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.
It was a nice post till you implied that I was a fascist
just because I voted for a local hero 50 years ago.
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.
I actually implied the opposite to the BIB. Giving children priority means that you feed the children before you feed yourself. I know that we have millions on low pay and benefits but parents should be able to feed their childen on the money they get. It could well be that my views are old fashioned.
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.
Where have I supported the fascist views of the right wing media ? What are these views anyway ?
You are missing the point about having had 50 years to think, maybe that decision was a mistake - if I had my time again I’d make a different choice. Instead you appear to be thinking that was fine. It wasn’t. Nor was it the case, that nobody at the time noticed he was a problem.
You are missing the point about having had 50 years to think, maybe that decision was a mistake - if I had my time again I’d make a different choice. Instead you appear to be thinking that was fine. It wasn’t. Nor was it the case, that nobody at the time noticed he was a problem.
If I was a Labour supporter in Islington North, should I refuse to vote for Jeremy Corbyn because he made Labour anti semitic, supported the IRA and also Palestinian terrorists ? [
I know that we have millions on low pay and benefits but parents should be able to feed their childen on the money they get. It could well be that my views are old fashioned.
You are missing the point about having had 50 years to think, maybe that decision was a mistake - if I had my time again I’d make a different choice. Instead you appear to be thinking that was fine. It wasn’t. Nor was it the case, that nobody at the time noticed he was a problem.
If I was a Labour supporter in Islington North, should I refuse to vote for Jeremy Corbyn because he made Labour anti semitic, supported the IRA and also Palestinian terrorists ? [
You are missing the point about having had 50 years to think, maybe that decision was a mistake - if I had my time again I’d make a different choice. Instead you appear to be thinking that was fine. It wasn’t. Nor was it the case, that nobody at the time noticed he was a problem.
If I was a Labour supporter in Islington North, should I refuse to vote for Jeremy Corbyn because he made Labour anti semitic, supported the IRA and also Palestinian terrorists ?
I dispute the truth of your premise, but if you honestly believed that and the alternatives were less objectionable - yes.
I wouldn’t, for example, have voted for George Galloway just because he was a Labour mp. But I would probably have voted for him if the alternative had been a memher of Combat 18.
Giving children priority means that you feed the children before you feed yourself. I know that we have millions on low pay and benefits but parents should be able to feed their childen on the money they get. It could well be that my views are old fashioned.
Yet, there are many, many parents who go without to provide what they can for their children ... and those children still rely on free school meals (and, now there's no school a pitiful package of food). Even with food banks already providing food as well. If your view is that if someone has a full time job that they should be earning enough that they and their children can eat decent quality meals, that the rent/mortgage is paid, that the bills are paid and there's enough to put something aside for clothes and other things needed then I don't think anyone here will disagree with you. The problem is that people working on what the government calls a "living wage" are not in that position - they're constantly making decisions about whether they can miss a bill payment in the hope of a miracle to pay it next week, they're getting stuff from the food bank because they can't afford to buy it, they're skipping meals to feed their children ... and you call them bad parents because through no fault of their own they can't make ends meet. Your posts have blamed parents when the fault lies with inadequate wages, often inadequate workers regulations that allow exploitative zero-hour contracts and other practices (regulations the government has now said they'll weaken even further even at the cost of abandoning tariff-free no-quota trade with the EU), excessive private rent and lack of council housing, and a benefits system that is not fit for purpose - all of which falls well and truly in the lap of a decade of Tory mis-management and evil policies designed to have the effect I've just outlined. Even without the coronavirus pandemic, which has highlighted the problems that were already present.
Where have I supported the fascist views of the right wing media ? What are these views anyway ?
Typical examples of the fascist views of the right wing media would be assorted scare-stories about immigration; immigrants are "stealing our jobs" and "scrounging off the benefits system paid for by our taxes", "taking council houses", "jumping the queue for NHS treatment" etc. None of which are true, but have been widely repeated and the Brexit campaign used these lies freely. Lies which have resulted in violence against immigrants and those working to help immigrants, even the murder of an MP who was a vocal supporter of immigrants. Lies which are very similar to what Enoch Powell reported that he had heard, and which he then repeated fuelling the 1970s NF attacks on immigrants and other events. Views that you have refused to repudiate, views that you have said were not reasons to consider voting for Powell to be wrong (even in hindsight).
Or, the statements about the poor and benefits claimants; that they're poor by their own choice, because they're lazy and don't want to work; or that they're making bad choices spending their money on trivialities like booze* or big TVs (and, if someone is unable to get a job and is home all day then a good TV isn't exactly an unreasonable thing to want). Views you've practically repeated verbatim today. Add in all those 'stories' about 'benefit cheats' and how these people are playing the system and stealing money from tax payers - pushing the government to introduce draconian measures that make claiming benefits practically impossible for many (it shouldn't take volunteers at the Citizens Advice to spend hours filling in forms for someone to have any chance of getting a pittance). Without the corresponding condemnation of the wealthy who move their money around to avoid paying as much tax, stealing far more from the nation than all the supposed benefit cheats combined.
* as people of faith, maybe we should consider the proverb
Let beer be for those who are perishing,
wine for those who are in anguish!
Let them drink and forget their poverty
and remember their misery no more. Proverbs 31:6-7
I know that we have millions on low pay and benefits but parents should be able to feed their childen on the money they get. It could well be that my views are old fashioned.
You are missing the point about having had 50 years to think, maybe that decision was a mistake - if I had my time again I’d make a different choice. Instead you appear to be thinking that was fine. It wasn’t. Nor was it the case, that nobody at the time noticed he was a problem.
If I was a Labour supporter in Islington North, should I refuse to vote for Jeremy Corbyn because he made Labour anti semitic, supported the IRA and also Palestinian terrorists ? [
If that pile of ordure were actually true, yes.
Unless you are a Corbyn supporter, it is true. That's why he was so unpopular un the PLP and with all Labour Leaders since he entered Parliament
Giving children priority means that you feed the children before you feed yourself. I know that we have millions on low pay and benefits but parents should be able to feed their childen on the money they get. It could well be that my views are old fashioned.
Yet, there are many, many parents who go without to provide what they can for their children ... and those children still rely on free school meals (and, now there's no school a pitiful package of food). Even with food banks already providing food as well. If your view is that if someone has a full time job that they should be earning enough that they and their children can eat decent quality meals, that the rent/mortgage is paid, that the bills are paid and there's enough to put something aside for clothes and other things needed then I don't think anyone here will disagree with you. The problem is that people working on what the government calls a "living wage" are not in that position - they're constantly making decisions about whether they can miss a bill payment in the hope of a miracle to pay it next week, they're getting stuff from the food bank because they can't afford to buy it, they're skipping meals to feed their children ... and you call them bad parents because through no fault of their own they can't make ends meet. Your posts have blamed parents when the fault lies with inadequate wages, often inadequate workers regulations that allow exploitative zero-hour contracts and other practices (regulations the government has now said they'll weaken even further even at the cost of abandoning tariff-free no-quota trade with the EU), excessive private rent and lack of council housing, and a benefits system that is not fit for purpose - all of which falls well and truly in the lap of a decade of Tory mis-management and evil policies designed to have the effect I've just outlined. Even without the coronavirus pandemic, which has highlighted the problems that were already present.
