UK, and neither offers a workable solution on its own. Instead they cancel each other out, and the resulting inaction is causing great harm. Structures and choices must be considered together for policy to be effective. In an otherwise prosperous society, high levels of poverty indicate failure by community, market and state, and all of these must be involved in the solutions. There have been many previous attempts to end poverty in this country, but these have been piecemeal and have only dealt with part of the problem – for example, focusing on reducing poverty for children, or on ending a particular type of poverty. In committing to develop a strategy across the different parts of the UK, JRF has also committed to developing a comprehensive approach that covers all generations, is based on the best available knowledge, and is as clear as we can be about the costs. Our approach demands a consensus. Stop-start approaches to poverty have fallen short, just as initiatives developed by individual players frequently stall. The nature of poverty in the UK demands a non-partisan, long-term approach, marshalling all the skills and resources of governments (national, local and central), business, employers, voluntary organisations, broader civil society, families and individuals. | |||
" To be honest I think you're splitting hairs on the difference between "poor" and "poverty". Also, what about the "smack heads" in the UK who were born into shit circumstances through no fault of their own. Yes, perhaps you can lay the blame with their parents but does that mean you condemn the kids? And yes, it's probably easier to break the cycle of relative poverty than the cycle of extreme poverty, but again I think it's cynical to assume that a majority of people are lazy or stupid. Do you believe in free will? Not everyone does so I'm genuinely asking you I absolutely do. So do i - fistbump? Anyway, so the difference is that the future smack head born into shit circumstances only effects to probability they will make bad decisions (no real good can ever really come from long term usage). Where as the mud eating child in haiti never had a choice to make. Although I'm not keen of the wording, yes liberty does mean you condemn the kids because people have the freedom to make bad choices as well as good ones. Liberty isn't a perfect scenario, i just consider it better on balance than an ever authoritarian state. I think an objective reading of history for life in america / europe vrs soviet union / nazi Germany or Mao's china makes that choice pretty straight forward. I'll take a fistbump (although maybe I shouldn't say that on a swingers site).
But I'm not entirely sure I get your point exactly.
While I do think some people don't do themselves any favours I also think others are genuinely born into hard situations in this country.
So if you can extend the sympathy to the Haitian child why not also in the case of the UK?
Don't get me wrong, you do have to draw a line somewhere, but I also honestly think that most people do the right thing given the help and the opportunity.
Because one has choice and the other doesn't. There are no circumstances in the UK that you can be born into that predestin you to poverty, but the same cannot be said of haiti.
Personally i also have a strong dislike of hard drug users since their habit is one of the main reasons countries like Afghanistan are the way they are.
https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/uk-poverty-causes-costs-and-solutions
Could you maybe give a few bullet points that describe which aspects you rate from this? I'm happy to allow spoilers
God no - I haven't downloaded the PDFs lol.
It's a 370 page report but I think the intro is quite good (covers both arguments which are both necessary):
"The level of poverty in the UK is shameful. This should be a place where everyone can achieve a decent, secure standard of living. Instead,
millions of people – many from working families – are struggling to meet
their needs.
People in poverty experience daily insecurity and uncertainty, and are
excluded from the norms of a wealthy society, facing impossible decisions
about money, and getting into debt.
Poverty causes families significant
harm, affecting people’s health and well-being, eroding confidence and
capability, and damaging life chances. But it also damages wider society
and the economy, depriving it of the skills and talents of people who
could otherwise contribute.
People experiencing poverty are treated with pity, scorn or even disgust –
emotions that prevent action. Together these emotions create a sense that
poverty in the UK is about a group of people who are entirely different from
the rest of us with different motivations and desires.
In reality, poverty can affect almost anyone. It fundamentally affects
how communities work, and the ability of families to nurture and support.
It affects the economy, costing the public purse £78 billion a year and
£70 billion in benefits. The continued existence of high levels of poverty in
this country is not a problem for ‘them’ – it is a problem for everyone who
wants to see a stronger, safer, more sustainable society.
It is easy to be blinded by simplistic and superficial responses. You
can blame individuals for the bad decisions they make, and fool yourself
into believing it could never happen to you.
Or you can blame national
structures – if only the system of tax and benefits could be fundamentally
redesigned, and structural inequality abolished, then poverty could be ended.
These two arguments have run their course. Neither argument is an
accurate explanation of poverty in the UK, and neither offers a workable
solution on its own.
Instead they cancel each other out, and the resulting
inaction is causing great harm. Structures and choices must be considered
together for policy to be effective.
In an otherwise prosperous society, high levels of poverty indicate
failure by community, market and state, and all of these must be involved
in the solutions.
There have been many previous attempts to end poverty in this
country, but these have been piecemeal and have only dealt with part
of the problem – for example, focusing on reducing poverty for children,
or on ending a particular type of poverty.
In committing to develop
a strategy across the different parts of the UK, JRF has also committed
to developing a comprehensive approach that covers all generations,
is based on the best available knowledge, and is as clear as we can be
about the costs.
Our approach demands a consensus. Stop-start approaches to poverty
have fallen short, just as initiatives developed by individual players frequently
stall. The nature of poverty in the UK demands a non-partisan, long-term
approach, marshalling all the skills and resources of governments (national,
local and central), business, employers, voluntary organisations, broader civil
society, families and individuals."If poverty is defined as household income that is less than 60% of median earning. Then poverty mesns you live in a house with less than £964 a month, which is pretty shit. But if one person in the household had even a minimum wage job they would be above that (£1,198 a month). I can't really imagine a society where a household doesn't have a single full time worker but expects not to live in shite conditions. | |||
" To be honest I think you're splitting hairs on the difference between "poor" and "poverty". Also, what about the "smack heads" in the UK who were born into shit circumstances through no fault of their own. Yes, perhaps you can lay the blame with their parents but does that mean you condemn the kids? And yes, it's probably easier to break the cycle of relative poverty than the cycle of extreme poverty, but again I think it's cynical to assume that a majority of people are lazy or stupid. Do you believe in free will? Not everyone does so I'm genuinely asking you I absolutely do. So do i - fistbump? Anyway, so the difference is that the future smack head born into shit circumstances only effects to probability they will make bad decisions (no real good can ever really come from long term usage). Where as the mud eating child in haiti never had a choice to make. Although I'm not keen of the wording, yes liberty does mean you condemn the kids because people have the freedom to make bad choices as well as good ones. Liberty isn't a perfect scenario, i just consider it better on balance than an ever authoritarian state. I think an objective reading of history for life in america / europe vrs soviet union / nazi Germany or Mao's china makes that choice pretty straight forward. I'll take a fistbump (although maybe I shouldn't say that on a swingers site).
But I'm not entirely sure I get your point exactly.
While I do think some people don't do themselves any favours I also think others are genuinely born into hard situations in this country.
So if you can extend the sympathy to the Haitian child why not also in the case of the UK?
Don't get me wrong, you do have to draw a line somewhere, but I also honestly think that most people do the right thing given the help and the opportunity.
Because one has choice and the other doesn't. There are no circumstances in the UK that you can be born into that predestin you to poverty, but the same cannot be said of haiti.
Personally i also have a strong dislike of hard drug users since their habit is one of the main reasons countries like Afghanistan are the way they are.
https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/uk-poverty-causes-costs-and-solutions
Could you maybe give a few bullet points that describe which aspects you rate from this? I'm happy to allow spoilers
God no - I haven't downloaded the PDFs lol.
