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.
Have you never heard of or read about couples who say that they can't yet afford to have children?
@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.”
To be fair to him, he did say:
Now I accept that some families have the children before they get into difficulties but often it's not the case.
Of course, that last clause should read and often that is the case.
Have you never heard of or read about couples who say that they can't yet afford to have children?
Occasionally you encounter couples who mention that in the press, but usually only in the context of the sort of budget article where the newspaper has gone looking for a young childless couple to ask "how will the budget affect you".
The thing about normal responsible people deciding that, for example, they can't afford children until one of them gets a job / they finish training and get paid better / whatever is that they're boring. Nobody wants to read about someone doing the best they can to make ends meet - they want to throw stones at the feckless serial shaggers who have a thousand different children with some combination of parents and want the council to provide them with a 37-bedroom mansion to house their brood.
Like @Anselmina said, nobody wants to watch or read about normal ordinary people. Think about the Big Brother TV show, for example. It got high ratings because the producers deliberately chose unpleasant confrontational people to fill the house (plus some attractive young women who looked like they'd be good for flashing some skin or otherwise titillating the voyeuristic audience.) When you get a bunch of sensible cooperative people and throw them in X situation together, they tend to just get on with it, and don't create any drama.
But when the media only presents images of extreme people to you, it's easy to think that those people are representative, if you don't know other people in similar circumstances in real life.
But when the media only presents images of extreme people to you, it's easy to think that those people are representative, if you don't know other people in similar circumstances in real life.
And on the Ship anything that's easy to think will be challenged and probed and tested. To choose to pull a strop everytime rather than engage effectively with the discussion and then get offended because your assertions are challenged (incredibly politely) is Wilful ignorance. or as I think I might call it from now on, Cuput-in-anus syndrome.
Ignorance is a lack of knowledge or information. Are you saying that I wilfully lack the knowledge or informnation?
T
Obviously.
Because whenever presented with the opportunity to gain such knowledge on a myriad of subjects you refuse to engage. You just retreat into a 'you don't like my opinions' sulk. What you could do is ask a simple question like "why does it upset you when I focus on the fact that feckless parents not providing food for their children is immoral?" To which I (and others probably) would answer as Alan did with the simple fact that what you describe is not the reason kids go hungry. It's actually very rare and something Social Services would act on. No, the evidence is unequivocal that the large numbers of children who are hungry is because their employed parents don't earn enough due to poor hourly wages and/or being employed for too few hours or because of our pathetic welfare system.
When you tar with a brush the majority on the basis of the misdeeds of a minority it is more than a little offensive.
The thing is; we all get things wrong, we all misread situations; that's fine. But then people explain why you're wrong, at length and you come back with 'witty' one-liners about not understanding an argument or suggesting that someone's explanation is not relevant.
You would rather bluster than engage with the argument. That is wilful ignorance.
For example, here's an easy one for you; what proportion of children living in poverty come from a home where at least one adult works? It's easy to look up. Unless it's a tiny minority then Alan was probably right about inadequate wages being the reason children go hungry. But you'd rather close your eyes to that and let the government off the hook by shifting the blame to parents. Or how about people choosing to have children 'they can't afford'? How common is that? Now, I know the data and know that it's actually essentially a tabloid myth such that any argument based on that is doomed to fail. But again, you choose not to know this because you won't engage with the debate or try to understand the evidence.
Here's a confession for you. A long time ago I was uncomfortable with the idea of homosexual couples adopting. The reason being is that I bought into the idea that children were most likely to thrive in an environment where they had both a mother and a father. One newspaper article completely changed my mind on this. One. Even if my premise had been right (it isn't, at least not in that way) I was still wrong. You see the reality is that there are not nearly enough adopting parents for children who need adopting. Hence, the reality for a child in need is not a choice between being adopted by a married couple (having a new mum and dad) or being adopted by two dads (this was before gay marriage in the UK). No the choice was between being adopted by a gay couple or not being adopted. The facts are clear; adoption by two dads (or two mums) who love you is MUCH better than being brought up in care.
You see, I learned something I hadn't previously known (that there was a big shortage of adoptive parents) and therefore even if I can construct the argument that adopting by a married couple (which at that time was only heterosexual couples) was the best thing for a child - and there is some evidence for this as married couples are statistically more likely to stay together than cohabiting couples which in turn is better for the adopted child - my argument would be nonsense. Why? Because stopping gay couples from adopting doesn't reduce the number adopted by married couples, it reduces the number in care.
I learned why my opinion was based on a misunderstanding of the facts. In multitude threads in which you and I have met you choose not to even consider that the basis for your opinions might be wrong.
That is wilful ignorance.
You are far to busy being offended by people critiquing your views to even consider that your understanding of the facts could be wrong and hence conclude that we are all bullying you and you are the victim.
I pointed out to you a specific place where you could read the facts that would show you why your throwaway comment demonstrated your ignorance.
Your reply "I don't need to read such a strangely titled book"
That is wilful ignorance.
And on and on.
I remain feeling a fervent hope that you will remove your head from your arse long enough to be able to see how ignorant you continually show yourself to be.
But because you chose not to engage or learn you are wilfully ignorant and that comes out in some deeply offensive comments. The fact that you avoid swear words does not stop them being offensive.
AFZ
P.s. Place your bets people: it's another long post for Telford to ignore. Ignore? Respond with an irrelevant comment? Or read, understand, engage and respond with a logical response?
@Curiosity killed's long list missed out one other big money sink: childcare costs. The after school club that Dragonlet 1 attended last year cost more than £8 per day for the 3 hours between school finishing and 6pm (although it did include a light tea.) I am seriously looking at not returning to work this year as costs for 3 would be more than I earn as a part time NHS admin bod. Thankfully Mr Dragon has a job on good money in what is currently one of the few growth sectors of the economy, but it could be quite different very easily.