Where have I supported the fascist views of the right wing media ? What are these views anyway ?
Typical examples of the fascist views of the right wing media would be assorted scare-stories about immigration; immigrants are "stealing our jobs" and "scrounging off the benefits system paid for by our taxes", "taking council houses", "jumping the queue for NHS treatment" etc. None of which are true, but have been widely repeated and the Brexit campaign used these lies freely. Lies which have resulted in violence against immigrants and those working to help immigrants, even the murder of an MP who was a vocal supporter of immigrants. Lies which are very similar to what Enoch Powell reported that he had heard, and which he then repeated fuelling the 1970s NF attacks on immigrants and other events. Views that you have refused to repudiate, views that you have said were not reasons to consider voting for Powell to be wrong (even in hindsight).
Or, the statements about the poor and benefits claimants; that they're poor by their own choice, because they're lazy and don't want to work; or that they're making bad choices spending their money on trivialities like booze* or big TVs (and, if someone is unable to get a job and is home all day then a good TV isn't exactly an unreasonable thing to want). Views you've practically repeated verbatim today. Add in all those 'stories' about 'benefit cheats' and how these people are playing the system and stealing money from tax payers - pushing the government to introduce draconian measures that make claiming benefits practically impossible for many (it shouldn't take volunteers at the Citizens Advice to spend hours filling in forms for someone to have any chance of getting a pittance). Without the corresponding condemnation of the wealthy who move their money around to avoid paying as much tax, stealing far more from the nation than all the supposed benefit cheats combined.
* as people of faith, maybe we should consider the proverb
Let beer be for those who are perishing,
wine for those who are in anguish!
Let them drink and forget their poverty
and remember their misery no more. Proverbs 31:6-7
If you ignore the bit about Powell, I have not supported any of the rest of your post. As for Powell I said that he had reported the complaints from some of his constituents. Some of the decriptions of black people were certainly racist and to be totally honest I did not hear about them for years later.
I have previously said that I do support free school meals all year round and that school kitchens should remain open. I note that in some areas they are
Whether one is a Corbyn supporter or not has no bearing on the truth of this assertion. Facts are neither optional nor dependent on one's political allegiance.
Is there even a remote possibility of you providing any evidence to back up this claim?
If you ignore the bit about Powell, I have not supported any of the rest of your post.
In other words you support government policies that drive people into increasing poverty, where they're unable to afford to feed their children. Presumably you think food banks are a brilliant idea, and it's great that so many hard working families rely on the generosity of strangers because the pittance they earn is insufficient to be able to buy enough food (and pay all the other bills). You presumably celebrate 10 years of Conservative government robbing the ordinary people of the country of the dignity of being able to support themselves. Well, bully for you. For most of us here, that's an evil, that in a wealthy nation no one should be in that position. For most of us this situation something to fight against by all reasonable means possible - and that certainly includes telling those who support driving people into poverty that they're total wankers.
As for Powell I said that he had reported the complaints from some of his constituents. Some of the decriptions of black people were certainly racist and to be totally honest I did not hear about them for years later.
He reported illegitimate fears (fears which had almost certainly been stoked by racists), and rather than point out the fallacies he used them to propose making things worse - both by reinforcing the narrative that these fears were legitimate, and by advocating racist controls on population growth which would deny the UK of many of the people we needed to address the real problems. And, within months his words had been widely reported and were being used by the NF and other racist thugs to justify attacks on people. I admit we can't go back and introduce you to one of the most infamous speeches of all time earlier. It's hard to believe that anyone old enough to vote wasn't aware of that speech and a general idea of the content from the moment it was delivered - even if just the concluding bit about rivers of blood. But, clearly at least one person took no notice of politics, even if he'd thought enough to conclude that Powell was a good MP for the area. But, you've now read the speech, you can see that it's a racist diatribe that uses the illegitimate fears of a few individuals to propose a solution that wouldn't have been out of place in Germany in the late 1930s, you've had the opportunity to apologise for supporting this piece of filth with your vote and acknowledge that your vote assisted in the oppression of black people in this country by suggesting there are votes for racists (an evil that continues to this day with blatant appeals to racists to bring in the Leave vote, and the support among Conservatives for the "hostile environment" for migrants). If you're not going to repudiate your past then you're continuing to be part of the problem. If your words continue to support racism of yesterday then you're supporting the racism of today - and fuck you.
I have previously said that I do support free school meals all year round and that school kitchens should remain open. I note that in some areas they are
Would you acknowledge that free school meals to provide for the poor are a second class solution, that it would be far better if there was no one who had so little that they couldn't put decent food on the table for their children? School meals should either be free for all (a position I'd support) or everyone has the money needed to pay for them. Provision over school holidays has been a problem for years, the pandemic has highlighted that, not caused it, mainly because the usual provision isn't available (the holiday clubs etc aren't able to run). Of course, if all families had the income to feed their children properly it wouldn't be a problem.
At the moment having the school kitchens open isn't a solution, because you still need to have a small army of volunteers to deliver the dinners to the kids (plus, all the containers etc to pack the meals into, which schools that serve dinner onto plates probably don't have). Food packages should work, there's no reason why they can't be made up with ample content, put in some recipe cards and they also serve an educational purpose teaching children (and their parents) nutrition and how to cook, I've heard of some examples of this happening. But, the far too common practice of giving the contract to the lowest bidder, who then provides a substandard service creaming off public money into their pockets, has been followed in many cases. Vouchers are limited, they may not be accepted everywhere, but are preferred by Tories because they've bought into the lie that the poor can't be trusted with cash - you never know parents given cash to buy food for their children may be tempted to spend it on frivolous things like paying the electric bill so that they have power to heat their home and cook dinner. Put £30 per week per child into the hands of parents and they'll be able to feed their children properly, and heat the home during the day so they don't get sick, and have the dignity of being able to control their lives.
I’d go further and introduce a universal living wage. Enough to cover all the basics and free people up to become entrepreneurs and start small enterprises or work for charities, build community projects etc.
In my view there is no such thing as laziness.
People who are labelled ‘lazy’ either have mental or neurological difficulties, lack motivation, lack opportunity or lack aspiration. All those things can be tackled if we stop blaming them for the circumstances they are in and start helping them out of them.
The other critical thing to do is to acknowledge that, under our current economic model at least, economic growth is environmental damage. We need massive cultural change, as well as structual reform.
The other critical thing to do is to acknowledge that, under our current economic model at least, economic growth is environmental damage. We need massive cultural change, as well as structual reform.
Yes. Why is constant economic growth deemed a good thing? If only humans could learn to be more content with less instead of constantly needing/wanting bigger and better.
I’m not talking about frugal living, just comfortable and sensible for everyone rather than a few of us stripping the planet of all it’s assets and killing it in the process.
The other critical thing to do is to acknowledge that, under our current economic model at least, economic growth is environmental damage. We need massive cultural change, as well as structual reform.