It's a 370 page report but I think the intro is quite good (covers both arguments which are both necessary):
"The level of poverty in the UK is shameful. This should be a place where everyone can achieve a decent, secure standard of living. Instead,
millions of people – many from working families – are struggling to meet
their needs.
People in poverty experience daily insecurity and uncertainty, and are
excluded from the norms of a wealthy society, facing impossible decisions
about money, and getting into debt.
Poverty causes families significant
harm, affecting people’s health and well-being, eroding confidence and
capability, and damaging life chances. But it also damages wider society
and the economy, depriving it of the skills and talents of people who
could otherwise contribute.
People experiencing poverty are treated with pity, scorn or even disgust –
emotions that prevent action. Together these emotions create a sense that
poverty in the UK is about a group of people who are entirely different from
the rest of us with different motivations and desires.
In reality, poverty can affect almost anyone. It fundamentally affects
how communities work, and the ability of families to nurture and support.
It affects the economy, costing the public purse £78 billion a year and
£70 billion in benefits. The continued existence of high levels of poverty in
this country is not a problem for ‘them’ – it is a problem for everyone who
wants to see a stronger, safer, more sustainable society.
It is easy to be blinded by simplistic and superficial responses. You
can blame individuals for the bad decisions they make, and fool yourself
into believing it could never happen to you.
Or you can blame national
structures – if only the system of tax and benefits could be fundamentally
redesigned, and structural inequality abolished, then poverty could be ended.
These two arguments have run their course. Neither argument is an
accurate explanation of poverty in the UK, and neither offers a workable
solution on its own.
Instead they cancel each other out, and the resulting
inaction is causing great harm. Structures and choices must be considered
together for policy to be effective.
In an otherwise prosperous society, high levels of poverty indicate
failure by community, market and state, and all of these must be involved
in the solutions.
There have been many previous attempts to end poverty in this
country, but these have been piecemeal and have only dealt with part
of the problem – for example, focusing on reducing poverty for children,
or on ending a particular type of poverty.
In committing to develop
a strategy across the different parts of the UK, JRF has also committed
to developing a comprehensive approach that covers all generations,
is based on the best available knowledge, and is as clear as we can be
about the costs.
Our approach demands a consensus. Stop-start approaches to poverty
have fallen short, just as initiatives developed by individual players frequently
stall. The nature of poverty in the UK demands a non-partisan, long-term
approach, marshalling all the skills and resources of governments (national,
local and central), business, employers, voluntary organisations, broader civil
society, families and individuals.
If poverty is defined as household income that is less than 60% of median earning. Then poverty mesns you live in a house with less than £964 a month, which is pretty shit. But if one person in the household had even a minimum wage job they would be above that (£1,198 a month).
I can't really imagine a society where a household doesn't have a single full time worker but expects not to live in shite conditions. "I don't see your point, or I think you're oversimplifying. I think the main point I took from the quote above is that poverty is about both structural inequality and choices. Both play a part. | |||
" I think the main point I took from the quote above is that poverty is about both structural inequality and choices. Both play a part. " But i totally agree both play a part and my probabilities reflected that. | |||
" I think the main point I took from the quote above is that poverty is about both structural inequality and choices. Both play a part. But i totally agree both play a part and my probabilities reflected that. " Yes they did. And holy shitballs, I think we may have some sort of consensus. Who'd have ever thunk it. | |||
" I think the main point I took from the quote above is that poverty is about both structural inequality and choices. Both play a part. But i totally agree both play a part and my probabilities reflected that. Yes they did. And holy shitballs, I think we may have some sort of consensus. Who'd have ever thunk it. "Now onto brexit, religion, bareback and married men
NOT | |||
"Cutting your cloth. Lots of people are over stretched and plead poverty. They blame anyone but themselves for their financial mismanagement. I have never earned a big wage but have worked hard doing anything I could to pay my way. I don't live in a big house or drive a new car but its all paid for. Get real folks and take responsibility for your own lives stop blaming polaticians. I have a new policy I'd like all the parties to adopt. A free 2 week school trip for all 13-year olds to their choice of india, thailand or haiti so they can see what real fucking poverty is and won't grow up to be so whingy. This policy would be funded by increases in economic productivity than come from the reduction in self pity.
I'm stating this from memory so may err. There is abject poverty (third world) and relative. It holds no value to compare the two. I imagine the Joseph Rowntree Foundation would make a clear argument.
Relative poverty is an oxymoron.
Perhaps but it exists.
Yes in some 1984 alterntaive relity where words have no permanent meaning.
Ha! Words evolve and as such may not have a permanent meaning. Try listening to Susie Dent on Countdown .
Poverty in this nation is relative to it's wealth = no alternative reality needed.
But your not addressing the fundamental problem with relative poverty in that it does not actually measure real poverty. For example between 1997 and 2007 while both the rich and the poor got richer using relative poverty (less than 60% of average earning) more people fell into poverty. Conversely between 2007 and 2012, while everyone got poorer, using relative poverty, less people were actually in poverty.
Whilst I would except that some form of measuring poverty relative to over all total wealth is necessary, there is clearly something wrong with a measurement for poverty that says more people are in poverty when they're actually better off and less people in poverty when they're actually worse off.
In other words the research is basically made up crap, which has no actual reality in the UK"We're not talking about any research, we're talking about statistics and what is a valid interpretation of those statistics. If people simply completely dismiss any statistic just because it doesn't tell the story they either believe or want to believe is no more helpful than those who completely accept the same statistic because tells the story they either believe or want to believe. Relative poverty, set at less than a percentage of average earnings, is a statistic which, while relevant to any discussion on poverty, should not be accepted as the only, main or complete measure of poverty. Especially at times of either boom or recession, when it often moves in the complete opposite direction of measures of absolute poverty. | |||
"We should tax sugar and fat and subsidize fruit and veg.
Too much fructose (a sugar found in fruits) is actually harmful to the eyes. Also fruits that tend to leave bits in the mouth (citrus fruits, grapes etc) or fruits high in acidity, which most are, are worse for teeth than most boiled sweets.what a load of cobblers"Try google | |||
"Cutting your cloth. Lots of people are over stretched and plead poverty. They blame anyone but themselves for their financial mismanagement. I have never earned a big wage but have worked hard doing anything I could to pay my way. I don't live in a big house or drive a new car but its all paid for. Get real folks and take responsibility for your own lives stop blaming polaticians. I have a new policy I'd like all the parties to adopt. A free 2 week school trip for all 13-year olds to their choice of india, thailand or haiti so they can see what real fucking poverty is and won't grow up to be so whingy. This policy would be funded by increases in economic productivity than come from the reduction in self pity.
I'm stating this from memory so may err. There is abject poverty (third world) and relative. It holds no value to compare the two. I imagine the Joseph Rowntree Foundation would make a clear argument.
Relative poverty is an oxymoron.
Perhaps but it exists.
Yes in some 1984 alterntaive relity where words have no permanent meaning.
Ha! Words evolve and as such may not have a permanent meaning. Try listening to Susie Dent on Countdown .
Poverty in this nation is relative to it's wealth = no alternative reality needed.
But your not addressing the fundamental problem with relative poverty in that it does not actually measure real poverty. For example between 1997 and 2007 while both the rich and the poor got richer using relative poverty (less than 60% of average earning) more people fell into poverty. Conversely between 2007 and 2012, while everyone got poorer, using relative poverty, less people were actually in poverty.
