I'm not even going to bother trying to find it - no use attempting to answer posts that are as useless, and as meaningless, as the buzzing of mosquitoes, or the howling of hyenas...
@Telford - if you take the trouble to actually read the link I so carefully provided, regarding the meaning of *clue by four*, you will see that it refers to:
A metaphorical stick one uses to "beat" correct information into an ignorant, incompetent, or slow-learning person (i.e., to help them "get a clue"). A pun on the term "two-by-four," a piece of timber that measures 2 by 4 inches (5 by 10 cm) in height and width.
My italics, BTW, in case you still don't understand.
@Telford - if you take the trouble to actually read the link I so carefully provided, regarding the meaning of *clue by four*, you will see that it refers to:
A metaphorical stick one uses to "beat" correct information into an ignorant, incompetent, or slow-learning person (i.e., to help them "get a clue"). A pun on the term "two-by-four," a piece of timber that measures 2 by 4 inches (5 by 10 cm) in height and width.
My italics, BTW, in case you still don't understand.
It's relevant because, as you demonstrate later in your latest post, you currently haven't clue.
Here; cash this in somewhere:
************************************
CLUE VOUCHER
This voucher entitles the bearer to:
1 (one) Free Clue
No substitutes or cash alternative
************************************
My problem is that I see things different to you and a few others.
Indeed. From a viewpoint of ignorance and assumption.
Where as you are always right I assume. You appear to think that parents should not give their children priority.
No, you utter cock-end, as anyone with a functioning synapse would be able to deduce, I do not think priority or otherwise given by parents to children is actually the problem here.
What's offensive around here is your blaming the poor for their poverty, and only ignorance can excuse you for that.
The poorest have taken the biggest financial hit from Covid. Here you are kicking them in the bollocks when they're down. Just like a Tory. Morally bankrupt.
Indeed - perhaps a major item in someone's manifesto, come the next General Election (if it's not too late)?
If nothing else, Mr Rashford has highlighted a shameful aspect of *life* in England today.
The fact thast many feckless parents do not make their children a priority is indeed shameless
The fact that many parents work every hour they can on what the government call a "living wage" and still don't earn enough to put food on the table for the whole family is even more shameful.
It's relevant because, as you demonstrate later in your latest post, you currently haven't clue.
Here; cash this in somewhere:
************************************
CLUE VOUCHER
This voucher entitles the bearer to:
1 (one) Free Clue
No substitutes or cash alternative
************************************
My problem is that I see things different to you and a few others.
Indeed. From a viewpoint of ignorance and assumption.
Where as you are always right I assume. You appear to think that parents should not give their children priority.
No, we think that parents who give their children priority (ie: the vast majority) should be able to afford to buy their children nutritious food, decent clothing, have broadband and laptops so they can do school work, a family holiday away from home for a week or two in the summer. And, to do that without themselves going hungry or taking two hours to walk to work because they no longer have the money for bus fare.
The assumption you appear to have that children are going hungry because their parents are well off and not providing for them is ignorant, stupid and incredibly offensive to loving, caring parents who sacrifice all for their kids and it's still not enough.
@Telford - if you take the trouble to actually read the link I so carefully provided, regarding the meaning of *clue by four*, you will see that it refers to:
A metaphorical stick one uses to "beat" correct information into an ignorant, incompetent, or slow-learning person (i.e., to help them "get a clue"). A pun on the term "two-by-four," a piece of timber that measures 2 by 4 inches (5 by 10 cm) in height and width.
My italics, BTW, in case you still don't understand.
It's relevant because, as you demonstrate later in your latest post, you currently haven't clue.
Here; cash this in somewhere:
************************************
CLUE VOUCHER
This voucher entitles the bearer to:
1 (one) Free Clue
No substitutes or cash alternative
************************************
My problem is that I see things different to you and a few others.
Indeed. From a viewpoint of ignorance and assumption.
Where as you are always right I assume. You appear to think that parents should not give their children priority.