I'm not sure that economic growth is necessarily environmental damage. The economic system has historically promoted technologies for which that's true, but in principle a regulated market ought to be able to force negative externalities back onto the producer.
Whether one is a Corbyn supporter or not has no bearing on the truth of this assertion. Facts are neither optional nor dependent on one's political allegiance.
Is there even a remote possibility of you providing any evidence to back up this claim?
It's all common knowledge and you should know all about it.
If you ignore the bit about Powell, I have not supported any of the rest of your post.
In other words you support government policies that drive people into increasing poverty, where they're unable to afford to feed their children. Presumably you think food banks are a brilliant idea, and it's great that so many hard working families rely on the generosity of strangers because the pittance they earn is insufficient to be able to buy enough food (and pay all the other bills). You presumably celebrate 10 years of Conservative government robbing the ordinary people of the country of the dignity of being able to support themselves. Well, bully for you. For most of us here, that's an evil, that in a wealthy nation no one should be in that position. For most of us this situation something to fight against by all reasonable means possible - and that certainly includes telling those who support driving people into poverty that they're total wankers.
As for Powell I said that he had reported the complaints from some of his constituents. Some of the decriptions of black people were certainly racist and to be totally honest I did not hear about them for years later.
He reported illegitimate fears (fears which had almost certainly been stoked by racists), and rather than point out the fallacies he used them to propose making things worse - both by reinforcing the narrative that these fears were legitimate, and by advocating racist controls on population growth which would deny the UK of many of the people we needed to address the real problems. And, within months his words had been widely reported and were being used by the NF and other racist thugs to justify attacks on people. I admit we can't go back and introduce you to one of the most infamous speeches of all time earlier. It's hard to believe that anyone old enough to vote wasn't aware of that speech and a general idea of the content from the moment it was delivered - even if just the concluding bit about rivers of blood. But, clearly at least one person took no notice of politics, even if he'd thought enough to conclude that Powell was a good MP for the area. But, you've now read the speech, you can see that it's a racist diatribe that uses the illegitimate fears of a few individuals to propose a solution that wouldn't have been out of place in Germany in the late 1930s, you've had the opportunity to apologise for supporting this piece of filth with your vote and acknowledge that your vote assisted in the oppression of black people in this country by suggesting there are votes for racists (an evil that continues to this day with blatant appeals to racists to bring in the Leave vote, and the support among Conservatives for the "hostile environment" for migrants). If you're not going to repudiate your past then you're continuing to be part of the problem. If your words continue to support racism of yesterday then you're supporting the racism of today - and fuck you.
I have previously said that I do support free school meals all year round and that school kitchens should remain open. I note that in some areas they are
Would you acknowledge that free school meals to provide for the poor are a second class solution, that it would be far better if there was no one who had so little that they couldn't put decent food on the table for their children? School meals should either be free for all (a position I'd support) or everyone has the money needed to pay for them. Provision over school holidays has been a problem for years, the pandemic has highlighted that, not caused it, mainly because the usual provision isn't available (the holiday clubs etc aren't able to run). Of course, if all families had the income to feed their children properly it wouldn't be a problem.
At the moment having the school kitchens open isn't a solution, because you still need to have a small army of volunteers to deliver the dinners to the kids (plus, all the containers etc to pack the meals into, which schools that serve dinner onto plates probably don't have). Food packages should work, there's no reason why they can't be made up with ample content, put in some recipe cards and they also serve an educational purpose teaching children (and their parents) nutrition and how to cook, I've heard of some examples of this happening. But, the far too common practice of giving the contract to the lowest bidder, who then provides a substandard service creaming off public money into their pockets, has been followed in many cases. Vouchers are limited, they may not be accepted everywhere, but are preferred by Tories because they've bought into the lie that the poor can't be trusted with cash - you never know parents given cash to buy food for their children may be tempted to spend it on frivolous things like paying the electric bill so that they have power to heat their home and cook dinner. Put £30 per week per child into the hands of parents and they'll be able to feed their children properly, and heat the home during the day so they don't get sick, and have the dignity of being able to control their lives.
So you are against food banks. I assume that, unlike a lot of caring people, you never contribute anything to them.
You are also against school kitchens being open in holidays to feed poor children.
What world are you on? Even those who run food banks will tell you they're against food banks ... if people had enough money that they could buy the food they need and food banks could shut shop the first to celebrate would include the volunteers who run them. Of course I'm against food banks, any sane person would be, but while the bastards run the country into the ground they're needed and I'll support them. Likewise, we shouldn't need to provide free school meals to some, because no child should be living in poverty and their school lunch is the only hot meal they'll get. If you can gather the volunteers to do a daily delivery of meals cooked in school kitchens (plus the volunteer staff to cook them and open the school) then go for it. Here a furloughed chef is trying to organise cooking and distributing meals, it's not that simple a process (plus, here the council provides a bit of cash to parents so they can buy and cook themselves, which is so much better in many ways).
Oh, and you need to get your computer (or whatever device you're using looked at). I see gaps between blocks of text I've written dividing things up into paragraphs. If your device isn't showing them then there's a fault somewhere. I suspect PEBCAK.
So you are against food banks. I assume that, unlike a lot of caring people, you never contribute anything to them.
You are also against school kitchens being open in holidays to feed poor children.
Some people care enough to wonder why there should be an increasing and urgent need for food banks and why there are so many 'poor' children, as a matter of course in a nation like the UK.
It's that old adage, isn't it. If I feed the poor, I'm a saint, but if I ask why they're poor you call me a communist.
I see that one gets about £8 a day for each child in addition to the basic claim
@Telford I'm going to challenge that assertion. For the first and second child a family receives an additional £235.85 per month, so approximately £8 a day for each child, but that only applies for the first two children, no further money for additional children. If you have more than two children you receive no extra money from Universal Credit. So if you have three children that money reduces to roughly £5.33 a day and if you have four children that money reduces to £4 a day. In addition that money has to cover the additional bills, clothing, furniture, bedding, laundry and food for those children. Not just food.
If you start costing up additional costs like the compulsory extremely expensive school uniforms most schools insist on* and those same schools are currently insisting these uniforms are worn both in school and when taking part in online lessons, which will absorb upwards of £200, a month's money for each child annually because children grow. That's before any normal clothing (knickers, socks, and shoes that aren't counted in those uniform costs and clothes to wear outside school to conserve the uniform) which will absorb another month per annum of those monies assuming normal growth. Then there are currently some additional costs, such as internet access to allow those children to attend online lessons. That's my biggest monthly bill by far, and I pay that by direct debit.
You're also assuming that the family is actually getting full Universal Credit and not repaying payments in advance for the six weeks waiting time before anyone can claim UC, or to repay for furniture loans, or hasn't had any sanctions imposed for impossible requirements like appointments set before the first bus of the day reaches the benefit office. And those sanctions affect the money paid to both partners of a couple and can be imposed for up to three years.
£8 a day looks a lot when you ignore all the other costs those parents are meant to be covering and assume they have it to spend on food. But that is not the case.
Whether one is a Corbyn supporter or not has no bearing on the truth of this assertion. Facts are neither optional nor dependent on one's political allegiance.