Whilst I would except that some form of measuring poverty relative to over all total wealth is necessary, there is clearly something wrong with a measurement for poverty that says more people are in poverty when they're actually better off and less people in poverty when they're actually worse off.
https://www.jrf.org.uk/
I mentioned that the Joseph Rowntree Foundation could put the case of relative poverty forward, so here's the link."I followed the link but didn't see any article headings that actually directly addressed the relative poverty question. Could you provide me with the link to the actual document or article, rather than just the home page. | |||
" I think the main point I took from the quote above is that poverty is about both structural inequality and choices. Both play a part. But i totally agree both play a part and my probabilities reflected that. Yes they did. And holy shitballs, I think we may have some sort of consensus. Who'd have ever thunk it.
Now onto brexit, religion, bareback and married men
NOT"You forgot marmite and hipsters. F*cking hipsters. | |||
" To be honest I think you're splitting hairs on the difference between "poor" and "poverty". Also, what about the "smack heads" in the UK who were born into shit circumstances through no fault of their own. Yes, perhaps you can lay the blame with their parents but does that mean you condemn the kids? And yes, it's probably easier to break the cycle of relative poverty than the cycle of extreme poverty, but again I think it's cynical to assume that a majority of people are lazy or stupid. Do you believe in free will? Not everyone does so I'm genuinely asking you I absolutely do. So do i - fistbump? Anyway, so the difference is that the future smack head born into shit circumstances only effects to probability they will make bad decisions (no real good can ever really come from long term usage). Where as the mud eating child in haiti never had a choice to make. Although I'm not keen of the wording, yes liberty does mean you condemn the kids because people have the freedom to make bad choices as well as good ones. Liberty isn't a perfect scenario, i just consider it better on balance than an ever authoritarian state. I think an objective reading of history for life in america / europe vrs soviet union / nazi Germany or Mao's china makes that choice pretty straight forward. I'll take a fistbump (although maybe I shouldn't say that on a swingers site).
But I'm not entirely sure I get your point exactly.
While I do think some people don't do themselves any favours I also think others are genuinely born into hard situations in this country.
So if you can extend the sympathy to the Haitian child why not also in the case of the UK?
Don't get me wrong, you do have to draw a line somewhere, but I also honestly think that most people do the right thing given the help and the opportunity.
Because one has choice and the other doesn't. There are no circumstances in the UK that you can be born into that predestin you to poverty, but the same cannot be said of haiti.
Personally i also have a strong dislike of hard drug users since their habit is one of the main reasons countries like Afghanistan are the way they are.
https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/uk-poverty-causes-costs-and-solutions
Could you maybe give a few bullet points that describe which aspects you rate from this? I'm happy to allow spoilers
God no - I haven't downloaded the PDFs lol.
It's a 370 page report but I think the intro is quite good (covers both arguments which are both necessary):
"The level of poverty in the UK is shameful. This should be a place where everyone can achieve a decent, secure standard of living. Instead,
millions of people – many from working families – are struggling to meet
their needs.
People in poverty experience daily insecurity and uncertainty, and are
excluded from the norms of a wealthy society, facing impossible decisions
about money, and getting into debt.
Poverty causes families significant
harm, affecting people’s health and well-being, eroding confidence and
capability, and damaging life chances. But it also damages wider society
and the economy, depriving it of the skills and talents of people who
could otherwise contribute.
People experiencing poverty are treated with pity, scorn or even disgust –
emotions that prevent action. Together these emotions create a sense that
poverty in the UK is about a group of people who are entirely different from
the rest of us with different motivations and desires.
In reality, poverty can affect almost anyone. It fundamentally affects
how communities work, and the ability of families to nurture and support.
It affects the economy, costing the public purse £78 billion a year and
£70 billion in benefits. The continued existence of high levels of poverty in
this country is not a problem for ‘them’ – it is a problem for everyone who
wants to see a stronger, safer, more sustainable society.
It is easy to be blinded by simplistic and superficial responses. You
can blame individuals for the bad decisions they make, and fool yourself
into believing it could never happen to you.
Or you can blame national
structures – if only the system of tax and benefits could be fundamentally
redesigned, and structural inequality abolished, then poverty could be ended.
These two arguments have run their course. Neither argument is an
accurate explanation of poverty in the UK, and neither offers a workable
solution on its own.
Instead they cancel each other out, and the resulting
inaction is causing great harm. Structures and choices must be considered
together for policy to be effective.
In an otherwise prosperous society, high levels of poverty indicate
failure by community, market and state, and all of these must be involved
in the solutions.
There have been many previous attempts to end poverty in this
country, but these have been piecemeal and have only dealt with part
of the problem – for example, focusing on reducing poverty for children,
or on ending a particular type of poverty.
In committing to develop
a strategy across the different parts of the UK, JRF has also committed
to developing a comprehensive approach that covers all generations,
is based on the best available knowledge, and is as clear as we can be
about the costs.
Our approach demands a consensus. Stop-start approaches to poverty
have fallen short, just as initiatives developed by individual players frequently
stall. The nature of poverty in the UK demands a non-partisan, long-term
approach, marshalling all the skills and resources of governments (national,
local and central), business, employers, voluntary organisations, broader civil
society, families and individuals."Thank you. Hopefully it shuts up the condescending OP regarding poverty stricken people (on benefits or otherwise). | |||
" To be honest I think you're splitting hairs on the difference between "poor" and "poverty". Also, what about the "smack heads" in the UK who were born into shit circumstances through no fault of their own. Yes, perhaps you can lay the blame with their parents but does that mean you condemn the kids? And yes, it's probably easier to break the cycle of relative poverty than the cycle of extreme poverty, but again I think it's cynical to assume that a majority of people are lazy or stupid. Do you believe in free will? Not everyone does so I'm genuinely asking you I absolutely do. So do i - fistbump? Anyway, so the difference is that the future smack head born into shit circumstances only effects to probability they will make bad decisions (no real good can ever really come from long term usage). Where as the mud eating child in haiti never had a choice to make. Although I'm not keen of the wording, yes liberty does mean you condemn the kids because people have the freedom to make bad choices as well as good ones. Liberty isn't a perfect scenario, i just consider it better on balance than an ever authoritarian state. I think an objective reading of history for life in america / europe vrs soviet union / nazi Germany or Mao's china makes that choice pretty straight forward. I'll take a fistbump (although maybe I shouldn't say that on a swingers site).
But I'm not entirely sure I get your point exactly.
While I do think some people don't do themselves any favours I also think others are genuinely born into hard situations in this country.
So if you can extend the sympathy to the Haitian child why not also in the case of the UK?
Don't get me wrong, you do have to draw a line somewhere, but I also honestly think that most people do the right thing given the help and the opportunity.
Because one has choice and the other doesn't. There are no circumstances in the UK that you can be born into that predestin you to poverty, but the same cannot be said of haiti.
Personally i also have a strong dislike of hard drug users since their habit is one of the main reasons countries like Afghanistan are the way they are.
https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/uk-poverty-causes-costs-and-solutions
Could you maybe give a few bullet points that describe which aspects you rate from this? I'm happy to allow spoilers
God no - I haven't downloaded the PDFs lol.
It's a 370 page report but I think the intro is quite good (covers both arguments which are both necessary):
"The level of poverty in the UK is shameful. This should be a place where everyone can achieve a decent, secure standard of living. Instead,
millions of people – many from working families – are struggling to meet
their needs.
People in poverty experience daily insecurity and uncertainty, and are
excluded from the norms of a wealthy society, facing impossible decisions
about money, and getting into debt.