No, you utter cock-end, as anyone with a functioning synapse would be able to deduce, I do not think priority or otherwise given by parents to children is actually the problem here.
What's offensive around here is your blaming the poor for their poverty, and only ignorance can excuse you for that.
The poorest have taken the biggest financial hit from Covid. Here you are kicking them in the bollocks when they're down. Just like a Tory. Morally bankrupt.
You do not appear to be able to make a comment without being nasty. Why on earth should I take any notice of the likes of you
Indeed - perhaps a major item in someone's manifesto, come the next General Election (if it's not too late)?
If nothing else, Mr Rashford has highlighted a shameful aspect of *life* in England today.
The fact thast many feckless parents do not make their children a priority is indeed shameless
The fact that many parents work every hour they can on what the government call a "living wage" and still don't earn enough to put food on the table for the whole family is even more shameful.
It's relevant because, as you demonstrate later in your latest post, you currently haven't clue.
Here; cash this in somewhere:
************************************
CLUE VOUCHER
This voucher entitles the bearer to:
1 (one) Free Clue
No substitutes or cash alternative
************************************
My problem is that I see things different to you and a few others.
Indeed. From a viewpoint of ignorance and assumption.
Where as you are always right I assume. You appear to think that parents should not give their children priority.
No, we think that parents who give their children priority (ie: the vast majority) should be able to afford to buy their children nutritious food, decent clothing, have broadband and laptops so they can do school work, a family holiday away from home for a week or two in the summer. And, to do that without themselves going hungry or taking two hours to walk to work because they no longer have the money for bus fare.
The assumption you appear to have that children are going hungry because their parents are well off and not providing for them is ignorant, stupid and incredibly offensive to loving, caring parents who sacrifice all for their kids and it's still not enough.
I thought better of you. Sadly I was wrong. I nedver went on a family holiday untill I was 14 but I never went hungry. I guess my family had it's priorities right
@Telford - if you take the trouble to actually read the link I so carefully provided, regarding the meaning of *clue by four*, you will see that it refers to:
A metaphorical stick one uses to "beat" correct information into an ignorant, incompetent, or slow-learning person (i.e., to help them "get a clue"). A pun on the term "two-by-four," a piece of timber that measures 2 by 4 inches (5 by 10 cm) in height and width.
My italics, BTW, in case you still don't understand.
It's relevant because, as you demonstrate later in your latest post, you currently haven't clue.
Here; cash this in somewhere:
************************************
CLUE VOUCHER
This voucher entitles the bearer to:
1 (one) Free Clue
No substitutes or cash alternative
************************************
My problem is that I see things different to you and a few others.
No. That is not your problem. It never was. Your problem is simply that you are at odds with the late, great Senator D. Patrick Moynihan. You are fully entitled to your own opinion. What you keep demanding is a right to your own facts.
Alan has spelt it out for you. Your statement is demonstrably false for the vast majority of parents and thus a gross slur.
I point you also to a quote from John Wesley from 1753:
So wickedly, devilishly false is that common objection, ‘They are poor, only because they are idle’.
To blame the poor for their own poverty is demonstrably false. Wesley thought it particularly wicked to do so.
I agree.
When you stop and listen and get some facts on your side, you will find the Ship a very friendly place. When you persist with false premises people will object. When your statements are offensively wrong, people will say so.
No one cares that you have different opinions, but you are not going to make any progress here so long as you insist on your own 'facts.'
In this particular case it takes you to what Wesley felt was a devilishly, wickedly false position. That is your problem. Nothing more, nothing less.
Do I need to spell it out any more or are you going to patronise me some more?
No - the noun *purport * means the meaning or sense of something, typically a document or speech.
The purpose of the link was to explain to you what was meant by the expression *clue-by-four*. If you choose to take it personally, well, that's up to you.
Wake up, pay attention, and read with comprehension.