Is there even a remote possibility of you providing any evidence to back up this claim?
It's all common knowledge and you should know all about it.
This is a perfect example of the kind of post that makes you look really stupid.
For example, it is also common knowledge that the EU was killing the British fishing industry and leaving the EU would vastly benefit that industry.
It is also common knowledge in the USA that the Mueller report exonerated Trump.
I've got lots more of these...
But because I know you have a habit of (deliberately or otherwise) responding as though you haven't understood, I will make this REALLY clear for you:
"IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE" is neitheran argument nor evidence that something is a fact.
What world are you on? Even those who run food banks will tell you they're against food banks ... if people had enough money that they could buy the food they need and food banks could shut shop the first to celebrate would include the volunteers who run them. Of course I'm against food banks, any sane person would be, but while the bastards run the country into the ground they're needed and I'll support them. Likewise, we shouldn't need to provide free school meals to some, because no child should be living in poverty and their school lunch is the only hot meal they'll get. If you can gather the volunteers to do a daily delivery of meals cooked in school kitchens (plus the volunteer staff to cook them and open the school) then go for it. Here a furloughed chef is trying to organise cooking and distributing meals, it's not that simple a process (plus, here the council provides a bit of cash to parents so they can buy and cook themselves, which is so much better in many ways).
I get the impression that you thonk the taxpayer should finance everything and that charities don't need to exist. You don't need volunteers for school kitchens. They already employ cooks
Oh, and you need to get your computer (or whatever device you're using looked at). I see gaps between blocks of text I've written dividing things up into paragraphs. If your device isn't showing them then there's a fault somewhere. I suspect PEBCAK.
Thanks for the advice but it's really only your posts I have a problem with although there are two paragraphs in this post It's probably my fault. I have a problem understanding very long paragraphs
I see that one gets about £8 a day for each child in addition to the basic claim
@Telford I'm going to challenge that assertion. For the first and second child a family receives an additional £235.85 per month, so approximately £8 a day for each child, but that only applies for the first two children, no further money for additional children. If you have more than two children you receive no extra money from Universal Credit. So if you have three children that money reduces to roughly £5.33 a day and if you have four children that money reduces to £4 a day. In addition that money has to cover the additional bills, clothing, furniture, bedding, laundry and food for those children. Not just food.
If you start costing up additional costs like the compulsory extremely expensive school uniforms most schools insist on* and those same schools are currently insisting these uniforms are worn both in school and when taking part in online lessons, which will absorb upwards of £200, a month's money for each child annually because children grow. That's before any normal clothing (knickers, socks, and shoes that aren't counted in those uniform costs and clothes to wear outside school to conserve the uniform) which will absorb another month per annum of those monies assuming normal growth. Then there are currently some additional costs, such as internet access to allow those children to attend online lessons. That's my biggest monthly bill by far, and I pay that by direct debit.
You're also assuming that the family is actually getting full Universal Credit and not repaying payments in advance for the six weeks waiting time before anyone can claim UC, or to repay for furniture loans, or hasn't had any sanctions imposed for impossible requirements like appointments set before the first bus of the day reaches the benefit office. And those sanctions affect the money paid to both partners of a couple and can be imposed for up to three years.
£8 a day looks a lot when you ignore all the other costs those parents are meant to be covering and assume they have it to spend on food. But that is not the case.
There is a school of thought that says that you should only have children that you can afford. Now I accept that some families have the children before they get into difficulties but often it's not the case.
Whether one is a Corbyn supporter or not has no bearing on the truth of this assertion. Facts are neither optional nor dependent on one's political allegiance.
Is there even a remote possibility of you providing any evidence to back up this claim?
It's all common knowledge and you should know all about it.
This is a perfect example of the kind of post that makes you look really stupid.
For example, it is also common knowledge that the EU was killing the British fishing industry and leaving the EU would vastly benefit that industry.
It is also common knowledge in the USA that the Mueller report exonerated Trump.
I've got lots more of these...
But because I know you have a habit of (deliberately or otherwise) responding as though you haven't understood, I will make this REALLY clear for you:
"IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE" is neitheran argument nor evidence that something is a fact.
D- must try harder.
AFZ
My post was on about Corbyn. What on earth are you on about? I will forgive the insults as you can't help yourself
Meanwhile, ignoring the incessant, meaningless, buzzing, and howling, has anything been seen or heard of The Lord Protector since yesterday?
Not that I'm particularly desirous of knowing, but I wouldn't want him to feel that the only thing left for him to do is to go into the garden, and eat Worms.
NoPity Patel is taking some stick, Her police having cocked-up big-time by losing records, so why isn't he by Her shoulder telling us how much confidence he has in Her?
Whether one is a Corbyn supporter or not has no bearing on the truth of this assertion. Facts are neither optional nor dependent on one's political allegiance.
Is there even a remote possibility of you providing any evidence to back up this claim?
It's all common knowledge and you should know all about it.
This is a perfect example of the kind of post that makes you look really stupid.
For example, it is also common knowledge that the EU was killing the British fishing industry and leaving the EU would vastly benefit that industry.
It is also common knowledge in the USA that the Mueller report exonerated Trump.
I've got lots more of these...
But because I know you have a habit of (deliberately or otherwise) responding as though you haven't understood, I will make this REALLY clear for you:
"IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE" is neitheran argument nor evidence that something is a fact.
D- must try harder.
AFZ
My post was on about Corbyn. What on earth are you on about? I will forgive the insults as you can't help yourself
To the Headmaster's study with the wretched boy, forthwith, Expulsion Papers for the drawing up of...
As for the rest of the class, you are all awarded A+ grades, together with cash prizes. Your forbearance and patience are outstanding.
They need to be with the likes of you to contend with.
I love the fact that you think I'm insulting you. My fervent hope is that one day you'll get your head out of your arse long enough to appreciate that you post stuff that is deeply offensive and most shipmates show incredible restraint and kindness towards you. I know that doesn't fit with your worldview that you are oppressed and bullied in this place by us bunch of snowflakes but I tell you this for free; a main difference between thee and me is that I am constantly open to the possibility that I'm wrong.
Anyway, in the hope of making some progress, I will spell this out precisely for you.
1. You have made certain assertions about Mr Corbyn (repeatedly as it happens).
2. Various Shipmates have challenged you that these assertions are not as it happens factually accurate.
3. You provided evidence to support your assertions so we could then have a constructive and interesting debate that would help all of us get closer to the truth
Oops, no you didn't, my bad!
3. The only support you gave for said assertions is that they are 'common knowledge'
4. My post that seems to have confused you stated that 'common knowledge' is a very poor form of evidence. This is true.
5. I then gave you two examples of the top of my head of 'common knowledge' that can be very easily demonstrated to be at odds with reality.
6. I did this to illustrate that 'common knowledge' is not a good form of evidence.
Now, here's your chance: answer constructively with some evidence to back up what you're saying or continue to pretent that you are really the victim here because us mean snowflakes are so easily offended by people who disagree with us.