Poverty causes families significant
harm, affecting people’s health and well-being, eroding confidence and
capability, and damaging life chances. But it also damages wider society
and the economy, depriving it of the skills and talents of people who
could otherwise contribute.
People experiencing poverty are treated with pity, scorn or even disgust –
emotions that prevent action. Together these emotions create a sense that
poverty in the UK is about a group of people who are entirely different from
the rest of us with different motivations and desires.
In reality, poverty can affect almost anyone. It fundamentally affects
how communities work, and the ability of families to nurture and support.
It affects the economy, costing the public purse £78 billion a year and
£70 billion in benefits. The continued existence of high levels of poverty in
this country is not a problem for ‘them’ – it is a problem for everyone who
wants to see a stronger, safer, more sustainable society.
It is easy to be blinded by simplistic and superficial responses. You
can blame individuals for the bad decisions they make, and fool yourself
into believing it could never happen to you.
Or you can blame national
structures – if only the system of tax and benefits could be fundamentally
redesigned, and structural inequality abolished, then poverty could be ended.
These two arguments have run their course. Neither argument is an
accurate explanation of poverty in the UK, and neither offers a workable
solution on its own.
Instead they cancel each other out, and the resulting
inaction is causing great harm. Structures and choices must be considered
together for policy to be effective.
In an otherwise prosperous society, high levels of poverty indicate
failure by community, market and state, and all of these must be involved
in the solutions.
There have been many previous attempts to end poverty in this
country, but these have been piecemeal and have only dealt with part
of the problem – for example, focusing on reducing poverty for children,
or on ending a particular type of poverty.
In committing to develop
a strategy across the different parts of the UK, JRF has also committed
to developing a comprehensive approach that covers all generations,
is based on the best available knowledge, and is as clear as we can be
about the costs.
Our approach demands a consensus. Stop-start approaches to poverty
have fallen short, just as initiatives developed by individual players frequently
stall. The nature of poverty in the UK demands a non-partisan, long-term
approach, marshalling all the skills and resources of governments (national,
local and central), business, employers, voluntary organisations, broader civil
society, families and individuals.
If poverty is defined as household income that is less than 60% of median earning. Then poverty mesns you live in a house with less than £964 a month, which is pretty shit. But if one person in the household had even a minimum wage job they would be above that (£1,198 a month).
I can't really imagine a society where a household doesn't have a single full time worker but expects not to live in shite conditions. "It exists. | |||
"Cutting your cloth. Lots of people are over stretched and plead poverty. They blame anyone but themselves for their financial mismanagement. I have never earned a big wage but have worked hard doing anything I could to pay my way. I don't live in a big house or drive a new car but its all paid for. Get real folks and take responsibility for your own lives stop blaming polaticians. I have a new policy I'd like all the parties to adopt. A free 2 week school trip for all 13-year olds to their choice of india, thailand or haiti so they can see what real fucking poverty is and won't grow up to be so whingy. This policy would be funded by increases in economic productivity than come from the reduction in self pity.
I'm stating this from memory so may err. There is abject poverty (third world) and relative. It holds no value to compare the two. I imagine the Joseph Rowntree Foundation would make a clear argument.
Relative poverty is an oxymoron.
Perhaps but it exists.
Yes in some 1984 alterntaive relity where words have no permanent meaning.
Ha! Words evolve and as such may not have a permanent meaning. Try listening to Susie Dent on Countdown .
Poverty in this nation is relative to it's wealth = no alternative reality needed.
But your not addressing the fundamental problem with relative poverty in that it does not actually measure real poverty. For example between 1997 and 2007 while both the rich and the poor got richer using relative poverty (less than 60% of average earning) more people fell into poverty. Conversely between 2007 and 2012, while everyone got poorer, using relative poverty, less people were actually in poverty.
Whilst I would except that some form of measuring poverty relative to over all total wealth is necessary, there is clearly something wrong with a measurement for poverty that says more people are in poverty when they're actually better off and less people in poverty when they're actually worse off.
https://www.jrf.org.uk/
I mentioned that the Joseph Rowntree Foundation could put the case of relative poverty forward, so here's the link.
I followed the link but didn't see any article headings that actually directly addressed the relative poverty question. Could you provide me with the link to the actual document or article, rather than just the home page."Really? Want my glasses? The entire site is about poverty in the UK, ie poverty relative to the UK. | |||
"Cutting your cloth. Lots of people are over stretched and plead poverty. They blame anyone but themselves for their financial mismanagement. I have never earned a big wage but have worked hard doing anything I could to pay my way. I don't live in a big house or drive a new car but its all paid for. Get real folks and take responsibility for your own lives stop blaming polaticians. I have a new policy I'd like all the parties to adopt. A free 2 week school trip for all 13-year olds to their choice of india, thailand or haiti so they can see what real fucking poverty is and won't grow up to be so whingy. This policy would be funded by increases in economic productivity than come from the reduction in self pity.
I'm stating this from memory so may err. There is abject poverty (third world) and relative. It holds no value to compare the two. I imagine the Joseph Rowntree Foundation would make a clear argument.
Relative poverty is an oxymoron.
Perhaps but it exists.
Yes in some 1984 alterntaive relity where words have no permanent meaning.
Ha! Words evolve and as such may not have a permanent meaning. Try listening to Susie Dent on Countdown .
Poverty in this nation is relative to it's wealth = no alternative reality needed.
But your not addressing the fundamental problem with relative poverty in that it does not actually measure real poverty. For example between 1997 and 2007 while both the rich and the poor got richer using relative poverty (less than 60% of average earning) more people fell into poverty. Conversely between 2007 and 2012, while everyone got poorer, using relative poverty, less people were actually in poverty.
Whilst I would except that some form of measuring poverty relative to over all total wealth is necessary, there is clearly something wrong with a measurement for poverty that says more people are in poverty when they're actually better off and less people in poverty when they're actually worse off."You're correct on this being a limitation of relative poverty. But that's the very nature of anything relative. I would have assumed that there was also an absolute measure for poverty in the UK. (As opposed to "absolute poverty" overseas). However, surprisingly I can't seem to find anything. I can find references to "absolute low income" but when I search for that I just find more relative definitions. Which seems odd. But your example of people falling into relative poverty even if their absolute income increases is also a little oversimplified. In that case people can still become poorer if the cost of living increases. Also, inequality is also a problem in itself and I think the current political climate shows exactly why. Whether inequality is real or only perceived it leads to animosity and resentment which weakens society. | |||
" To be honest I think you're splitting hairs on the difference between "poor" and "poverty". Also, what about the "smack heads" in the UK who were born into shit circumstances through no fault of their own. Yes, perhaps you can lay the blame with their parents but does that mean you condemn the kids? And yes, it's probably easier to break the cycle of relative poverty than the cycle of extreme poverty, but again I think it's cynical to assume that a majority of people are lazy or stupid. Do you believe in free will? Not everyone does so I'm genuinely asking you I absolutely do. So do i - fistbump? Anyway, so the difference is that the future smack head born into shit circumstances only effects to probability they will make bad decisions (no real good can ever really come from long term usage). Where as the mud eating child in haiti never had a choice to make. Although I'm not keen of the wording, yes liberty does mean you condemn the kids because people have the freedom to make bad choices as well as good ones. Liberty isn't a perfect scenario, i just consider it better on balance than an ever authoritarian state. I think an objective reading of history for life in america / europe vrs soviet union / nazi Germany or Mao's china makes that choice pretty straight forward. I'll take a fistbump (although maybe I shouldn't say that on a swingers site).