Perhaps Telford will be able to place extraneous children with families who need their chimneys sweeping.
Please explain why you felt the need to post that.
Because that's the end point of your argument. I just cut out the crap in the middle to save time.
I thought that you had introduced a new subject. I never mentioned anything about children cleaning chimneys. That was all your idea
No, that's exactly your idea. Families who find themselves, through no fault of their own, with too many mouths to feed, are going to have to find someone to offload their excess children on. Or they'll starve.
That's what you mean. Personally, I find that monstrous.
Perhaps Telford will be able to place extraneous children with families who need their chimneys sweeping.
Please explain why you felt the need to post that.
Because that's the end point of your argument. I just cut out the crap in the middle to save time.
I thought that you had introduced a new subject. I never mentioned anything about children cleaning chimneys. That was all your idea
No, that's exactly your idea. Families who find themselves, through no fault of their own, with too many mouths to feed, are going to have to find someone to offload their excess children on. Or they'll starve.
That's what you mean. Personally, I find that monstrous.
Ignorance is a lack of knowledge or information. Are you saying that I wilfully lack the knowledge or informnation?
T
Obviously.
Because whenever presented with the opportunity to gain such knowledge on a myriad of subjects you refuse to engage. You just retreat into a 'you don't like my opinions' sulk. What you could do is ask a simple question like "why does it upset you when I focus on the fact that feckless parents not providing food for their children is immoral?" To which I (and others probably) would answer as Alan did with the simple fact that what you describe is not the reason kids go hungry. It's actually very rare and something Social Services would act on. No, the evidence is unequivocal that the large numbers of children who are hungry is because their employed parents don't earn enough due to poor hourly wages and/or being employed for too few hours or because of our pathetic welfare system.
When you tar with a brush the majority on the basis of the misdeeds of a minority it is more than a little offensive.
The thing is; we all get things wrong, we all misread situations; that's fine. But then people explain why you're wrong, at length and you come back with 'witty' one-liners about not understanding an argument or suggesting that someone's explanation is not relevant.
You would rather bluster than engage with the argument. That is wilful ignorance.
For example, here's an easy one for you; what proportion of children living in poverty come from a home where at least one adult works? It's easy to look up. Unless it's a tiny minority then Alan was probably right about inadequate wages being the reason children go hungry. But you'd rather close your eyes to that and let the government off the hook by shifting the blame to parents. Or how about people choosing to have children 'they can't afford'? How common is that? Now, I know the data and know that it's actually essentially a tabloid myth such that any argument based on that is doomed to fail. But again, you choose not to know this because you won't engage with the debate or try to understand the evidence.
Here's a confession for you. A long time ago I was uncomfortable with the idea of homosexual couples adopting. The reason being is that I bought into the idea that children were most likely to thrive in an environment where they had both a mother and a father. One newspaper article completely changed my mind on this. One. Even if my premise had been right (it isn't, at least not in that way) I was still wrong. You see the reality is that there are not nearly enough adopting parents for children who need adopting. Hence, the reality for a child in need is not a choice between being adopted by a married couple (having a new mum and dad) or being adopted by two dads (this was before gay marriage in the UK). No the choice was between being adopted by a gay couple or not being adopted. The facts are clear; adoption by two dads (or two mums) who love you is MUCH better than being brought up in care.
You see, I learned something I hadn't previously known (that there was a big shortage of adoptive parents) and therefore even if I can construct the argument that adopting by a married couple (which at that time was only heterosexual couples) was the best thing for a child - and there is some evidence for this as married couples are statistically more likely to stay together than cohabiting couples which in turn is better for the adopted child - my argument would be nonsense. Why? Because stopping gay couples from adopting doesn't reduce the number adopted by married couples, it reduces the number in care.
I learned why my opinion was based on a misunderstanding of the facts. In multitude threads in which you and I have met you choose not to even consider that the basis for your opinions might be wrong.
That is wilful ignorance.
You are far to busy being offended by people critiquing your views to even consider that your understanding of the facts could be wrong and hence conclude that we are all bullying you and you are the victim.
I pointed out to you a specific place where you could read the facts that would show you why your throwaway comment demonstrated your ignorance.
Your reply "I don't need to read such a strangely titled book"
That is wilful ignorance.
And on and on.
I remain feeling a fervent hope that you will remove your head from your arse long enough to be able to see how ignorant you continually show yourself to be.
But because you chose not to engage or learn you are wilfully ignorant and that comes out in some deeply offensive comments. The fact that you avoid swear words does not stop them being offensive.
AFZ
P.s. Place your bets people: it's another long post for Telford to ignore. Ignore? Respond with an irrelevant comment? Or read, understand, engage and respond with a logical response?
Why should I take any notice of someone who insults me all the time. Now these very long post may impress some people but they cut no ice with me. Cut out the insults if you want me to engage with you.
Two people are standing in Trafalgar Square, one says “we are sitting in a dragon”, one says “we are in fucking London”. The truth value of these statements is not determined by the presence or absence of swear words.
Ignorance is a lack of knowledge or information. Are you saying that I wilfully lack the knowledge or informnation?
T
Obviously.
Because whenever presented with the opportunity to gain such knowledge on a myriad of subjects you refuse to engage. You just retreat into a 'you don't like my opinions' sulk. What you could do is ask a simple question like "why does it upset you when I focus on the fact that feckless parents not providing food for their children is immoral?" To which I (and others probably) would answer as Alan did with the simple fact that what you describe is not the reason kids go hungry. It's actually very rare and something Social Services would act on. No, the evidence is unequivocal that the large numbers of children who are hungry is because their employed parents don't earn enough due to poor hourly wages and/or being employed for too few hours or because of our pathetic welfare system.