And for a bonus point, you may have seen on several threads that Alan and I agree with each other quite a lot. However, on the rare occasions we've grappled with Scottish Independence, we firmly disagree. However to the best of my knowledge neither of us has insulted or offended the other. I have learnt from listening to his views such that my position has changed a little. I have no idea if the reciprocal if true or not. This little aside indeed has nothing to do with Mr Corbyn, but once again I am trying to illustrate that having a different view point is not the issue. You continue to refuse to listen. You make assertions and when challenged on them rather than providing evidence to support them, you play the victim. It is deeply tedious and makes you look stupid.
I suspect you are not.
So, are you game or do you intend to continue to despoil this thread?
On the upside you do make Mr Johnson look better by comparison which given the title of this thread is oddly and perhaps paradoxically enlightening. I mean, it helps me understand why people vote for him.
@Telford your point about people having more children than they can afford is particularly crass at the moment as many, many people are having to claim Universal Credit for the first time as their jobs disappear into the vortex created by the pandemic and Brexit. The families who have had to sign up in recent times may well have budgeted sensibly for the children they have, but the times they are a-changing and
The best laid schemes o' mice an' men / Gang aft a-gley.”
What world are you on? Even those who run food banks will tell you they're against food banks ... if people had enough money that they could buy the food they need and food banks could shut shop the first to celebrate would include the volunteers who run them. Of course I'm against food banks, any sane person would be, but while the bastards run the country into the ground they're needed and I'll support them. Likewise, we shouldn't need to provide free school meals to some, because no child should be living in poverty and their school lunch is the only hot meal they'll get. If you can gather the volunteers to do a daily delivery of meals cooked in school kitchens (plus the volunteer staff to cook them and open the school) then go for it. Here a furloughed chef is trying to organise cooking and distributing meals, it's not that simple a process (plus, here the council provides a bit of cash to parents so they can buy and cook themselves, which is so much better in many ways).
I get the impression that you thonk the taxpayer should finance everything and that charities don't need to exist. You don't need volunteers for school kitchens. They already employ cooks
Well, yes, I believe the government should use tax income to invest in the country, rather than pass on big bungs to mates who squirrel it all away where they don't pay tax in the UK. Something like a universal basic income would be such an investment. It would life people out of poverty, giving them the ability to provide for their families without the indignity of relying on food banks. It would return a lot of money into the economy, provide more jobs and boost tax income which together with cutting the costs of benefits would largely pay for itself. Of course, the government wouldn't countenance that because the fascist press would crucify them for giving money to people they call "undeserving" (though, everyone deserves to have dignity and avoid starving). And, regarding the use of school kitchens to provide meals during school holidays, of course there isn't staff employed to cook meals at those times - because it's holidays, do you want no one working in schools to ever have time off? They could do so during lockdown, schools are open for a few children anyway, it would need to rethink who gets to go to school though to keep the numbers small enough to maintain social distancing - it wouldn't hurt to give the children of poor parents time in school (some would be anyway, because many of those poor parents are doing essential work like care homes or nurses who simply don't get paid enough) even if some more wealthy people find they can't pack off their kids to school on some pretext of being essential workers. There's also more to providing meals than cooking them (otherwise the furloughed chef here wouldn't have the problems with this), distributing the meals is a much harder issue that requires significant resources - containers to put the food in, then a fleet of cars to deliver the food to all those families before it goes cold potentially over a wide area, and to do that everyday. Not a simple matter. One final point, in case you missed it, but you'll notice that as you're blind to my breaking things into multiple paragraphs I haven't bothered. Call it a gift, to help you with reading for comprehension. Because you do seem to need all the help you can get.
I agree wholeheartedly with what you say, Honourable Member for Zog, but would point out that the words They need to be with the likes of you to contend with were directed at me personally.
I would be happy for the Honourable Member for the New Town to make me an apology.
My compliment regarding forbearance and patience was, as you all know, directed at the other Honourable Members present.
There is a school of thought that says that you should only have children that you can afford. Now I accept that some families have the children before they get into difficulties but often it's not the case.
(Italics mine)
Oh, For Fuck's Sake!!!
Let me (again) spell this out:
CITATION NEEDED!!
And that's before we even get to the idea as to whether it is just to punish children for the misdeeds or their parents.
Oh and by the way, there's even a selfish argument for looking after poor children (by the state I mean): it costs a fraction of the societal costs of not doing so - in terms of social support, welfare, healthcare and criminal justice... but I bet you a lot of money there's NO chance of us getting to a proper debate about this due to your aforementioned caput-in-anus syndrome.
I agree wholeheartedly with what you say, Honourable Member for Zog, but would point out that the words They need to be with the likes of you to contend with were directed at me personally.
I would be happy for the Honourable Member for the New Town to make me an apology.
My compliment regarding forbearance and patience was, as you all know, directed at the other Honourable Members present.
Hee hee thank you. Yes slight error in quoting. I always struggle with code on my phone. But it was not entirely irrelevant to my post either.
I agree wholeheartedly with what you say, Honourable Member for Zog, but would point out that the words They need to be with the likes of you to contend with were directed at me personally.
I would be happy for the Honourable Member for the New Town to make me an apology.
My compliment regarding forbearance and patience was, as you all know, directed at the other Honourable Members present.
Hee hee thank you. Yes slight error in quoting. I always struggle with code on my phone. But it was not entirely irrelevant to my post either.
No problem. The words could apply equally well, if directed elsewhere.
My People will be in touch with The People of the New Town, should he possess any.
Whether one is a Corbyn supporter or not has no bearing on the truth of this assertion. Facts are neither optional nor dependent on one's political allegiance.
Is there even a remote possibility of you providing any evidence to back up this claim?
It's all common knowledge and you should know all about it.
This is a perfect example of the kind of post that makes you look really stupid.
For example, it is also common knowledge that the EU was killing the British fishing industry and leaving the EU would vastly benefit that industry.
It is also common knowledge in the USA that the Mueller report exonerated Trump.
I've got lots more of these...
But because I know you have a habit of (deliberately or otherwise) responding as though you haven't understood, I will make this REALLY clear for you:
"IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE" is neitheran argument nor evidence that something is a fact.
D- must try harder.
AFZ
My post was on about Corbyn. What on earth are you on about? I will forgive the insults as you can't help yourself
To the Headmaster's study with the wretched boy, forthwith, Expulsion Papers for the drawing up of...
As for the rest of the class, you are all awarded A+ grades, together with cash prizes. Your forbearance and patience are outstanding.
They need to be with the likes of you to contend with.
I love the fact that you think I'm insulting you. My fervent hope is that one day you'll get your head out of your arse long enough to appreciate that you post stuff that is deeply offensive and most shipmates show incredible restraint and kindness towards you. I know that doesn't fit with your worldview that you are oppressed and bullied in this place by us bunch of snowflakes but I tell you this for free; a main difference between thee and me is that I am constantly open to the possibility that I'm wrong.
Anyway, in the hope of making some progress, I will spell this out precisely for you.
1. You have made certain assertions about Mr Corbyn (repeatedly as it happens).
2. Various Shipmates have challenged you that these assertions are not as it happens factually accurate.
3. You provided evidence to support your assertions so we could then have a constructive and interesting debate that would help all of us get closer to the truth
Oops, no you didn't, my bad!