But I'm not entirely sure I get your point exactly.
While I do think some people don't do themselves any favours I also think others are genuinely born into hard situations in this country.
So if you can extend the sympathy to the Haitian child why not also in the case of the UK?
Don't get me wrong, you do have to draw a line somewhere, but I also honestly think that most people do the right thing given the help and the opportunity.
Because one has choice and the other doesn't. There are no circumstances in the UK that you can be born into that predestin you to poverty, but the same cannot be said of haiti.
Personally i also have a strong dislike of hard drug users since their habit is one of the main reasons countries like Afghanistan are the way they are.
https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/uk-poverty-causes-costs-and-solutions
Could you maybe give a few bullet points that describe which aspects you rate from this? I'm happy to allow spoilers
God no - I haven't downloaded the PDFs lol.
It's a 370 page report but I think the intro is quite good (covers both arguments which are both necessary):
"The level of poverty in the UK is shameful. This should be a place where everyone can achieve a decent, secure standard of living. Instead,
millions of people – many from working families – are struggling to meet
their needs.
People in poverty experience daily insecurity and uncertainty, and are
excluded from the norms of a wealthy society, facing impossible decisions
about money, and getting into debt.
Poverty causes families significant
harm, affecting people’s health and well-being, eroding confidence and
capability, and damaging life chances. But it also damages wider society
and the economy, depriving it of the skills and talents of people who
could otherwise contribute.
People experiencing poverty are treated with pity, scorn or even disgust –
emotions that prevent action. Together these emotions create a sense that
poverty in the UK is about a group of people who are entirely different from
the rest of us with different motivations and desires.
In reality, poverty can affect almost anyone. It fundamentally affects
how communities work, and the ability of families to nurture and support.
It affects the economy, costing the public purse £78 billion a year and
£70 billion in benefits. The continued existence of high levels of poverty in
this country is not a problem for ‘them’ – it is a problem for everyone who
wants to see a stronger, safer, more sustainable society.
It is easy to be blinded by simplistic and superficial responses. You
can blame individuals for the bad decisions they make, and fool yourself
into believing it could never happen to you.
Or you can blame national
structures – if only the system of tax and benefits could be fundamentally
redesigned, and structural inequality abolished, then poverty could be ended.
These two arguments have run their course. Neither argument is an
accurate explanation of poverty in the UK, and neither offers a workable
solution on its own.
Instead they cancel each other out, and the resulting
inaction is causing great harm. Structures and choices must be considered
together for policy to be effective.
In an otherwise prosperous society, high levels of poverty indicate
failure by community, market and state, and all of these must be involved
in the solutions.
There have been many previous attempts to end poverty in this
country, but these have been piecemeal and have only dealt with part
of the problem – for example, focusing on reducing poverty for children,
or on ending a particular type of poverty.
In committing to develop
a strategy across the different parts of the UK, JRF has also committed
to developing a comprehensive approach that covers all generations,
is based on the best available knowledge, and is as clear as we can be
about the costs.
Our approach demands a consensus. Stop-start approaches to poverty
have fallen short, just as initiatives developed by individual players frequently
stall. The nature of poverty in the UK demands a non-partisan, long-term
approach, marshalling all the skills and resources of governments (national,
local and central), business, employers, voluntary organisations, broader civil
society, families and individuals.
Thank you.
Hopefully it shuts up the condescending OP regarding poverty stricken people (on benefits or otherwise)."Sadly I don't think anything can stop the condescension in this particular case.  | |||
"Cutting your cloth. Lots of people are over stretched and plead poverty. They blame anyone but themselves for their financial mismanagement. I have never earned a big wage but have worked hard doing anything I could to pay my way. I don't live in a big house or drive a new car but its all paid for. Get real folks and take responsibility for your own lives stop blaming polaticians. I have a new policy I'd like all the parties to adopt. A free 2 week school trip for all 13-year olds to their choice of india, thailand or haiti so they can see what real fucking poverty is and won't grow up to be so whingy. This policy would be funded by increases in economic productivity than come from the reduction in self pity.
I'm stating this from memory so may err. There is abject poverty (third world) and relative. It holds no value to compare the two. I imagine the Joseph Rowntree Foundation would make a clear argument.
Relative poverty is an oxymoron.
Perhaps but it exists.
Yes in some 1984 alterntaive relity where words have no permanent meaning.
Ha! Words evolve and as such may not have a permanent meaning. Try listening to Susie Dent on Countdown .
Poverty in this nation is relative to it's wealth = no alternative reality needed.
But your not addressing the fundamental problem with relative poverty in that it does not actually measure real poverty. For example between 1997 and 2007 while both the rich and the poor got richer using relative poverty (less than 60% of average earning) more people fell into poverty. Conversely between 2007 and 2012, while everyone got poorer, using relative poverty, less people were actually in poverty.
Whilst I would except that some form of measuring poverty relative to over all total wealth is necessary, there is clearly something wrong with a measurement for poverty that says more people are in poverty when they're actually better off and less people in poverty when they're actually worse off.
https://www.jrf.org.uk/
I mentioned that the Joseph Rowntree Foundation could put the case of relative poverty forward, so here's the link.
I followed the link but didn't see any article headings that actually directly addressed the relative poverty question. Could you provide me with the link to the actual document or article, rather than just the home page.
Really? Want my glasses? The entire site is about poverty in the UK, ie poverty relative to the UK."To be fair, I think this was a genuine question which I've tried to address above. | |||
" To be honest I think you're splitting hairs on the difference between "poor" and "poverty". Also, what about the "smack heads" in the UK who were born into shit circumstances through no fault of their own. Yes, perhaps you can lay the blame with their parents but does that mean you condemn the kids? And yes, it's probably easier to break the cycle of relative poverty than the cycle of extreme poverty, but again I think it's cynical to assume that a majority of people are lazy or stupid. Do you believe in free will? Not everyone does so I'm genuinely asking you I absolutely do. So do i - fistbump? Anyway, so the difference is that the future smack head born into shit circumstances only effects to probability they will make bad decisions (no real good can ever really come from long term usage). Where as the mud eating child in haiti never had a choice to make. Although I'm not keen of the wording, yes liberty does mean you condemn the kids because people have the freedom to make bad choices as well as good ones. Liberty isn't a perfect scenario, i just consider it better on balance than an ever authoritarian state. I think an objective reading of history for life in america / europe vrs soviet union / nazi Germany or Mao's china makes that choice pretty straight forward. I'll take a fistbump (although maybe I shouldn't say that on a swingers site).
But I'm not entirely sure I get your point exactly.
While I do think some people don't do themselves any favours I also think others are genuinely born into hard situations in this country.
So if you can extend the sympathy to the Haitian child why not also in the case of the UK?
Don't get me wrong, you do have to draw a line somewhere, but I also honestly think that most people do the right thing given the help and the opportunity.
Because one has choice and the other doesn't. There are no circumstances in the UK that you can be born into that predestin you to poverty, but the same cannot be said of haiti.
Personally i also have a strong dislike of hard drug users since their habit is one of the main reasons countries like Afghanistan are the way they are.
https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/uk-poverty-causes-costs-and-solutions
Could you maybe give a few bullet points that describe which aspects you rate from this? I'm happy to allow spoilers
God no - I haven't downloaded the PDFs lol.