@Telford - if you take the trouble to actually read the link I so carefully provided, regarding the meaning of *clue by four*, you will see that it refers to:
A metaphorical stick one uses to "beat" correct information into an ignorant, incompetent, or slow-learning person (i.e., to help them "get a clue"). A pun on the term "two-by-four," a piece of timber that measures 2 by 4 inches (5 by 10 cm) in height and width.
My italics, BTW, in case you still don't understand.
I read it and it was totally offensive.
It's less offensive that your previous statement. You're attempting to justify starving children because their parents struggle to cope with too much work or too little work, too little money, too many bills, uncertain or unsafe housing, and the mental and physical health issues that stem from all that. You are heartless.
@Telford - if you take the trouble to actually read the link I so carefully provided, regarding the meaning of *clue by four*, you will see that it refers to:
A metaphorical stick one uses to "beat" correct information into an ignorant, incompetent, or slow-learning person (i.e., to help them "get a clue"). A pun on the term "two-by-four," a piece of timber that measures 2 by 4 inches (5 by 10 cm) in height and width.
My italics, BTW, in case you still don't understand.
I read it and it was totally offensive.
It's less offensive that your previous statement. You're attempting to justify starving children because their parents struggle to cope with too much work or too little work, too little money, too many bills, uncertain or unsafe housing, and the mental and physical health issues that stem from all that. You are heartless.
You know absolutely nothing about me and you say that I am heartless.
How am I justifying starving children? Children should not starve. Their parents should feed them.
@Telford - if you take the trouble to actually read the link I so carefully provided, regarding the meaning of *clue by four*, you will see that it refers to:
A metaphorical stick one uses to "beat" correct information into an ignorant, incompetent, or slow-learning person (i.e., to help them "get a clue"). A pun on the term "two-by-four," a piece of timber that measures 2 by 4 inches (5 by 10 cm) in height and width.
My italics, BTW, in case you still don't understand.
I read it and it was totally offensive.
It's less offensive that your previous statement. You're attempting to justify starving children because their parents struggle to cope with too much work or too little work, too little money, too many bills, uncertain or unsafe housing, and the mental and physical health issues that stem from all that. You are heartless.
You know absolutely nothing about me and you say that I am heartless.
How am I justifying starving children? Children should not starve. Their parents should feed them.
1. PEOPLE CAN'T BECAUSE COVID HAS TAKEN THEIR JOBS AND THEY HAVE NO MONEY
2. AND ANYWAY NO-ONE IN A CIVILISED WESTERN COUNTRY SHOULD HAVE TO GO HUNGRY TO FEED ANOTHER PERSON.
How hard is it to get these simple concepts through your thick skull?
Either you do understand them but prefer to kick people when they're down, or you're too stupid to comprehend them.
@Telford - if you take the trouble to actually read the link I so carefully provided, regarding the meaning of *clue by four*, you will see that it refers to:
A metaphorical stick one uses to "beat" correct information into an ignorant, incompetent, or slow-learning person (i.e., to help them "get a clue"). A pun on the term "two-by-four," a piece of timber that measures 2 by 4 inches (5 by 10 cm) in height and width.
My italics, BTW, in case you still don't understand.
I read it and it was totally offensive.
It's less offensive that your previous statement. You're attempting to justify starving children because their parents struggle to cope with too much work or too little work, too little money, too many bills, uncertain or unsafe housing, and the mental and physical health issues that stem from all that. You are heartless.
You know absolutely nothing about me and you say that I am heartless.
How am I justifying starving children? Children should not starve. Their parents should feed them.
1. PEOPLE CAN'T BECAUSE COVID HAS TAKEN THEIR JOBS AND THEY HAVE NO MONEY
2. AND ANYWAY NO-ONE IN A CIVILISED WESTERN COUNTRY SHOULD HAVE TO GO HUNGRY TO FEED ANOTHER PERSON.
How hard is it to get these simple concepts through your thick skull?
Either you do understand them but prefer to kick people when they're down, or you're too stupid to comprehend them.