3. The only support you gave for said assertions is that they are 'common knowledge'
4. My post that seems to have confused you stated that 'common knowledge' is a very poor form of evidence. This is true.
5. I then gave you two examples of the top of my head of 'common knowledge' that can be very easily demonstrated to be at odds with reality.
6. I did this to illustrate that 'common knowledge' is not a good form of evidence.
Now, here's your chance: answer constructively with some evidence to back up what you're saying or continue to pretent that you are really the victim here because us mean snowflakes are so easily offended by people who disagree with us.
And for a bonus point, you may have seen on several threads that Alan and I agree with each other quite a lot. However, on the rare occasions we've grappled with Scottish Independence, we firmly disagree. However to the best of my knowledge neither of us has insulted or offended the other. I have learnt from listening to his views such that my position has changed a little. I have no idea if the reciprocal if true or not. This little aside indeed has nothing to do with Mr Corbyn, but once again I am trying to illustrate that having a different view point is not the issue. You continue to refuse to listen. You make assertions and when challenged on them rather than providing evidence to support them, you play the victim. It is deeply tedious and makes you look stupid.
I suspect you are not.
So, are you game or do you intend to continue to despoil this thread?
On the upside you do make Mr Johnson look better by comparison which given the title of this thread is oddly and perhaps paradoxically enlightening. I mean, it helps me understand why people vote for him.
AFZ
You just can't help it so I have to forgive you once again.
@Telford your point about people having more children than they can afford is particularly crass at the moment as many, many people are having to claim Universal Credit for the first time as their jobs disappear into the vortex created by the pandemic and Brexit. The families who have had to sign up in recent times may well have budgeted sensibly for the children they have, but the times they are a-changing and
The best laid schemes o' mice an' men / Gang aft a-gley.”
What world are you on? Even those who run food banks will tell you they're against food banks ... if people had enough money that they could buy the food they need and food banks could shut shop the first to celebrate would include the volunteers who run them. Of course I'm against food banks, any sane person would be, but while the bastards run the country into the ground they're needed and I'll support them. Likewise, we shouldn't need to provide free school meals to some, because no child should be living in poverty and their school lunch is the only hot meal they'll get. If you can gather the volunteers to do a daily delivery of meals cooked in school kitchens (plus the volunteer staff to cook them and open the school) then go for it. Here a furloughed chef is trying to organise cooking and distributing meals, it's not that simple a process (plus, here the council provides a bit of cash to parents so they can buy and cook themselves, which is so much better in many ways).
I get the impression that you thonk the taxpayer should finance everything and that charities don't need to exist. You don't need volunteers for school kitchens. They already employ cooks
Well, yes, I believe the government should use tax income to invest in the country, rather than pass on big bungs to mates who squirrel it all away where they don't pay tax in the UK. Something like a universal basic income would be such an investment. It would life people out of poverty, giving them the ability to provide for their families without the indignity of relying on food banks. It would return a lot of money into the economy, provide more jobs and boost tax income which together with cutting the costs of benefits would largely pay for itself. Of course, the government wouldn't countenance that because the fascist press would crucify them for giving money to people they call "undeserving" (though, everyone deserves to have dignity and avoid starving). And, regarding the use of school kitchens to provide meals during school holidays, of course there isn't staff employed to cook meals at those times - because it's holidays, do you want no one working in schools to ever have time off? They could do so during lockdown, schools are open for a few children anyway, it would need to rethink who gets to go to school though to keep the numbers small enough to maintain social distancing - it wouldn't hurt to give the children of poor parents time in school (some would be anyway, because many of those poor parents are doing essential work like care homes or nurses who simply don't get paid enough) even if some more wealthy people find they can't pack off their kids to school on some pretext of being essential workers. There's also more to providing meals than cooking them (otherwise the furloughed chef here wouldn't have the problems with this), distributing the meals is a much harder issue that requires significant resources - containers to put the food in, then a fleet of cars to deliver the food to all those families before it goes cold potentially over a wide area, and to do that everyday. Not a simple matter. One final point, in case you missed it, but you'll notice that as you're blind to my breaking things into multiple paragraphs I haven't bothered. Call it a gift, to help you with reading for comprehension. Because you do seem to need all the help you can get.
All that unparagraphed bile just to counter some sensible suggestions.
There is a school of thought that says that you should only have children that you can afford. Now I accept that some families have the children before they get into difficulties but often it's not the case.
(Italics mine)
Oh, For Fuck's Sake!!!
Let me (again) spell this out:
CITATION NEEDED!!
And that's before we even get to the idea as to whether it is just to punish children for the misdeeds or their parents.
Oh and by the way, there's even a selfish argument for looking after poor children (by the state I mean): it costs a fraction of the societal costs of not doing so - in terms of social support, welfare, healthcare and criminal justice... but I bet you a lot of money there's NO chance of us getting to a proper debate about this due to your aforementioned caput-in-anus syndrome.
AFZ
Wow. You did a naughty swear word. How exciting. I couldn't undedrsrtand the rest.
There is a school of thought that says that you should only have children that you can afford. Now I accept that some families have the children before they get into difficulties but often it's not the case.
The Victorians were the supremoes of this kind of hypocrisy. Even while they split up poor families and imprisoned them in workhouses, preaching against the sexual profligacy and incontinence of the underclasses, they still rounded them and their generations up in the scores of thousands, put them in uniform, or all but bonded slavery, gave them 12 hour shifts in dangerous factory work or shipped them overseas and conquered the world with them, providing some very lucky capitalists with a rather nice Empire to play with. There are more than a few (tax-avoiding offshore) fortunes generated by minimum-wage zero contract dispensable employees, cushioning the lives of many UK businessmen and politicians who like to sneer at the unemployed factory or plant worker who has 'irresponsibly' had more than one or two kids.
I've seen the documentaries about work-dodging dads (and mums) moving from house to house as their brood increases. The reason they make such interesting viewing is that they're not as common as the Daily Mail and Channel 5 would have us believe. But if someone is unfit to have kids because of lack of money or even a lack of interest in providing for them, what other criteria applies for fitness to be a parent bringing a new dependent life into society?
God help us if the only people deemed fit to breed more than a couple of kids are the rich and upper class! It's bad enough being ruled by them in bloody Parliament.
One of the few consolations of people with not much in the way of material rewards is the loving relationship they have with their family. China tried to tell people who was allowed to breed and how they should do it - it didn't work out well.
Comments
just because I voted for a local hero 50 years ago. I actually implied the opposite to the BIB. Giving children priority means that you feed the children before you feed yourself. I know that we have millions on low pay and benefits but parents should be able to feed their childen on the money they get. It could well be that my views are old fashioned. Where have I supported the fascist views of the right wing media ? What are these views anyway ?
If I was a Labour supporter in Islington North, should I refuse to vote for Jeremy Corbyn because he made Labour anti semitic, supported the IRA and also Palestinian terrorists ? [
This is the money they get:
https://www.gov.uk/universal-credit/what-youll-get
More pertinent, is how that tracks with the cost of living.