It's a 370 page report but I think the intro is quite good (covers both arguments which are both necessary):
"The level of poverty in the UK is shameful. This should be a place where everyone can achieve a decent, secure standard of living. Instead,
millions of people – many from working families – are struggling to meet
their needs.
People in poverty experience daily insecurity and uncertainty, and are
excluded from the norms of a wealthy society, facing impossible decisions
about money, and getting into debt.
Poverty causes families significant
harm, affecting people’s health and well-being, eroding confidence and
capability, and damaging life chances. But it also damages wider society
and the economy, depriving it of the skills and talents of people who
could otherwise contribute.
People experiencing poverty are treated with pity, scorn or even disgust –
emotions that prevent action. Together these emotions create a sense that
poverty in the UK is about a group of people who are entirely different from
the rest of us with different motivations and desires.
In reality, poverty can affect almost anyone. It fundamentally affects
how communities work, and the ability of families to nurture and support.
It affects the economy, costing the public purse £78 billion a year and
£70 billion in benefits. The continued existence of high levels of poverty in
this country is not a problem for ‘them’ – it is a problem for everyone who
wants to see a stronger, safer, more sustainable society.
It is easy to be blinded by simplistic and superficial responses. You
can blame individuals for the bad decisions they make, and fool yourself
into believing it could never happen to you.
Or you can blame national
structures – if only the system of tax and benefits could be fundamentally
redesigned, and structural inequality abolished, then poverty could be ended.
These two arguments have run their course. Neither argument is an
accurate explanation of poverty in the UK, and neither offers a workable
solution on its own.
Instead they cancel each other out, and the resulting
inaction is causing great harm. Structures and choices must be considered
together for policy to be effective.
In an otherwise prosperous society, high levels of poverty indicate
failure by community, market and state, and all of these must be involved
in the solutions.
There have been many previous attempts to end poverty in this
country, but these have been piecemeal and have only dealt with part
of the problem – for example, focusing on reducing poverty for children,
or on ending a particular type of poverty.
In committing to develop
a strategy across the different parts of the UK, JRF has also committed
to developing a comprehensive approach that covers all generations,
is based on the best available knowledge, and is as clear as we can be
about the costs.
Our approach demands a consensus. Stop-start approaches to poverty
have fallen short, just as initiatives developed by individual players frequently
stall. The nature of poverty in the UK demands a non-partisan, long-term
approach, marshalling all the skills and resources of governments (national,
local and central), business, employers, voluntary organisations, broader civil
society, families and individuals.
If poverty is defined as household income that is less than 60% of median earning. Then poverty mesns you live in a house with less than £964 a month, which is pretty shit. But if one person in the household had even a minimum wage job they would be above that (£1,198 a month).
I can't really imagine a society where a household doesn't have a single full time worker but expects not to live in shite conditions.
It exists."Do tell? | |||
" To be honest I think you're splitting hairs on the difference between "poor" and "poverty". Also, what about the "smack heads" in the UK who were born into shit circumstances through no fault of their own. Yes, perhaps you can lay the blame with their parents but does that mean you condemn the kids? And yes, it's probably easier to break the cycle of relative poverty than the cycle of extreme poverty, but again I think it's cynical to assume that a majority of people are lazy or stupid. Do you believe in free will? Not everyone does so I'm genuinely asking you I absolutely do. So do i - fistbump? Anyway, so the difference is that the future smack head born into shit circumstances only effects to probability they will make bad decisions (no real good can ever really come from long term usage). Where as the mud eating child in haiti never had a choice to make. Although I'm not keen of the wording, yes liberty does mean you condemn the kids because people have the freedom to make bad choices as well as good ones. Liberty isn't a perfect scenario, i just consider it better on balance than an ever authoritarian state. I think an objective reading of history for life in america / europe vrs soviet union / nazi Germany or Mao's china makes that choice pretty straight forward. I'll take a fistbump (although maybe I shouldn't say that on a swingers site).
But I'm not entirely sure I get your point exactly.
While I do think some people don't do themselves any favours I also think others are genuinely born into hard situations in this country.
So if you can extend the sympathy to the Haitian child why not also in the case of the UK?
Don't get me wrong, you do have to draw a line somewhere, but I also honestly think that most people do the right thing given the help and the opportunity.
Because one has choice and the other doesn't. There are no circumstances in the UK that you can be born into that predestin you to poverty, but the same cannot be said of haiti.
Personally i also have a strong dislike of hard drug users since their habit is one of the main reasons countries like Afghanistan are the way they are.
https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/uk-poverty-causes-costs-and-solutions
Could you maybe give a few bullet points that describe which aspects you rate from this? I'm happy to allow spoilers
God no - I haven't downloaded the PDFs lol.
It's a 370 page report but I think the intro is quite good (covers both arguments which are both necessary):
"The level of poverty in the UK is shameful. This should be a place where everyone can achieve a decent, secure standard of living. Instead,
millions of people – many from working families – are struggling to meet
their needs.
People in poverty experience daily insecurity and uncertainty, and are
excluded from the norms of a wealthy society, facing impossible decisions
about money, and getting into debt.
Poverty causes families significant
harm, affecting people’s health and well-being, eroding confidence and
capability, and damaging life chances. But it also damages wider society
and the economy, depriving it of the skills and talents of people who
could otherwise contribute.
People experiencing poverty are treated with pity, scorn or even disgust –
emotions that prevent action. Together these emotions create a sense that
poverty in the UK is about a group of people who are entirely different from
the rest of us with different motivations and desires.
In reality, poverty can affect almost anyone. It fundamentally affects
how communities work, and the ability of families to nurture and support.
It affects the economy, costing the public purse £78 billion a year and
£70 billion in benefits. The continued existence of high levels of poverty in
this country is not a problem for ‘them’ – it is a problem for everyone who
wants to see a stronger, safer, more sustainable society.
It is easy to be blinded by simplistic and superficial responses. You
can blame individuals for the bad decisions they make, and fool yourself
into believing it could never happen to you.
Or you can blame national
structures – if only the system of tax and benefits could be fundamentally
redesigned, and structural inequality abolished, then poverty could be ended.
These two arguments have run their course. Neither argument is an
accurate explanation of poverty in the UK, and neither offers a workable
solution on its own.
Instead they cancel each other out, and the resulting
inaction is causing great harm. Structures and choices must be considered
together for policy to be effective.
In an otherwise prosperous society, high levels of poverty indicate
failure by community, market and state, and all of these must be involved
in the solutions.
There have been many previous attempts to end poverty in this
country, but these have been piecemeal and have only dealt with part
of the problem – for example, focusing on reducing poverty for children,
or on ending a particular type of poverty.
In committing to develop
a strategy across the different parts of the UK, JRF has also committed
to developing a comprehensive approach that covers all generations,
is based on the best available knowledge, and is as clear as we can be
about the costs.
Our approach demands a consensus. Stop-start approaches to poverty
have fallen short, just as initiatives developed by individual players frequently
stall. The nature of poverty in the UK demands a non-partisan, long-term
approach, marshalling all the skills and resources of governments (national,
local and central), business, employers, voluntary organisations, broader civil
society, families and individuals.
Thank you.
Hopefully it shuts up the condescending OP regarding poverty stricken people (on benefits or otherwise).
