PDA

View Full Version : The credit crunch



Pages : [1] 2

Marco
24-09-2008, 13:31
I was thinking of this the other day - how people are in general being significantly affected by it and how seriously the current economic climate is impacting on people's lives, but crucially, how resilient my wife and I (and my art business) are to it, fortunately for our sake of course.

There are a number of reasons for this - we don't have kids, we own our property outright with no mortgage (and others we rent out), we have no debts of any description, and both my wife and I earn good money in stable jobs. Fortunately in my business my customers are in the main individuals with relatively high disposable incomes and also financially secure large corporate companies, so they have no problem spending on luxury items such as artwork, framing, etc.

It has taken lots of hard work and long hours to get to the comfortable position we're in, but I can't help thinking, much as I sympathise with people who aren't in the same fortunate position if much of the problems they are facing is down to living beyond their means?

Now I'm not for one moment saying that everyone feeling the pinch now is doing so because of poor money management and not saving for the hard times, or because they can't manage their credit card spending, but I do feel that we live in a society in the UK that has a very prevalent 'must have now' mentality whether one can afford it or not.

For example, there's a general acceptance amongst not just the middle classes, but amongst the working classes, too, that they're 'entitled' to two holidays a year, to own their own house in some 'nice' but bland modern housing estate, a brand new car in the driveway, kids in the best schools, and that Christmas for their children must be a celebration of vulgar commercialism and gratuitous excess, buying the latest 'must have' toys or clothes. The ensuing panic-buying of such, and the insane hysteria which accompanies it, is always a source of much amusement :mental:

My view is that people should embrace more the old-fashioned methodology of 'cut your cloth accordingly', and if you can't afford it you do without. It can often make for a happier and less stressful life. Therefore if you're struggling to pay your mortgage then downsize and move elsewhere, sell the new car and buy a second-hand one, cut down on holidays abroad, or don't give into the kids every wish. If they're brought up to respect money and not spoiled and pampered from an early age they'll understand and respect the situation. I know I did when I was young. What rips my knitting is the 'keeping up with the Jones's' mentality at the expense of often serious financial difficulty and the excessive spoiling of children so that they grow up with little or no perception of what it's like to live in the real world.

This is a controversial subject but one which is interesting and of course affects many of us, so I feel it deserves to be discussed. Gentlemen I would appreciate your comments! :)

Marco.

Steve Toy
24-09-2008, 14:05
There's nothing like good old-fashioned Victorian values of prudence and self reliance. Unfortunately things will get worse as this government tries to tax, borrow and spend its way out of - and deeper into - this recession, leaving a scorched Earth for the next government. The bill for this will be foot by the middle classes - i.e: people like yourself. Expect taxes on the things you like to buy such as fine wine as well as your earnings.

This recession provides Gordon McBroon with the perfect opportunity to make his dash for socialism and put the old back into Labour.

We'll all be poorer as a result but the poorest will be relatively richer.

Marco
24-09-2008, 14:30
Yep, but don't turn this into a predominantly political argument; I know you have a penchant for such things ;)

We also work too many bloody hours in the UK, compared to our European counterparts, to pay for all this unnecessary shite!

"We" above is in reference to the majority. Nowadays, after years of doing 15-hour days six and seven days a week, I only work as much as I want to.

Quality of life is ultimately much more important than absolute earnings. What good is having lots of money if you've got no time to spend it? Married couples and their children these days all have such busy lives, but the trouble is they're so bloody 'busy' they never see each other! It's like ships in the night.

Fortunately this does not reflect my own situation, nor would I ever let it become so.

Time with your loved ones is worth more than gold - it's time (and good health) that are the precious commodities, not money or material fripperies. It's more important to spend quality time with your family and loved ones than to work all the hours under the sun. Sadly though it's often the case that this is only realised when there's not so much of it left...

Marco.

Steve Toy
24-09-2008, 15:44
The credit crunch is the situation; politics is what is done about it. You cannot escape politics and no man is an island...

anthonyTD
24-09-2008, 15:51
hi all,
well, i think there are some real good points in this debate, and fortunately i am blessed with much the same situation as you marco, i.e. no debt, etc, unfortunately people today are as you say peer pressured into living a certain type of life style if they cant be seen to having the same as Mr Jones down the street, then it some how means that they have failed in society! this of course depends on your character, i.e. whether you are able to see and except things for what they really are and not let yourself be dragged along with what seems to be a growing trend these days, most of the people i come in contact with who have adopted the keep up with the Jones’s attitude are far from happy, for all their material wealth! i was brought up with very little, but what i did have i valued, and it has helped me through life in that i value that which is truly mine, as you never know when things can turn, so yes, by all means have what you really want out of life, but make sure its what you really, really want, not what your next door neighbour has!!!:eyebrows:
:)

Marco
24-09-2008, 17:03
The credit crunch is the situation; politics is what is done about it. You cannot escape politics

Indeed, Steve. But there are times when you have to stand on your own two feet, deal with life, and not blame the government for everything! I'm not into fuelling the ridiculous 'blame culture' we've developed here in the UK. The government can only do (or not do) so much. It's time people took responsibility for their own lives and the decisions they make.