When you tar with a brush the majority on the basis of the misdeeds of a minority it is more than a little offensive.
The thing is; we all get things wrong, we all misread situations; that's fine. But then people explain why you're wrong, at length and you come back with 'witty' one-liners about not understanding an argument or suggesting that someone's explanation is not relevant.
You would rather bluster than engage with the argument. That is wilful ignorance.
For example, here's an easy one for you; what proportion of children living in poverty come from a home where at least one adult works? It's easy to look up. Unless it's a tiny minority then Alan was probably right about inadequate wages being the reason children go hungry. But you'd rather close your eyes to that and let the government off the hook by shifting the blame to parents. Or how about people choosing to have children 'they can't afford'? How common is that? Now, I know the data and know that it's actually essentially a tabloid myth such that any argument based on that is doomed to fail. But again, you choose not to know this because you won't engage with the debate or try to understand the evidence.
Here's a confession for you. A long time ago I was uncomfortable with the idea of homosexual couples adopting. The reason being is that I bought into the idea that children were most likely to thrive in an environment where they had both a mother and a father. One newspaper article completely changed my mind on this. One. Even if my premise had been right (it isn't, at least not in that way) I was still wrong. You see the reality is that there are not nearly enough adopting parents for children who need adopting. Hence, the reality for a child in need is not a choice between being adopted by a married couple (having a new mum and dad) or being adopted by two dads (this was before gay marriage in the UK). No the choice was between being adopted by a gay couple or not being adopted. The facts are clear; adoption by two dads (or two mums) who love you is MUCH better than being brought up in care.
You see, I learned something I hadn't previously known (that there was a big shortage of adoptive parents) and therefore even if I can construct the argument that adopting by a married couple (which at that time was only heterosexual couples) was the best thing for a child - and there is some evidence for this as married couples are statistically more likely to stay together than cohabiting couples which in turn is better for the adopted child - my argument would be nonsense. Why? Because stopping gay couples from adopting doesn't reduce the number adopted by married couples, it reduces the number in care.
I learned why my opinion was based on a misunderstanding of the facts. In multitude threads in which you and I have met you choose not to even consider that the basis for your opinions might be wrong.
That is wilful ignorance.
You are far to busy being offended by people critiquing your views to even consider that your understanding of the facts could be wrong and hence conclude that we are all bullying you and you are the victim.
I pointed out to you a specific place where you could read the facts that would show you why your throwaway comment demonstrated your ignorance.
Your reply "I don't need to read such a strangely titled book"
That is wilful ignorance.
And on and on.
I remain feeling a fervent hope that you will remove your head from your arse long enough to be able to see how ignorant you continually show yourself to be.
But because you chose not to engage or learn you are wilfully ignorant and that comes out in some deeply offensive comments. The fact that you avoid swear words does not stop them being offensive.
AFZ
P.s. Place your bets people: it's another long post for Telford to ignore. Ignore? Respond with an irrelevant comment? Or read, understand, engage and respond with a logical response?
Why should I take any notice of someone who insults me all the time. Now these very long post may impress some people but they cut no ice with me. Cut out the insults if you want me to engage with you.
T
Because it is true. Truth is impartial. One might dislike how it is expressed but the idea that this gives licence to ignore it is one of the great lies.
Why should I take any notice of someone who insults me all the time. Now these very long post may impress some people but they cut no ice with me. Cut out the insults if you want me to engage with you.
T
Thank you for demonstrating my point so eloquently.
I am impressed how few words you needed to show what I took so many to express.
I see that one gets about £8 a day for each child in addition to the basic claim
.....
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.
The link refers to the UK, but when you click on it, it is just about England.
Scottish state schools can ban items of clothing such as jeans, trainers, etc, but they can't enforce an expensive branded uniform. I liked school uniform because it was easy and cheap. - School trousers from M&S, polo shirts from Tesco, and a logo'd sweatshirt. Looking on the school website the logo'd sweatshirts are £13.95, my son wore his for two years, then my daughter wore them for two years.
In terms of poverty, this seems like an easy first steps - get rid of expensive school uniforms.
@Gee D I think you'll find @Telford is being wilfully obtuse and enjoying the game he/she has set up here.
For your information, the number of families/individuals claiming Universal Credit more than doubled between February 2020 and July 2020, the last date for which figures are available. This shows how badly the UK jobs market had been affected by the double whammy of Brexit and Covid19, before two further lockdowns (November and January) and the first proposed ending of furlough in October which triggered a spate of job losses. That suggests that a significant proportion of the families with more than two children started claiming UC in the last year before we include the additional people now jobless or struggling in the last few months - which is why I challenged that comment.
I was not trying to make a saint out of Telford, just that on that particular occasion he had not been quite as extreme as some of his posts had placed him.
Telford is not particularly extreme, just relentlessly annoying.
He doesn’t listen. He doesn’t care. He’s wilfully deaf. He enjoys the ‘game’.
He’s not worth engaging with. I don’t think he’s a deliberate troll but his behaviour is very trollish.
It’s no use calling him to Hell to try and talk it though. He ignores Hell threads which are set up for that purpose ‘tho he’s happy to peddle his nonsense here.
I suggest not feeding the trollish one.
At the same time I admire AFZ’s efforts - but my counsel would be ‘give up, he won’t see what he’s doing, he won’t change and he’s not worth the effort.’
Normally I skip over his posts and all those dealing with them. Don't know why I did not on this occasion. I'd stick with my extreme on this occasion as the topic itself is interesting me.
Which (even more blatantly with which parties in Britain advocate American medical costs, and which parties in America advocate affordable care) shows how many of the 'Pro-life' people blatantly aren't.
Also those who play on white supremacist/nationalistic rhetoric here are often shown up by this (though there is plenty of precedent for evil ones, who have followed through with 'Mutterkreuz' and the like).