Sadly I don't think anything can stop the condescension in this particular case. "Has to be a case of pig ignorance then. | |||
" To be honest I think you're splitting hairs on the difference between "poor" and "poverty". Also, what about the "smack heads" in the UK who were born into shit circumstances through no fault of their own. Yes, perhaps you can lay the blame with their parents but does that mean you condemn the kids? And yes, it's probably easier to break the cycle of relative poverty than the cycle of extreme poverty, but again I think it's cynical to assume that a majority of people are lazy or stupid. Do you believe in free will? Not everyone does so I'm genuinely asking you I absolutely do. So do i - fistbump? Anyway, so the difference is that the future smack head born into shit circumstances only effects to probability they will make bad decisions (no real good can ever really come from long term usage). Where as the mud eating child in haiti never had a choice to make. Although I'm not keen of the wording, yes liberty does mean you condemn the kids because people have the freedom to make bad choices as well as good ones. Liberty isn't a perfect scenario, i just consider it better on balance than an ever authoritarian state. I think an objective reading of history for life in america / europe vrs soviet union / nazi Germany or Mao's china makes that choice pretty straight forward. I'll take a fistbump (although maybe I shouldn't say that on a swingers site).
But I'm not entirely sure I get your point exactly.
While I do think some people don't do themselves any favours I also think others are genuinely born into hard situations in this country.
So if you can extend the sympathy to the Haitian child why not also in the case of the UK?
Don't get me wrong, you do have to draw a line somewhere, but I also honestly think that most people do the right thing given the help and the opportunity.
Because one has choice and the other doesn't. There are no circumstances in the UK that you can be born into that predestin you to poverty, but the same cannot be said of haiti.
Personally i also have a strong dislike of hard drug users since their habit is one of the main reasons countries like Afghanistan are the way they are.
https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/uk-poverty-causes-costs-and-solutions
Could you maybe give a few bullet points that describe which aspects you rate from this? I'm happy to allow spoilers
God no - I haven't downloaded the PDFs lol.
It's a 370 page report but I think the intro is quite good (covers both arguments which are both necessary):
"The level of poverty in the UK is shameful. This should be a place where everyone can achieve a decent, secure standard of living. Instead,
millions of people – many from working families – are struggling to meet
their needs.
People in poverty experience daily insecurity and uncertainty, and are
excluded from the norms of a wealthy society, facing impossible decisions
about money, and getting into debt.
Poverty causes families significant
harm, affecting people’s health and well-being, eroding confidence and
capability, and damaging life chances. But it also damages wider society
and the economy, depriving it of the skills and talents of people who
could otherwise contribute.
People experiencing poverty are treated with pity, scorn or even disgust –
emotions that prevent action. Together these emotions create a sense that
poverty in the UK is about a group of people who are entirely different from
the rest of us with different motivations and desires.
In reality, poverty can affect almost anyone. It fundamentally affects
how communities work, and the ability of families to nurture and support.
It affects the economy, costing the public purse £78 billion a year and
£70 billion in benefits. The continued existence of high levels of poverty in
this country is not a problem for ‘them’ – it is a problem for everyone who
wants to see a stronger, safer, more sustainable society.
It is easy to be blinded by simplistic and superficial responses. You
can blame individuals for the bad decisions they make, and fool yourself
into believing it could never happen to you.
Or you can blame national
structures – if only the system of tax and benefits could be fundamentally
redesigned, and structural inequality abolished, then poverty could be ended.
These two arguments have run their course. Neither argument is an
accurate explanation of poverty in the UK, and neither offers a workable
solution on its own.
Instead they cancel each other out, and the resulting
inaction is causing great harm. Structures and choices must be considered
together for policy to be effective.
In an otherwise prosperous society, high levels of poverty indicate
failure by community, market and state, and all of these must be involved
in the solutions.
There have been many previous attempts to end poverty in this
country, but these have been piecemeal and have only dealt with part
of the problem – for example, focusing on reducing poverty for children,
or on ending a particular type of poverty.
In committing to develop
a strategy across the different parts of the UK, JRF has also committed
to developing a comprehensive approach that covers all generations,
is based on the best available knowledge, and is as clear as we can be
about the costs.
Our approach demands a consensus. Stop-start approaches to poverty
have fallen short, just as initiatives developed by individual players frequently
stall. The nature of poverty in the UK demands a non-partisan, long-term
approach, marshalling all the skills and resources of governments (national,
local and central), business, employers, voluntary organisations, broader civil
society, families and individuals.
If poverty is defined as household income that is less than 60% of median earning. Then poverty mesns you live in a house with less than £964 a month, which is pretty shit. But if one person in the household had even a minimum wage job they would be above that (£1,198 a month).
I can't really imagine a society where a household doesn't have a single full time worker but expects not to live in shite conditions.
It exists.
Do tell? "I keep reading that paragraph and read it in different ways. My original interpretation is that a single f/t worker doesn't expect to live in shit conditions - I've been witness to this. | |||
" To be honest I think you're splitting hairs on the difference between "poor" and "poverty". Also, what about the "smack heads" in the UK who were born into shit circumstances through no fault of their own. Yes, perhaps you can lay the blame with their parents but does that mean you condemn the kids? And yes, it's probably easier to break the cycle of relative poverty than the cycle of extreme poverty, but again I think it's cynical to assume that a majority of people are lazy or stupid. Do you believe in free will? Not everyone does so I'm genuinely asking you I absolutely do. So do i - fistbump? Anyway, so the difference is that the future smack head born into shit circumstances only effects to probability they will make bad decisions (no real good can ever really come from long term usage). Where as the mud eating child in haiti never had a choice to make. Although I'm not keen of the wording, yes liberty does mean you condemn the kids because people have the freedom to make bad choices as well as good ones. Liberty isn't a perfect scenario, i just consider it better on balance than an ever authoritarian state. I think an objective reading of history for life in america / europe vrs soviet union / nazi Germany or Mao's china makes that choice pretty straight forward. I'll take a fistbump (although maybe I shouldn't say that on a swingers site).
But I'm not entirely sure I get your point exactly.
While I do think some people don't do themselves any favours I also think others are genuinely born into hard situations in this country.
So if you can extend the sympathy to the Haitian child why not also in the case of the UK?
Don't get me wrong, you do have to draw a line somewhere, but I also honestly think that most people do the right thing given the help and the opportunity.
Because one has choice and the other doesn't. There are no circumstances in the UK that you can be born into that predestin you to poverty, but the same cannot be said of haiti.
Personally i also have a strong dislike of hard drug users since their habit is one of the main reasons countries like Afghanistan are the way they are.
https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/uk-poverty-causes-costs-and-solutions
Could you maybe give a few bullet points that describe which aspects you rate from this? I'm happy to allow spoilers
God no - I haven't downloaded the PDFs lol.
It's a 370 page report but I think the intro is quite good (covers both arguments which are both necessary):
"The level of poverty in the UK is shameful. This should be a place where everyone can achieve a decent, secure standard of living. Instead,
millions of people – many from working families – are struggling to meet
their needs.
People in poverty experience daily insecurity and uncertainty, and are
excluded from the norms of a wealthy society, facing impossible decisions
about money, and getting into debt.
Poverty causes families significant
harm, affecting people’s health and well-being, eroding confidence and
capability, and damaging life chances. But it also damages wider society
and the economy, depriving it of the skills and talents of people who
could otherwise contribute.
People experiencing poverty are treated with pity, scorn or even disgust –
emotions that prevent action. Together these emotions create a sense that
poverty in the UK is about a group of people who are entirely different from
the rest of us with different motivations and desires.
In reality, poverty can affect almost anyone. It fundamentally affects
how communities work, and the ability of families to nurture and support.