If that pile of ordure were actually true, yes.
I dispute the truth of your premise, but if you honestly believed that and the alternatives were less objectionable - yes.
I wouldn’t, for example, have voted for George Galloway just because he was a Labour mp. But I would probably have voted for him if the alternative had been a memher of Combat 18.
Typical examples of the fascist views of the right wing media would be assorted scare-stories about immigration; immigrants are "stealing our jobs" and "scrounging off the benefits system paid for by our taxes", "taking council houses", "jumping the queue for NHS treatment" etc. None of which are true, but have been widely repeated and the Brexit campaign used these lies freely. Lies which have resulted in violence against immigrants and those working to help immigrants, even the murder of an MP who was a vocal supporter of immigrants. Lies which are very similar to what Enoch Powell reported that he had heard, and which he then repeated fuelling the 1970s NF attacks on immigrants and other events. Views that you have refused to repudiate, views that you have said were not reasons to consider voting for Powell to be wrong (even in hindsight).
Or, the statements about the poor and benefits claimants; that they're poor by their own choice, because they're lazy and don't want to work; or that they're making bad choices spending their money on trivialities like booze* or big TVs (and, if someone is unable to get a job and is home all day then a good TV isn't exactly an unreasonable thing to want). Views you've practically repeated verbatim today. Add in all those 'stories' about 'benefit cheats' and how these people are playing the system and stealing money from tax payers - pushing the government to introduce draconian measures that make claiming benefits practically impossible for many (it shouldn't take volunteers at the Citizens Advice to spend hours filling in forms for someone to have any chance of getting a pittance). Without the corresponding condemnation of the wealthy who move their money around to avoid paying as much tax, stealing far more from the nation than all the supposed benefit cheats combined.
* as people of faith, maybe we should consider the proverb
Let beer be for those who are perishing,
wine for those who are in anguish!
Let them drink and forget their poverty
and remember their misery no more.
Proverbs 31:6-7
I see that one gets about £8 a day for each child in addition to the basic claim Unless you are a Corbyn supporter, it is true. That's why he was so unpopular un the PLP and with all Labour Leaders since he entered Parliament
If you ignore the bit about Powell, I have not supported any of the rest of your post. As for Powell I said that he had reported the complaints from some of his constituents. Some of the decriptions of black people were certainly racist and to be totally honest I did not hear about them for years later.
I have previously said that I do support free school meals all year round and that school kitchens should remain open. I note that in some areas they are
Whether one is a Corbyn supporter or not has no bearing on the truth of this assertion. Facts are neither optional nor dependent on one's political allegiance.
Is there even a remote possibility of you providing any evidence to back up this claim?
He reported illegitimate fears (fears which had almost certainly been stoked by racists), and rather than point out the fallacies he used them to propose making things worse - both by reinforcing the narrative that these fears were legitimate, and by advocating racist controls on population growth which would deny the UK of many of the people we needed to address the real problems. And, within months his words had been widely reported and were being used by the NF and other racist thugs to justify attacks on people. I admit we can't go back and introduce you to one of the most infamous speeches of all time earlier. It's hard to believe that anyone old enough to vote wasn't aware of that speech and a general idea of the content from the moment it was delivered - even if just the concluding bit about rivers of blood. But, clearly at least one person took no notice of politics, even if he'd thought enough to conclude that Powell was a good MP for the area. But, you've now read the speech, you can see that it's a racist diatribe that uses the illegitimate fears of a few individuals to propose a solution that wouldn't have been out of place in Germany in the late 1930s, you've had the opportunity to apologise for supporting this piece of filth with your vote and acknowledge that your vote assisted in the oppression of black people in this country by suggesting there are votes for racists (an evil that continues to this day with blatant appeals to racists to bring in the Leave vote, and the support among Conservatives for the "hostile environment" for migrants). If you're not going to repudiate your past then you're continuing to be part of the problem. If your words continue to support racism of yesterday then you're supporting the racism of today - and fuck you.
Would you acknowledge that free school meals to provide for the poor are a second class solution, that it would be far better if there was no one who had so little that they couldn't put decent food on the table for their children? School meals should either be free for all (a position I'd support) or everyone has the money needed to pay for them. Provision over school holidays has been a problem for years, the pandemic has highlighted that, not caused it, mainly because the usual provision isn't available (the holiday clubs etc aren't able to run). Of course, if all families had the income to feed their children properly it wouldn't be a problem.
At the moment having the school kitchens open isn't a solution, because you still need to have a small army of volunteers to deliver the dinners to the kids (plus, all the containers etc to pack the meals into, which schools that serve dinner onto plates probably don't have). Food packages should work, there's no reason why they can't be made up with ample content, put in some recipe cards and they also serve an educational purpose teaching children (and their parents) nutrition and how to cook, I've heard of some examples of this happening. But, the far too common practice of giving the contract to the lowest bidder, who then provides a substandard service creaming off public money into their pockets, has been followed in many cases. Vouchers are limited, they may not be accepted everywhere, but are preferred by Tories because they've bought into the lie that the poor can't be trusted with cash - you never know parents given cash to buy food for their children may be tempted to spend it on frivolous things like paying the electric bill so that they have power to heat their home and cook dinner. Put £30 per week per child into the hands of parents and they'll be able to feed their children properly, and heat the home during the day so they don't get sick, and have the dignity of being able to control their lives.
In my view there is no such thing as laziness.
People who are labelled ‘lazy’ either have mental or neurological difficulties, lack motivation, lack opportunity or lack aspiration. All those things can be tackled if we stop blaming them for the circumstances they are in and start helping them out of them.
Yes. Why is constant economic growth deemed a good thing? If only humans could learn to be more content with less instead of constantly needing/wanting bigger and better.
I’m not talking about frugal living, just comfortable and sensible for everyone rather than a few of us stripping the planet of all it’s assets and killing it in the process.
I'm not sure that economic growth is necessarily environmental damage. The economic system has historically promoted technologies for which that's true, but in principle a regulated market ought to be able to force negative externalities back onto the producer.
It's all common knowledge and you should know all about it.
So you are against food banks. I assume that, unlike a lot of caring people, you never contribute anything to them.
You are also against school kitchens being open in holidays to feed poor children.
I wish you would use paragraphs
Oh, and you need to get your computer (or whatever device you're using looked at). I see gaps between blocks of text I've written dividing things up into paragraphs. If your device isn't showing them then there's a fault somewhere. I suspect PEBCAK.
Some people care enough to wonder why there should be an increasing and urgent need for food banks and why there are so many 'poor' children, as a matter of course in a nation like the UK.
It's that old adage, isn't it. If I feed the poor, I'm a saint, but if I ask why they're poor you call me a communist.
@Telford I'm going to challenge that assertion. For the first and second child a family receives an additional £235.85 per month, so approximately £8 a day for each child, but that only applies for the first two children, no further money for additional children. If you have more than two children you receive no extra money from Universal Credit. So if you have three children that money reduces to roughly £5.33 a day and if you have four children that money reduces to £4 a day. In addition that money has to cover the additional bills, clothing, furniture, bedding, laundry and food for those children. Not just food.