Which (even more blatantly with which parties in Britain advocate American medical costs, and which parties in America advocate affordable care) shows how many of the 'Pro-life' people blatantly aren't.
Also those who play on white supremacist/nationalistic rhetoric here are often shown up by this (though there is plenty of precedent for evil ones, who have followed through with 'Mutterkreuz' and the like).
Yep.
The two child limit is obscene. Those who wrote this bit of law know it is because they tied themselves in knots creating the grotesquely intrusive and patronising 'rape exception.'
Obviously this thread is aimed at Mr Johnson specifically but I don't think him a particular anomaly among his party.
In order to save about ~0.15% of government spending they will pull this kind of thing that can have a massive effect on the people affected.
I don't disagree with this government because I hate the Tories. I hate what the Tories stand for because I disagree so profoundly with what this government and its predecessors belonging to Mrs May and Mr Cameron have done.
I look back to the OP and think the past 18 months or so have proven that my description of Mr Johnson was spot on. Which explains why this thread is at 116 pages.
Johnson is in many ways an extreme example of a Tory but his party supported him knowing how unbelievably unsuited he is to high office. It for me is a common thread of those that brought us the 2 child cap (knowing what the consequences would be) and brought us Johnson... you see it is always about the Conservative Party. May knew where Brexit was stuck, she knew what a Johnson government would do on Brexit but she refused to do the right thing because it would have been bad for the party.
There are so many common threads. Austerity, the hostile environment, Brexit, benefit cuts, demonisation of the poor.
I think most of us would feel that Nye Bevin went too far in his famous speech. I try very hard not to let myself think of others who I disagree with as less than human. However, the more I have lived under Tory rule, the more I understand why he made that speech.
I am sure history will not be kind to Johnson or his party of this era but that is no comfort to those whose lives are blighted now.
At last, Mr Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson has reappeared on his thread.
It had become why Telford is wrong v bald assertions that everyone else. At least what's hellish about Mr Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson is of general relevance. The other debate is both generally and specifically irrelevant.
@North East Quine I did wonder how relevant the particular issue of school uniforms was across the UK. I'm continuing this conversation about school uniform here as the academisation of schools in England is Conservative Government policy. The uniforms are part of the "drive on standards" which include strict uniform and behaviour policies.
The uniforms of 15-20 years ago tried to ensure that most could be bought from supermarket value ranges - grey/black trousers/skirts, white shirts/blouses, navy/black blazer, similar sports kit, usually the costly items were sweatshirts with logos, ties and blazer badges, which last much longer.
These days most schools are requiring PE kits with logos and the local state school requires the children wear a two tone PE kit with logo which has to have initials printed on the tracksuit bottoms, tops and t-shirts (the tracksuit top costs £21.50-£25.99 depending on size). The skirts, shirts and blazers have to purchased from the school outfitter at multiples more expensive than supermarket prices for similar kit (I've just checked the skirt price, a fancy kilt £20-£56.99, the blouses £15.00-£18.00 for two, similar equivalent from George@Asda £3-£6 for two). I know girls sent home for dyed hair and "unsuitable" hairstyles (basically black hairstyles) and wearing make-up, boys for too short cuts. Shoes cannot be trainers - so can cost upwards of £50 a pair of shoes (the cheaper versions tend to be trainer versions).
School pupils not wearing these uniforms or contravening a range of virtually impossible to achieve school rules can and are sanctioned or sent home under zero tolerance behaviour policies. (As an example, on a wet day, not getting coats off fast enough moving between buildings) And unsurprisingly this is affecting children from more impoverished backgrounds most.
The Gove reforms of the curriculum have left sectors of the school age population with nothing they can access as the whole thing has been made far more academic, the standard of the 1950s grammar schools for all, refusing to realise that those schools only educated 25% of the state school pupils in the mid 1960s, at their peak, and that 75% of youngsters were provided with vocational and other curricula. Those alternative curricula were suggested, so that there were three tiers of education available, when this new curriculum was being discussed, and Gove refused to countenance any changes from his ideal.
Just for anyone thinking that Gove isn't as bad he was the Svengali behind these excluding policies and is as bad if not worse than Johnson
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.
Have you never heard of or read about couples who say that they can't yet afford to have children?
Absolutely. And as it's their personal and private decision I respect that, whatever it is they mean by it. But as it happens, throughout all my visiting of the elderly down through the years who raised sometimes quite large families in fairly dire conditions, I've never yet come across one who said 'we didn't have more kids or any kids because we couldn't afford them'. And yet there the kids are, grown up, families of their own, many of them doctors, lawyers, engineers, as well as nurses, carers, teachers, working in the service industries etc; valuable members of society. (I'm not saying there aren't cases to the contrary, but if it comes to 'affording' who should or shouldn't be part of society, many cans of worms are likely to be opened on that score.)
Certainly, some may say this because they're unemployed or holed up in a bedsit conscious of not being best placed to fulfil their personal wishes for any children they might have. But usually, in the cases of the people who have said this, in my experience, it's because they're young, building up careers, enjoying holidays abroad and not ready to 'settle down' as parents, tied to the home, or sacrificing one of the couple's careers. Money, per se, doesn't really come into it, any more than some couples who 'can't afford' to get married on two very healthy incomes; when what they mean is they haven't yet set aside the £30,000 they'd like to spend on their wedding day.
Now, I'm not making a judgement there! It's an observation about priorities and how they change as time goes on. But 'affording' something or not is fairly subjective and is a personal choice for the family involved; though it may be compromised by many factors beyond their control. Hence the increasing need for food banks, charity aid etc.