It affects the economy, costing the public purse £78 billion a year and
£70 billion in benefits. The continued existence of high levels of poverty in
this country is not a problem for ‘them’ – it is a problem for everyone who
wants to see a stronger, safer, more sustainable society.
It is easy to be blinded by simplistic and superficial responses. You
can blame individuals for the bad decisions they make, and fool yourself
into believing it could never happen to you.
Or you can blame national
structures – if only the system of tax and benefits could be fundamentally
redesigned, and structural inequality abolished, then poverty could be ended.
These two arguments have run their course. Neither argument is an
accurate explanation of poverty in the UK, and neither offers a workable
solution on its own.
Instead they cancel each other out, and the resulting
inaction is causing great harm. Structures and choices must be considered
together for policy to be effective.
In an otherwise prosperous society, high levels of poverty indicate
failure by community, market and state, and all of these must be involved
in the solutions.
There have been many previous attempts to end poverty in this
country, but these have been piecemeal and have only dealt with part
of the problem – for example, focusing on reducing poverty for children,
or on ending a particular type of poverty.
In committing to develop
a strategy across the different parts of the UK, JRF has also committed
to developing a comprehensive approach that covers all generations,
is based on the best available knowledge, and is as clear as we can be
about the costs.
Our approach demands a consensus. Stop-start approaches to poverty
have fallen short, just as initiatives developed by individual players frequently
stall. The nature of poverty in the UK demands a non-partisan, long-term
approach, marshalling all the skills and resources of governments (national,
local and central), business, employers, voluntary organisations, broader civil
society, families and individuals.
If poverty is defined as household income that is less than 60% of median earning. Then poverty mesns you live in a house with less than £964 a month, which is pretty shit. But if one person in the household had even a minimum wage job they would be above that (£1,198 a month).
I can't really imagine a society where a household doesn't have a single full time worker but expects not to live in shite conditions.
It exists.
Do tell?
I keep reading that paragraph and read it in different ways. My original interpretation is that a single f/t worker doesn't expect to live in shit conditions - I've been witness to this. "I'm saying that a household with single full time worker doesn't meet the definition of poverty set out. My implication is that its a bit rich to expect not to be in 'poverty' when nobody in your household works and poverty is defined in a relative measure. | |||
" To be honest I think you're splitting hairs on the difference between "poor" and "poverty". Also, what about the "smack heads" in the UK who were born into shit circumstances through no fault of their own. Yes, perhaps you can lay the blame with their parents but does that mean you condemn the kids? And yes, it's probably easier to break the cycle of relative poverty than the cycle of extreme poverty, but again I think it's cynical to assume that a majority of people are lazy or stupid. Do you believe in free will? Not everyone does so I'm genuinely asking you I absolutely do. So do i - fistbump? Anyway, so the difference is that the future smack head born into shit circumstances only effects to probability they will make bad decisions (no real good can ever really come from long term usage). Where as the mud eating child in haiti never had a choice to make. Although I'm not keen of the wording, yes liberty does mean you condemn the kids because people have the freedom to make bad choices as well as good ones. Liberty isn't a perfect scenario, i just consider it better on balance than an ever authoritarian state. I think an objective reading of history for life in america / europe vrs soviet union / nazi Germany or Mao's china makes that choice pretty straight forward. I'll take a fistbump (although maybe I shouldn't say that on a swingers site).
But I'm not entirely sure I get your point exactly.
While I do think some people don't do themselves any favours I also think others are genuinely born into hard situations in this country.
So if you can extend the sympathy to the Haitian child why not also in the case of the UK?
Don't get me wrong, you do have to draw a line somewhere, but I also honestly think that most people do the right thing given the help and the opportunity.
Because one has choice and the other doesn't. There are no circumstances in the UK that you can be born into that predestin you to poverty, but the same cannot be said of haiti.
Personally i also have a strong dislike of hard drug users since their habit is one of the main reasons countries like Afghanistan are the way they are.
https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/uk-poverty-causes-costs-and-solutions
Could you maybe give a few bullet points that describe which aspects you rate from this? I'm happy to allow spoilers
God no - I haven't downloaded the PDFs lol.
It's a 370 page report but I think the intro is quite good (covers both arguments which are both necessary):
"The level of poverty in the UK is shameful. This should be a place where everyone can achieve a decent, secure standard of living. Instead,
millions of people – many from working families – are struggling to meet
their needs.
People in poverty experience daily insecurity and uncertainty, and are
excluded from the norms of a wealthy society, facing impossible decisions
about money, and getting into debt.
Poverty causes families significant
harm, affecting people’s health and well-being, eroding confidence and
capability, and damaging life chances. But it also damages wider society
and the economy, depriving it of the skills and talents of people who
could otherwise contribute.
People experiencing poverty are treated with pity, scorn or even disgust –
emotions that prevent action. Together these emotions create a sense that
poverty in the UK is about a group of people who are entirely different from
the rest of us with different motivations and desires.
In reality, poverty can affect almost anyone. It fundamentally affects
how communities work, and the ability of families to nurture and support.
It affects the economy, costing the public purse £78 billion a year and
£70 billion in benefits. The continued existence of high levels of poverty in
this country is not a problem for ‘them’ – it is a problem for everyone who
wants to see a stronger, safer, more sustainable society.
It is easy to be blinded by simplistic and superficial responses. You
can blame individuals for the bad decisions they make, and fool yourself
into believing it could never happen to you.
Or you can blame national
structures – if only the system of tax and benefits could be fundamentally
redesigned, and structural inequality abolished, then poverty could be ended.
These two arguments have run their course. Neither argument is an
accurate explanation of poverty in the UK, and neither offers a workable
solution on its own.
Instead they cancel each other out, and the resulting
inaction is causing great harm. Structures and choices must be considered
together for policy to be effective.
In an otherwise prosperous society, high levels of poverty indicate
failure by community, market and state, and all of these must be involved
in the solutions.
There have been many previous attempts to end poverty in this
country, but these have been piecemeal and have only dealt with part
of the problem – for example, focusing on reducing poverty for children,
or on ending a particular type of poverty.
In committing to develop
a strategy across the different parts of the UK, JRF has also committed
to developing a comprehensive approach that covers all generations,
is based on the best available knowledge, and is as clear as we can be
about the costs.
Our approach demands a consensus. Stop-start approaches to poverty
have fallen short, just as initiatives developed by individual players frequently
stall. The nature of poverty in the UK demands a non-partisan, long-term
approach, marshalling all the skills and resources of governments (national,
local and central), business, employers, voluntary organisations, broader civil
society, families and individuals.
If poverty is defined as household income that is less than 60% of median earning. Then poverty mesns you live in a house with less than £964 a month, which is pretty shit. But if one person in the household had even a minimum wage job they would be above that (£1,198 a month).
I can't really imagine a society where a household doesn't have a single full time worker but expects not to live in shite conditions.
It exists.
Do tell?
I keep reading that paragraph and read it in different ways. My original interpretation is that a single f/t worker doesn't expect to live in shit conditions - I've been witness to this.
I'm saying that a household with single full time worker doesn't meet the definition of poverty set out. My implication is that its a bit rich to expect not to be in 'poverty' when nobody in your household works and poverty is defined in a relative measure. "What about a part-time worker who gets tax credits due to low income? What about someone who is on benefits but manages their money well and doesn't perceive themselves as in poverty? What about the f/t worker who is in debt and uses food banks? | |||