Do I need to spell it out any more or are you going to patronise me some more?
AFZ
Apparently I do.
You think the poor are responsible for their own poverty. That is heartless. It is also wicked (as per John Wesley). You wanna argue with that, try some facts and evidence first.
Do I need to spell it out any more or are you going to patronise me some more?
AFZ
Apparently I do.
You think the poor are responsible for their own poverty. That is heartless. It is also wicked (as per John Wesley). You wanna argue with that, try some facts and evidence first.
I'm off to do something far more interesting than read Telford's ramblings, which are to me as meaningless as the buzzing of insects, or the howling of hyenas.
Do I need to spell it out any more or are you going to patronise me some more?
AFZ
Apparently I do.
You think the poor are responsible for their own poverty. That is heartless. It is also wicked (as per John Wesley). You wanna argue with that, try some facts and evidence first.
BIB...Totally false. That's my facts
Wow.
Look, you want people to stop treating like and arsehole? That's fair. Then stop behaving like one.
No, we think that parents who give their children priority (ie: the vast majority) should be able to afford to buy their children nutritious food, decent clothing, have broadband and laptops so they can do school work, a family holiday away from home for a week or two in the summer. And, to do that without themselves going hungry or taking two hours to walk to work because they no longer have the money for bus fare.
The assumption you appear to have that children are going hungry because their parents are well off and not providing for them is ignorant, stupid and incredibly offensive to loving, caring parents who sacrifice all for their kids and it's still not enough.
I thought better of you. Sadly I was wrong. I nedver went on a family holiday untill I was 14 but I never went hungry. I guess my family had it's priorities right
Well, boo-hoo aren't you a poor boy because you never once had a holiday with your family. Probably that would have been true for the rest of your friends and others at school too. The world has changed and moved on. How would you feel like going into school in September and everyone was talking about their holidays - camping in the Lake District, a week spent with grand parents who live the other side of the country, or whatever and all you can say is that you spent the whole time at home? Poverty is fundamentally not being able to participate in those things that society deems normal - and a week or two away from home during the school holidays is one of those things that are currently expected to be normal.
Not that it makes a blind difference to the argument. If parents are going without food so their children can eat, then going on a holiday isn't going to happen either. Ignore the holidays and having clothing. Do you consider that people who work a full time job, cut every cost they can (including feeding themselves properly), and still can't afford to buy enough food for their children to be bad parents? Because that's how what you've said comes across. Your words reflect the vile fascism of the right-wing press (and some of our government ministers) that the poor are lazy scroungers. Views that would be consistent with your refusal to recognise the racism of Enoch Powell and repent of voting for him. One would almost think you're a fascist yourself; you can correct that impression, or continue spouting vile nonsense that just reinforces that impression.
A pun on the term "two-by-four," a piece of timber that measures 2 by 4 inches (5 by 10 cm) in height and width.[/b]
Technically, a 2x4 doesn't measure 2" x 4", for long and twisty reasons to do with the way that lumber was historically described and marketed. A 2x4 you find at your local lumber yard will actually measure 1.5" x 3.5".
I thought better of you. Sadly I was wrong. I nedver went on a family holiday untill I was 14 but I never went hungry. I guess my family had it's priorities right.
Yes, it sounds like your family did correctly prioritize feeding you over holidays. But you seem to be making a leap of logic from "I was poor growing up, but there was always food on the table" to "any current poor person who doesn't manage to put food on the table must be irresponsibly frittering away their money". And the latter statement isn't supported by data.
You know absolutely nothing about me and you say that I am heartless.
I know what you write here, because I have to read it all. If what you write is a true reflection of what you think, the only reasonable conclusion is that you are heartless.
You know absolutely nothing about me and you say that I am heartless.
I know what you write here, because I have to read it all. If what you write is a true reflection of what you think, the only reasonable conclusion is that you are heartless.
Do I need to spell it out any more or are you going to patronise me some more?
AFZ
Apparently I do.