I know it's very tempting, when one hears the case of some single parent - or some young couple - complaining that they don't have the resources from the state to finance yet another addition to the family, to yell at the TV something about contraception. But these are 'news' items and hardly typical of most ordinary people's lives. It would be an injustice to lump such a case in with the case of a working-class family where the bread-earner has lost their job, or had the terms of their contract changed, or where the cost of living has gone up and wages haven't etc, and suddenly the kids s/he has are now to be interpreted as examples of irresponsible breeding!
Why should those already materially less well off be further heavily censured for the one thing they might legitimately enjoy by way of human comfort in family relationships? The assumption that only the well off should be entrusted with multiple reproduction in their families because having plenty of money somehow qualifies them to be better parents is fairly odious. Too many examples to the contrary to bust that one open!
From time to time, some of us have indeed tried to drag the thread away from Tiresome Telford, in order to focus once more on the iniquities of Bozzie Johnson.
Without much success...
However, Firenze's advice to pity, and pass on by, is sensible.
Gove worries me because he is a moron and an ideologue but he is also competent: he tends to achieve that which he plans to. I think he'd be very ineffective as PM coz no one wants to follow him. It's an interesting thought that if you swapped Gove and Johnson's positions, we'd probably be better off. Simply because their ability to do harm would be better constrained. Gove would go nowhere as PM coz nobody would follow and support him; Johnson's incompetence and laziness would be less damaging if he had Gove's portfolio...
Have we mentioned the government giving a catering firm £30 a week of public money to provide hungry children with food and the children getting less than £6 pounds worth?
(The catering firm are apparently less shameless than the government, as they acknowledge that distribution is only £10 a week and have described it as a mistake that they won't repeat.)
Why, despite a lack of followers (who would doubtless miraculously appear out of the slimy swamp), the Slithy Gove might indeed take over as PM after Bozzie has been stabbed in the back, and thrown under his own big red bus...
One gobshite following another.
Please, God, may we have a government not made up of gobshites? Pretty please?
Have we mentioned the government giving a catering firm £30 a week of public money to provide hungry children with food and the children getting less than £6 pounds worth?
(The catering firm are apparently less shameless than the government, as they acknowledge that distribution is only £10 a week and have described it as a mistake that they won't repeat.)
Also the whole "affording children" thing ignores the fact that it is generally in society's interest for people to have children, at least at a sufficient level to stop the pension scheme from collapsing.
Have we mentioned the government giving a catering firm £30 a week of public money to provide hungry children with food and the children getting less than £6 pounds worth?
(The catering firm are apparently less shameless than the government, as they acknowledge that distribution is only £10 a week and have described it as a mistake that they won't repeat.)
Par for the course with this government.
Shameful.
Absolutely. Those who starve children have an especially hot place in Hades to look forward to.
I was not trying to make a saint out of Telford, just that on that particular occasion he had not been quite as extreme as some of his posts had placed him.
But the problem is that anything I say must be automatically wrong
Absolutely. And as it's their personal and private decision I respect that, whatever it is they mean by it. But as it happens, throughout all my visiting of the elderly down through the years who raised sometimes quite large families in fairly dire conditions,
My father's family was large, living in a terraced house. No efficient contraception in those days It would have been even larger if 3 of his sublings had not died when they were young. He and everyone else managed to make it to middle age.
I was not trying to make a saint out of Telford, just that on that particular occasion he had not been quite as extreme as some of his posts had placed him.
But the problem is that anything I say must be automatically wrong
Absolutely. And as it's their personal and private decision I respect that, whatever it is they mean by it. But as it happens, throughout all my visiting of the elderly down through the years who raised sometimes quite large families in fairly dire conditions,
My father's family was large, living in a terraced house. No efficient contraception in those days It would have been even larger if 3 of his sublings had not died when they were young. He and everyone else managed to make it to middle age.
It's interesting how much hatred some people can build up towards people who for whatever reason have more than two children but struggle to be good parents through no fault of their own. Why isn't there the same concern about people who have so many children they can't even remember how many, leaving them in the care of others as they trade in the mother for a younger model?
Personally I'd consider hard working parents scrimping and saving to do their best far better parents than some rich pillock who thinks giving them a dollop of cash and barely acknowledging the kids thereafter is good parenting.
And, here's the latest advice on how to get the government to care about starving children - have them become statues of racists. I'm sure there's a plinth or two around that can take a lump of stone shaped like Enoch Powell.
And, here's the latest advice on how to get the government to care about starving children - have them become statues of racists. I'm sure there's a plinth or two around that can take a lump of stone shaped like Enoch Powell.
Newsthump are really treading that line between satire and cold, bitter rage, aren't they?
I was not trying to make a saint out of Telford, just that on that particular occasion he had not been quite as extreme as some of his posts had placed him.
But the problem is that anything I say must be automatically wrong
Absolutely. And as it's their personal and private decision I respect that, whatever it is they mean by it. But as it happens, throughout all my visiting of the elderly down through the years who raised sometimes quite large families in fairly dire conditions,
My father's family was large, living in a terraced house. No efficient contraception in those days It would have been even larger if 3 of his sublings had not died when they were young. He and everyone else managed to make it to middle age.
My last post on the matter
1. It wasn't a compliment
2. Note the playing of the victim "anything I say must automatically be wrong"
3. The repeated passive aggression of declaring a subject closed.
Once again, you show a complete unwillingness to even listen to anyone at all.
And, here's the latest advice on how to get the government to care about starving children - have them become statues of racists. I'm sure there's a plinth or two around that can take a lump of stone shaped like Enoch Powell.
Newsthump are really treading that line between satire and cold, bitter rage, aren't they?
Oh yes. Far too close to reality that one. But then the best satire is.
The government have made mistakes since early last year but people with the virus have not infected themselves. Thay have been infected by those who already have the virus.
The majority of those infected have been unlucky. Many of those doing the infecting have been selfish and reckless.
Many of those doing the infecting have been selfish and reckless.