If you start costing up additional costs like the compulsory extremely expensive school uniforms most schools insist on* and those same schools are currently insisting these uniforms are worn both in school and when taking part in online lessons, which will absorb upwards of £200, a month's money for each child annually because children grow. That's before any normal clothing (knickers, socks, and shoes that aren't counted in those uniform costs and clothes to wear outside school to conserve the uniform) which will absorb another month per annum of those monies assuming normal growth. Then there are currently some additional costs, such as internet access to allow those children to attend online lessons. That's my biggest monthly bill by far, and I pay that by direct debit.
You're also assuming that the family is actually getting full Universal Credit and not repaying payments in advance for the six weeks waiting time before anyone can claim UC, or to repay for furniture loans, or hasn't had any sanctions imposed for impossible requirements like appointments set before the first bus of the day reaches the benefit office. And those sanctions affect the money paid to both partners of a couple and can be imposed for up to three years.
£8 a day looks a lot when you ignore all the other costs those parents are meant to be covering and assume they have it to spend on food. But that is not the case.
* 90% of UK schools insist on school uniforms and in 2015 the average cost was £212.88 per child (Wikipedia link)
https://theguardian.com/global-development/commentisfree/2021/jan/16/give-families-cash-to-feed-their-children-theres-overwhelming-evidence-it-works
This is a perfect example of the kind of post that makes you look really stupid.
For example, it is also common knowledge that the EU was killing the British fishing industry and leaving the EU would vastly benefit that industry.
It is also common knowledge in the USA that the Mueller report exonerated Trump.
I've got lots more of these...
But because I know you have a habit of (deliberately or otherwise) responding as though you haven't understood, I will make this REALLY clear for you:
"IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE" is neitheran argument nor evidence that something is a fact.
D- must try harder.
AFZ
To the Headmaster's study with the wretched boy, forthwith, Expulsion Papers for the drawing up of...
As for the rest of the class, you are all awarded A+ grades, together with cash prizes. Your forbearance and patience are outstanding.
There is a school of thought that says that you should only have children that you can afford. Now I accept that some families have the children before they get into difficulties but often it's not the case.
My post was on about Corbyn. What on earth are you on about? I will forgive the insults as you can't help yourself
They need to be with the likes of you to contend with.
Not that I'm particularly desirous of knowing, but I wouldn't want him to feel that the only thing left for him to do is to go into the garden, and eat Worms.
NoPity Patel is taking some stick, Her police having cocked-up big-time by losing records, so why isn't he by Her shoulder telling us how much confidence he has in Her?
I love the fact that you think I'm insulting you. My fervent hope is that one day you'll get your head out of your arse long enough to appreciate that you post stuff that is deeply offensive and most shipmates show incredible restraint and kindness towards you. I know that doesn't fit with your worldview that you are oppressed and bullied in this place by us bunch of snowflakes but I tell you this for free; a main difference between thee and me is that I am constantly open to the possibility that I'm wrong.
Anyway, in the hope of making some progress, I will spell this out precisely for you.
1. You have made certain assertions about Mr Corbyn (repeatedly as it happens).
2. Various Shipmates have challenged you that these assertions are not as it happens factually accurate.
3. You provided evidence to support your assertions so we could then have a constructive and interesting debate that would help all of us get closer to the truth
Oops, no you didn't, my bad!
3. The only support you gave for said assertions is that they are 'common knowledge'
4. My post that seems to have confused you stated that 'common knowledge' is a very poor form of evidence. This is true.
5. I then gave you two examples of the top of my head of 'common knowledge' that can be very easily demonstrated to be at odds with reality.
6. I did this to illustrate that 'common knowledge' is not a good form of evidence.
Now, here's your chance: answer constructively with some evidence to back up what you're saying or continue to pretent that you are really the victim here because us mean snowflakes are so easily offended by people who disagree with us.
And for a bonus point, you may have seen on several threads that Alan and I agree with each other quite a lot. However, on the rare occasions we've grappled with Scottish Independence, we firmly disagree. However to the best of my knowledge neither of us has insulted or offended the other. I have learnt from listening to his views such that my position has changed a little. I have no idea if the reciprocal if true or not. This little aside indeed has nothing to do with Mr Corbyn, but once again I am trying to illustrate that having a different view point is not the issue. You continue to refuse to listen. You make assertions and when challenged on them rather than providing evidence to support them, you play the victim. It is deeply tedious and makes you look stupid.
I suspect you are not.
So, are you game or do you intend to continue to despoil this thread?
On the upside you do make Mr Johnson look better by comparison which given the title of this thread is oddly and perhaps paradoxically enlightening. I mean, it helps me understand why people vote for him.
AFZ
I would be happy for the Honourable Member for the New Town to make me an apology.
My compliment regarding forbearance and patience was, as you all know, directed at the other Honourable Members present.
(Italics mine)
Oh, For Fuck's Sake!!!
Let me (again) spell this out:
CITATION NEEDED!!
And that's before we even get to the idea as to whether it is just to punish children for the misdeeds or their parents.
Oh and by the way, there's even a selfish argument for looking after poor children (by the state I mean): it costs a fraction of the societal costs of not doing so - in terms of social support, welfare, healthcare and criminal justice... but I bet you a lot of money there's NO chance of us getting to a proper debate about this due to your aforementioned caput-in-anus syndrome.
AFZ
Hee hee thank you. Yes slight error in quoting. I always struggle with code on my phone. But it was not entirely irrelevant to my post either.
No problem. The words could apply equally well, if directed elsewhere.
My People will be in touch with The People of the New Town, should he possess any.
He won't understand the allusion...
I covered the BIB. Read my posts carefully please All that unparagraphed bile just to counter some sensible suggestions.
Good guess, but we got Mode #2 - Passive Aggression
T
Please explain why you felt the need to post that.
The Victorians were the supremoes of this kind of hypocrisy. Even while they split up poor families and imprisoned them in workhouses, preaching against the sexual profligacy and incontinence of the underclasses, they still rounded them and their generations up in the scores of thousands, put them in uniform, or all but bonded slavery, gave them 12 hour shifts in dangerous factory work or shipped them overseas and conquered the world with them, providing some very lucky capitalists with a rather nice Empire to play with. There are more than a few (tax-avoiding offshore) fortunes generated by minimum-wage zero contract dispensable employees, cushioning the lives of many UK businessmen and politicians who like to sneer at the unemployed factory or plant worker who has 'irresponsibly' had more than one or two kids.
I've seen the documentaries about work-dodging dads (and mums) moving from house to house as their brood increases. The reason they make such interesting viewing is that they're not as common as the Daily Mail and Channel 5 would have us believe. But if someone is unfit to have kids because of lack of money or even a lack of interest in providing for them, what other criteria applies for fitness to be a parent bringing a new dependent life into society?
God help us if the only people deemed fit to breed more than a couple of kids are the rich and upper class! It's bad enough being ruled by them in bloody Parliament.
One of the few consolations of people with not much in the way of material rewards is the loving relationship they have with their family. China tried to tell people who was allowed to breed and how they should do it - it didn't work out well.