You think the poor are responsible for their own poverty. That is heartless. It is also wicked (as per John Wesley). You wanna argue with that, try some facts and evidence first.
BIB...Totally false. That's my facts
Wow.
Look, you want people to stop treating like and arsehole? That's fair. Then stop behaving like one.
Your words not mine. I have my opinions and you don't accept them. All I ask is that you try and reject them without being offensive. I understand that the rules of Hell allow tou to be offensive but it's not obligatory.
No, we think that parents who give their children priority (ie: the vast majority) should be able to afford to buy their children nutritious food, decent clothing, have broadband and laptops so they can do school work, a family holiday away from home for a week or two in the summer. And, to do that without themselves going hungry or taking two hours to walk to work because they no longer have the money for bus fare.
The assumption you appear to have that children are going hungry because their parents are well off and not providing for them is ignorant, stupid and incredibly offensive to loving, caring parents who sacrifice all for their kids and it's still not enough.
I thought better of you. Sadly I was wrong. I nedver went on a family holiday untill I was 14 but I never went hungry. I guess my family had it's priorities right
Well, boo-hoo aren't you a poor boy because you never once had a holiday with your family. Probably that would have been true for the rest of your friends and others at school too. The world has changed and moved on. How would you feel like going into school in September and everyone was talking about their holidays - camping in the Lake District, a week spent with grand parents who live the other side of the country, or whatever and all you can say is that you spent the whole time at home? Poverty is fundamentally not being able to participate in those things that society deems normal - and a week or two away from home during the school holidays is one of those things that are currently expected to be normal.
Not that it makes a blind difference to the argument. If parents are going without food so their children can eat, then going on a holiday isn't going to happen either. Ignore the holidays and having clothing. Do you consider that people who work a full time job, cut every cost they can (including feeding themselves properly), and still can't afford to buy enough food for their children to be bad parents? Because that's how what you've said comes across. Your words reflect the vile fascism of the right-wing press (and some of our government ministers) that the poor are lazy scroungers. Views that would be consistent with your refusal to recognise the racism of Enoch Powell and repent of voting for him. One would almost think you're a fascist yourself; you can correct that impression, or continue spouting vile nonsense that just reinforces that impression.
You know absolutely nothing about me and you say that I am heartless.
I know what you write here, because I have to read it all. If what you write is a true reflection of what you think, the only reasonable conclusion is that you are heartless.
If that's what you think, it would be a waste of time trying to prove otherwise.
You know absolutely nothing about me and you say that I am heartless.
I know what you write here, because I have to read it all. If what you write is a true reflection of what you think, the only reasonable conclusion is that you are heartless.
No, we think that parents who give their children priority (ie: the vast majority) should be able to afford to buy their children nutritious food, decent clothing, have broadband and laptops so they can do school work, a family holiday away from home for a week or two in the summer. And, to do that without themselves going hungry or taking two hours to walk to work because they no longer have the money for bus fare.
The assumption you appear to have that children are going hungry because their parents are well off and not providing for them is ignorant, stupid and incredibly offensive to loving, caring parents who sacrifice all for their kids and it's still not enough.
I thought better of you. Sadly I was wrong. I nedver went on a family holiday untill I was 14 but I never went hungry. I guess my family had it's priorities right
Well, boo-hoo aren't you a poor boy because you never once had a holiday with your family. Probably that would have been true for the rest of your friends and others at school too. The world has changed and moved on. How would you feel like going into school in September and everyone was talking about their holidays - camping in the Lake District, a week spent with grand parents who live the other side of the country, or whatever and all you can say is that you spent the whole time at home? Poverty is fundamentally not being able to participate in those things that society deems normal - and a week or two away from home during the school holidays is one of those things that are currently expected to be normal.