Do you have an actual reliable source of information you can share? What is it? When you say 'many' of those doing the infecting have been selfish, how many do you mean? (A rough percentage will do.) How do you know?
Some more questions:
What proportion of children living in poverty come from a home where at least one adult works? How do you know?
How many people choose to have children they couldn't afford when they made the decision? How do you know?
Many of those doing the infecting have been selfish and reckless.
Do you have an actual reliable source of information you can share? What is it? When you say 'many' of those doing the infecting have been selfish, how many do you mean? (A rough percentage will do.) How do you know?
Some more questions:
What proportion of children living in poverty come from a home where at least one adult works? How do you know?
How many people choose to have children they couldn't afford when they made the decision? How do you know?
That's a lot of information you are after. If you really want to know I suggest that you do your own research
Many of those doing the infecting have been selfish and reckless.
Do you have an actual reliable source of information you can share? What is it? When you say 'many' of those doing the infecting have been selfish, how many do you mean? (A rough percentage will do.) How do you know?
Some more questions:
What proportion of children living in poverty come from a home where at least one adult works? How do you know?
How many people choose to have children they couldn't afford when they made the decision? How do you know?
That's a lot of information you are after. If you really want to know I suggest that you do your own research
So when you said, Many of those doing the infecting have been selfish and reckless, you did not know whether what you were saying was true.
(I doubt that's a surprise to anyone on the thread. But I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt.)
Comments
To be fair to him, he did say:
Now I accept that some families have the children before they get into difficulties but often it's not the case.
Of course, that last clause should read and often that is the case.
You are wilfully ignorant.*
Now, that is the first time I have actually insulted you.
AFZ
*I have no issue with stupidity. We are all capable of stupidity but wilful ignorance is a choice and thus a moral failing.
Occasionally you encounter couples who mention that in the press, but usually only in the context of the sort of budget article where the newspaper has gone looking for a young childless couple to ask "how will the budget affect you".
The thing about normal responsible people deciding that, for example, they can't afford children until one of them gets a job / they finish training and get paid better / whatever is that they're boring. Nobody wants to read about someone doing the best they can to make ends meet - they want to throw stones at the feckless serial shaggers who have a thousand different children with some combination of parents and want the council to provide them with a 37-bedroom mansion to house their brood.
Like @Anselmina said, nobody wants to watch or read about normal ordinary people. Think about the Big Brother TV show, for example. It got high ratings because the producers deliberately chose unpleasant confrontational people to fill the house (plus some attractive young women who looked like they'd be good for flashing some skin or otherwise titillating the voyeuristic audience.) When you get a bunch of sensible cooperative people and throw them in X situation together, they tend to just get on with it, and don't create any drama.
But when the media only presents images of extreme people to you, it's easy to think that those people are representative, if you don't know other people in similar circumstances in real life.
Ignorance is a lack of knowledge or information. Are you saying that I wilfully lack the knowledge or informnation?
T
Because that's the end point of your argument. I just cut out the crap in the middle to save time.
I thought that you had introduced a new subject. I never mentioned anything about children cleaning chimneys. That was all your idea
Obviously.
Because whenever presented with the opportunity to gain such knowledge on a myriad of subjects you refuse to engage. You just retreat into a 'you don't like my opinions' sulk. What you could do is ask a simple question like "why does it upset you when I focus on the fact that feckless parents not providing food for their children is immoral?" To which I (and others probably) would answer as Alan did with the simple fact that what you describe is not the reason kids go hungry. It's actually very rare and something Social Services would act on. No, the evidence is unequivocal that the large numbers of children who are hungry is because their employed parents don't earn enough due to poor hourly wages and/or being employed for too few hours or because of our pathetic welfare system.
When you tar with a brush the majority on the basis of the misdeeds of a minority it is more than a little offensive.
The thing is; we all get things wrong, we all misread situations; that's fine. But then people explain why you're wrong, at length and you come back with 'witty' one-liners about not understanding an argument or suggesting that someone's explanation is not relevant.
You would rather bluster than engage with the argument. That is wilful ignorance.
For example, here's an easy one for you; what proportion of children living in poverty come from a home where at least one adult works? It's easy to look up. Unless it's a tiny minority then Alan was probably right about inadequate wages being the reason children go hungry. But you'd rather close your eyes to that and let the government off the hook by shifting the blame to parents. Or how about people choosing to have children 'they can't afford'? How common is that? Now, I know the data and know that it's actually essentially a tabloid myth such that any argument based on that is doomed to fail. But again, you choose not to know this because you won't engage with the debate or try to understand the evidence.
Here's a confession for you. A long time ago I was uncomfortable with the idea of homosexual couples adopting. The reason being is that I bought into the idea that children were most likely to thrive in an environment where they had both a mother and a father. One newspaper article completely changed my mind on this. One. Even if my premise had been right (it isn't, at least not in that way) I was still wrong. You see the reality is that there are not nearly enough adopting parents for children who need adopting. Hence, the reality for a child in need is not a choice between being adopted by a married couple (having a new mum and dad) or being adopted by two dads (this was before gay marriage in the UK). No the choice was between being adopted by a gay couple or not being adopted. The facts are clear; adoption by two dads (or two mums) who love you is MUCH better than being brought up in care.
You see, I learned something I hadn't previously known (that there was a big shortage of adoptive parents) and therefore even if I can construct the argument that adopting by a married couple (which at that time was only heterosexual couples) was the best thing for a child - and there is some evidence for this as married couples are statistically more likely to stay together than cohabiting couples which in turn is better for the adopted child - my argument would be nonsense. Why? Because stopping gay couples from adopting doesn't reduce the number adopted by married couples, it reduces the number in care.
I learned why my opinion was based on a misunderstanding of the facts. In multitude threads in which you and I have met you choose not to even consider that the basis for your opinions might be wrong.
That is wilful ignorance.
You are far to busy being offended by people critiquing your views to even consider that your understanding of the facts could be wrong and hence conclude that we are all bullying you and you are the victim.
That is wilful ignorance.
This is from my Duck Femocracy thread last year.
https://forums.shipoffools.com/discussion/comment/253063/#Comment_253063
I pointed out to you a specific place where you could read the facts that would show you why your throwaway comment demonstrated your ignorance.
Your reply "I don't need to read such a strangely titled book"
That is wilful ignorance.
And on and on.
I remain feeling a fervent hope that you will remove your head from your arse long enough to be able to see how ignorant you continually show yourself to be.
But because you chose not to engage or learn you are wilfully ignorant and that comes out in some deeply offensive comments. The fact that you avoid swear words does not stop them being offensive.
AFZ
P.s. Place your bets people: it's another long post for Telford to ignore. Ignore? Respond with an irrelevant comment? Or read, understand, engage and respond with a logical response?
No, that's exactly your idea. Families who find themselves, through no fault of their own, with too many mouths to feed, are going to have to find someone to offload their excess children on. Or they'll starve.
That's what you mean. Personally, I find that monstrous.
Why should I take any notice of someone who insults me all the time. Now these very long post may impress some people but they cut no ice with me. Cut out the insults if you want me to engage with you.
T
I see in @Telford the sclerosis of empathy and rigidity of thought that can unfortunately attend old age.
I don't think you can reason him out of his attitudes any more than you can talk someone out of dementia.
Pity and pass by.
Because it is true. Truth is impartial. One might dislike how it is expressed but the idea that this gives licence to ignore it is one of the great lies.
Thank you for demonstrating my point so eloquently.
I am impressed how few words you needed to show what I took so many to express.
AFZ
The link refers to the UK, but when you click on it, it is just about England.
Scottish state schools can ban items of clothing such as jeans, trainers, etc, but they can't enforce an expensive branded uniform. I liked school uniform because it was easy and cheap. - School trousers from M&S, polo shirts from Tesco, and a logo'd sweatshirt. Looking on the school website the logo'd sweatshirts are £13.95, my son wore his for two years, then my daughter wore them for two years.
In terms of poverty, this seems like an easy first steps - get rid of expensive school uniforms.
For your information, the number of families/individuals claiming Universal Credit more than doubled between February 2020 and July 2020, the last date for which figures are available. This shows how badly the UK jobs market had been affected by the double whammy of Brexit and Covid19, before two further lockdowns (November and January) and the first proposed ending of furlough in October which triggered a spate of job losses. That suggests that a significant proportion of the families with more than two children started claiming UC in the last year before we include the additional people now jobless or struggling in the last few months - which is why I challenged that comment.
The Universal Credit two child limit has had an impact on women's decisions to have an abortion - Guardian article entitled Two child limit on benefits a key factor in many abortion decisions
He doesn’t listen. He doesn’t care. He’s wilfully deaf. He enjoys the ‘game’.
He’s not worth engaging with. I don’t think he’s a deliberate troll but his behaviour is very trollish.
It’s no use calling him to Hell to try and talk it though. He ignores Hell threads which are set up for that purpose ‘tho he’s happy to peddle his nonsense here.
I suggest not feeding the trollish one.
At the same time I admire AFZ’s efforts - but my counsel would be ‘give up, he won’t see what he’s doing, he won’t change and he’s not worth the effort.’
Also those who play on white supremacist/nationalistic rhetoric here are often shown up by this (though there is plenty of precedent for evil ones, who have followed through with 'Mutterkreuz' and the like).
Yep.
The two child limit is obscene. Those who wrote this bit of law know it is because they tied themselves in knots creating the grotesquely intrusive and patronising 'rape exception.'
Obviously this thread is aimed at Mr Johnson specifically but I don't think him a particular anomaly among his party.
In order to save about ~0.15% of government spending they will pull this kind of thing that can have a massive effect on the people affected.
I don't disagree with this government because I hate the Tories. I hate what the Tories stand for because I disagree so profoundly with what this government and its predecessors belonging to Mrs May and Mr Cameron have done.
I look back to the OP and think the past 18 months or so have proven that my description of Mr Johnson was spot on. Which explains why this thread is at 116 pages.
Johnson is in many ways an extreme example of a Tory but his party supported him knowing how unbelievably unsuited he is to high office. It for me is a common thread of those that brought us the 2 child cap (knowing what the consequences would be) and brought us Johnson... you see it is always about the Conservative Party. May knew where Brexit was stuck, she knew what a Johnson government would do on Brexit but she refused to do the right thing because it would have been bad for the party.
There are so many common threads. Austerity, the hostile environment, Brexit, benefit cuts, demonisation of the poor.
I think most of us would feel that Nye Bevin went too far in his famous speech. I try very hard not to let myself think of others who I disagree with as less than human. However, the more I have lived under Tory rule, the more I understand why he made that speech.
I am sure history will not be kind to Johnson or his party of this era but that is no comfort to those whose lives are blighted now.
AFZ
It had become why Telford is wrong v bald assertions that everyone else. At least what's hellish about Mr Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson is of general relevance. The other debate is both generally and specifically irrelevant.
The uniforms of 15-20 years ago tried to ensure that most could be bought from supermarket value ranges - grey/black trousers/skirts, white shirts/blouses, navy/black blazer, similar sports kit, usually the costly items were sweatshirts with logos, ties and blazer badges, which last much longer.