Not that it makes a blind difference to the argument. If parents are going without food so their children can eat, then going on a holiday isn't going to happen either. Ignore the holidays and having clothing. Do you consider that people who work a full time job, cut every cost they can (including feeding themselves properly), and still can't afford to buy enough food for their children to be bad parents? Because that's how what you've said comes across. Your words reflect the vile fascism of the right-wing press (and some of our government ministers) that the poor are lazy scroungers. Views that would be consistent with your refusal to recognise the racism of Enoch Powell and repent of voting for him. One would almost think you're a fascist yourself; you can correct that impression, or continue spouting vile nonsense that just reinforces that impression.
Nice post but I don't agree with most of it.
Well, that's not much use in a discussion. What don't you agree with and why? What do you find 'nice'? Is that because you agree with me, or is it just appreciation of the grammar? Your modus operandi is to avoid getting into details, you make short statements that skim over or totally ignore what people say. This means we don't know what you agree with, or disagree with, in posts you respond to. It means we don't know what you believe. And, much of what you say leaves the worst possible interpretation wide open. You don't agree with most of the post above. You can't disagree that your posts come across as saying parents who go without food to feed their children are bad parents because their kids don't get proper meals, because how you are perceived is upto others and you can't deny what we perceive. Likewise that you appear to support the racism of Powell, or the fascist views of the right wing media. If those perceptions are incorrect then the only person able to set the record straight is you. By actually answering questions and telling us what you think rather than drop hints that make you look like a fascist.
Comments
It might make you a person who cares about hungry children. I can't see many caring people in the *government*.
Come to think of it, there aren't many great politicians, either.
If nothing else, Mr Rashford has highlighted a shameful aspect of *life* in England today.
The fact thast many feckless parents do not make their children a priority is indeed shameless
*sigh*
Which feckless parents? How many? Proof in the form of figures and graphs, please.
Where's the clue-by-four when I need it?
What on earth are you on about ?
That's the second time recently someone's response to a post has illustrated that post's point perfectly.
This may help:
https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/clue-by-four
You're welcome.
That is an unbelievably offensive comment.
That is an unbelievably stupid comment.
AFZ
Unless, of course, you were specifically referring to Mr Johnson? There may be some justification for that viewpoint.
Are you duggesting that parents who do not make their children a priority are not shameless?
Here; cash this in somewhere:
************************************
CLUE VOUCHER
This voucher entitles the bearer to:
1 (one) Free Clue
No substitutes or cash alternative
************************************
My problem is that I see things different to you and a few others.
Indeed. From a viewpoint of ignorance and assumption.
A metaphorical stick one uses to "beat" correct information into an ignorant, incompetent, or slow-learning person (i.e., to help them "get a clue"). A pun on the term "two-by-four," a piece of timber that measures 2 by 4 inches (5 by 10 cm) in height and width.
My italics, BTW, in case you still don't understand.
I read it and it was totally offensive.
Moral opinion from someone who doesn't regret voting for Enoch Powell, is of no more use than the time read from a stopped clock.
No, you utter cock-end, as anyone with a functioning synapse would be able to deduce, I do not think priority or otherwise given by parents to children is actually the problem here.
What's offensive around here is your blaming the poor for their poverty, and only ignorance can excuse you for that.
The poorest have taken the biggest financial hit from Covid. Here you are kicking them in the bollocks when they're down. Just like a Tory. Morally bankrupt.
The assumption you appear to have that children are going hungry because their parents are well off and not providing for them is ignorant, stupid and incredibly offensive to loving, caring parents who sacrifice all for their kids and it's still not enough.
Good. At least you understood its purport.
You do not appear to be able to make a comment without being nasty. Why on earth should I take any notice of the likes of you I thought better of you. Sadly I was wrong. I nedver went on a family holiday untill I was 14 but I never went hungry. I guess my family had it's priorities right
Quite. The purpose is to be nasty to others
No. That is not your problem. It never was. Your problem is simply that you are at odds with the late, great Senator D. Patrick Moynihan. You are fully entitled to your own opinion. What you keep demanding is a right to your own facts.
Alan has spelt it out for you. Your statement is demonstrably false for the vast majority of parents and thus a gross slur.