These days most schools are requiring PE kits with logos and the local state school requires the children wear a two tone PE kit with logo which has to have initials printed on the tracksuit bottoms, tops and t-shirts (the tracksuit top costs £21.50-£25.99 depending on size). The skirts, shirts and blazers have to purchased from the school outfitter at multiples more expensive than supermarket prices for similar kit (I've just checked the skirt price, a fancy kilt £20-£56.99, the blouses £15.00-£18.00 for two, similar equivalent from George@Asda £3-£6 for two). I know girls sent home for dyed hair and "unsuitable" hairstyles (basically black hairstyles) and wearing make-up, boys for too short cuts. Shoes cannot be trainers - so can cost upwards of £50 a pair of shoes (the cheaper versions tend to be trainer versions).
School pupils not wearing these uniforms or contravening a range of virtually impossible to achieve school rules can and are sanctioned or sent home under zero tolerance behaviour policies. (As an example, on a wet day, not getting coats off fast enough moving between buildings) And unsurprisingly this is affecting children from more impoverished backgrounds most.
The Gove reforms of the curriculum have left sectors of the school age population with nothing they can access as the whole thing has been made far more academic, the standard of the 1950s grammar schools for all, refusing to realise that those schools only educated 25% of the state school pupils in the mid 1960s, at their peak, and that 75% of youngsters were provided with vocational and other curricula. Those alternative curricula were suggested, so that there were three tiers of education available, when this new curriculum was being discussed, and Gove refused to countenance any changes from his ideal.
Just for anyone thinking that Gove isn't as bad he was the Svengali behind these excluding policies and is as bad if not worse than Johnson
Absolutely. And as it's their personal and private decision I respect that, whatever it is they mean by it. But as it happens, throughout all my visiting of the elderly down through the years who raised sometimes quite large families in fairly dire conditions, I've never yet come across one who said 'we didn't have more kids or any kids because we couldn't afford them'. And yet there the kids are, grown up, families of their own, many of them doctors, lawyers, engineers, as well as nurses, carers, teachers, working in the service industries etc; valuable members of society. (I'm not saying there aren't cases to the contrary, but if it comes to 'affording' who should or shouldn't be part of society, many cans of worms are likely to be opened on that score.)
Certainly, some may say this because they're unemployed or holed up in a bedsit conscious of not being best placed to fulfil their personal wishes for any children they might have. But usually, in the cases of the people who have said this, in my experience, it's because they're young, building up careers, enjoying holidays abroad and not ready to 'settle down' as parents, tied to the home, or sacrificing one of the couple's careers. Money, per se, doesn't really come into it, any more than some couples who 'can't afford' to get married on two very healthy incomes; when what they mean is they haven't yet set aside the £30,000 they'd like to spend on their wedding day.
Now, I'm not making a judgement there! It's an observation about priorities and how they change as time goes on. But 'affording' something or not is fairly subjective and is a personal choice for the family involved; though it may be compromised by many factors beyond their control. Hence the increasing need for food banks, charity aid etc.
I know it's very tempting, when one hears the case of some single parent - or some young couple - complaining that they don't have the resources from the state to finance yet another addition to the family, to yell at the TV something about contraception. But these are 'news' items and hardly typical of most ordinary people's lives. It would be an injustice to lump such a case in with the case of a working-class family where the bread-earner has lost their job, or had the terms of their contract changed, or where the cost of living has gone up and wages haven't etc, and suddenly the kids s/he has are now to be interpreted as examples of irresponsible breeding!
Why should those already materially less well off be further heavily censured for the one thing they might legitimately enjoy by way of human comfort in family relationships? The assumption that only the well off should be entrusted with multiple reproduction in their families because having plenty of money somehow qualifies them to be better parents is fairly odious. Too many examples to the contrary to bust that one open!
Without much success...
However, Firenze's advice to pity, and pass on by, is sensible.
Just a thought.
AFZ
(The catering firm are apparently less shameless than the government, as they acknowledge that distribution is only £10 a week and have described it as a mistake that they won't repeat.)
Why, despite a lack of followers (who would doubtless miraculously appear out of the slimy swamp), the Slithy Gove might indeed take over as PM after Bozzie has been stabbed in the back, and thrown under his own big red bus...
One gobshite following another.
Please, God, may we have a government not made up of gobshites? Pretty please?
Par for the course with this government.
Shameful.
Those who tumble off the Branch Of Life at one end need to be replaced, fairly equally, by new ones climbing onto it at the other end!
Absolutely. Those who starve children have an especially hot place in Hades to look forward to.
I hope.
T
But the problem is that anything I say must be automatically wrong
T
But the problem is that anything I say must be automatically wrong My father's family was large, living in a terraced house. No efficient contraception in those days It would have been even larger if 3 of his sublings had not died when they were young. He and everyone else managed to make it to middle age.
My last post on the matter
Personally I'd consider hard working parents scrimping and saving to do their best far better parents than some rich pillock who thinks giving them a dollop of cash and barely acknowledging the kids thereafter is good parenting.
Now, who am I thinking of?
Newsthump are really treading that line between satire and cold, bitter rage, aren't they?
1. It wasn't a compliment
2. Note the playing of the victim "anything I say must automatically be wrong"
3. The repeated passive aggression of declaring a subject closed.
Once again, you show a complete unwillingness to even listen to anyone at all.
Anyway, back to Boris...
He's wilfully ignorant too.
See what I did there?
AFZ
Oh yes. Far too close to reality that one. But then the best satire is.
The government have made mistakes since early last year but people with the virus have not infected themselves. Thay have been infected by those who already have the virus.
The majority of those infected have been unlucky. Many of those doing the infecting have been selfish and reckless.
Some more questions:
What proportion of children living in poverty come from a home where at least one adult works? How do you know?
How many people choose to have children they couldn't afford when they made the decision? How do you know?
To bring the thread back to where it started, I do sometimes consider that B d PJ is also a massive wind up artist.
Corrosive to the core
(I doubt that's a surprise to anyone on the thread. But I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt.)