I point you also to a quote from John Wesley from 1753:
To blame the poor for their own poverty is demonstrably false. Wesley thought it particularly wicked to do so.
I agree.
When you stop and listen and get some facts on your side, you will find the Ship a very friendly place. When you persist with false premises people will object. When your statements are offensively wrong, people will say so.
No one cares that you have different opinions, but you are not going to make any progress here so long as you insist on your own 'facts.'
In this particular case it takes you to what Wesley felt was a devilishly, wickedly false position. That is your problem. Nothing more, nothing less.
Do I need to spell it out any more or are you going to patronise me some more?
AFZ
The purpose of the link was to explain to you what was meant by the expression *clue-by-four*. If you choose to take it personally, well, that's up to you.
Wake up, pay attention, and read with comprehension.
It's less offensive that your previous statement. You're attempting to justify starving children because their parents struggle to cope with too much work or too little work, too little money, too many bills, uncertain or unsafe housing, and the mental and physical health issues that stem from all that. You are heartless.
How am I justifying starving children? Children should not starve. Their parents should feed them.
1. PEOPLE CAN'T BECAUSE COVID HAS TAKEN THEIR JOBS AND THEY HAVE NO MONEY
2. AND ANYWAY NO-ONE IN A CIVILISED WESTERN COUNTRY SHOULD HAVE TO GO HUNGRY TO FEED ANOTHER PERSON.
How hard is it to get these simple concepts through your thick skull?
Either you do understand them but prefer to kick people when they're down, or you're too stupid to comprehend them.
Apparently I do.
You think the poor are responsible for their own poverty. That is heartless. It is also wicked (as per John Wesley). You wanna argue with that, try some facts and evidence first.
I'm off to do something far more interesting than read Telford's ramblings, which are to me as meaningless as the buzzing of insects, or the howling of hyenas.
I'm going to have a bacon sandwich.
Wow.
Look, you want people to stop treating like and arsehole? That's fair. Then stop behaving like one.
Not that it makes a blind difference to the argument. If parents are going without food so their children can eat, then going on a holiday isn't going to happen either. Ignore the holidays and having clothing. Do you consider that people who work a full time job, cut every cost they can (including feeding themselves properly), and still can't afford to buy enough food for their children to be bad parents? Because that's how what you've said comes across. Your words reflect the vile fascism of the right-wing press (and some of our government ministers) that the poor are lazy scroungers. Views that would be consistent with your refusal to recognise the racism of Enoch Powell and repent of voting for him. One would almost think you're a fascist yourself; you can correct that impression, or continue spouting vile nonsense that just reinforces that impression.
Compare and contrast:
Technically, a 2x4 doesn't measure 2" x 4", for long and twisty reasons to do with the way that lumber was historically described and marketed. A 2x4 you find at your local lumber yard will actually measure 1.5" x 3.5".
Yes, it sounds like your family did correctly prioritize feeding you over holidays. But you seem to be making a leap of logic from "I was poor growing up, but there was always food on the table" to "any current poor person who doesn't manage to put food on the table must be irresponsibly frittering away their money". And the latter statement isn't supported by data.
On the topic of MPs having changed career, Ms Glenda Jackson became one after a successful acting career that she has now returned to.
(b) So she did.
I know what you write here, because I have to read it all. If what you write is a true reflection of what you think, the only reasonable conclusion is that you are heartless.
The alternative, of course, is trolling.
He was a very good local MP. Why would I regret voting for him?
If that's what you think, it would be a waste of time trying to prove otherwise.
When you run out of nasty things to say you resort to calling me a troll.
Tell you what, I'll stop being offensive when you do.
Would you have supported Oswold Moseley on that basis, or do you think there might be other relevant issues to consider ?
Now you've got me thinking Not the Nine O'Clock News again:
https://youtu.be/LPCZvYu0QBA
Oswold Moseley, who was locked upo during WW2 was a traitor. Confession noted.