The problem is too many have no 'safety net' when the going gets tough because quite simply they're living beyond their means, or right up to their limit. Even in a healthy economic climate, the more people have the more they want with little thought for the future when things could be more difficult.

This has been the situation for years in the UK no matter what government has been in charge, and this type of superficial materialistic thinking is endemic in Britain because people believe that they're automatically entitled to a certain quality of life whether or not their earnings are compatible with it. In my experience, people abroad in the likes of France, Italy and Germany are content with simpler lives where the accent is on the quality of family life, not having a new conservatory or a brand new car parked on the driveway.

Marco.

Beechwoods
24-09-2008, 18:20
It sounds like you've worked hard to get yourself into a good position as far as the current situation is concerned, Marco. I benefited from the boom of the mid 90's, bought my first flat when prices were rock-bottom and sold just as they peaked in the early 2000's. That equity helped me move up the market, but there's no way I could do that now. Subsequent careful money management means I don't rely on debt. In that respect, I'm lucky.

Normal people have been shafted by this government. Fuel prices have risen inexorably, seemingly immune to the affects of the recent 50p drop in oil prices. At no point have the government moved to reduce tax on fuel to relieve the impact on the rest of us. Given our politicians rarely have to refuel their own cars it's hardly surprising that they know the price of a barrel of oil but have no concept of the price at the pump.

Basic commodities have shot up. No-one could have expected that. 30% rises in gas and electricity. In France they have a cap on gas and electricity prices to reign back impacts on the country at large. Not so here. The government seem in thrall to the big business interests even at a time when a heavier hand would be both prudent and beneficial. It'll be interesting to read the winter death statistics next year. If nothing else folk will be paranoid to switch on their heating. Winter fuel allowance for pensioners only kicks in when the temperature hits 0 degrees for 7 consecutive days.

Let alone us lot saving during the good times to insure against the bad, that's exactly what the government have failed to do. That is why of all the European economies we are the least able to ride this period without hitting negative growth - recession. And the only one to have seen a run on a bank because the government were paralysed when the time came to show leadership.

I had to laugh at the suggestion that this situation gives Gordon Brown the opportunity to take the country to the left. Labour stopped being the party of the left when Tony Benn left the front bench. Even then they were hardly what I'd call 'socialist'. The US Government have done more to popularise nationalisation and heavy handed intervention than our meek government have in 30 years.

The saddest thing is that none of the mainstream political players can offer anything other than business as usual. It's going to take something more significant than this 'crisis' to break people out of their everyday preconceptions, and open them to other more fundamental alternatives to the current state of play.

We can and do expect more from our leaders at times like this. They're only there because we put them there, and pay their wages. We do have to take responsibility for our own affairs and a lot of what you say about people's expectations, living on the never never etc is right, but that doesn't avoid the central issue that it was greed on a global scale and lack of regulation, that got us where we are.

/rant off :)

Colinx
24-09-2008, 18:39
And what about the people who were living at ''the limit'', because that limit was at or near the poverty line anyway. They probably have little debt, credit crunch or not, and even less in the way of savings to see them through. The situation they find themselves in, increasing food, fuel and transportation costs, and little chance of seeing a matching increase in income.

Unfortunately they have little influence over the cost of renting, heating and lighting, and providing food for the family that should be so important to them.

Whichever flavour of political rulers we have had for the last quarter century or more, the gap between the top and bottom of the pile has widened, and those in the middle have, and will continue to pay for it.

If we had seem some real semblance of a 'fair' government over the last few years rather than just a meddlesome bunch of incompetents and quango's allowing the financial service sector free reign to balls up, banks that had maintained some semblance of reality on lending, rather than looking to increase profits on the ever mounting credit card debts, some of the pain to come may have been avoided.

I am not suggesting that it is all down to the banks, but actively encouraging debt, with no real sense of credit control has not helped.

It is comparatively easy to criticize from a comfortable position, it may look a little different from the other end.

Mike
24-09-2008, 20:05
If we had seem some real semblance of a 'fair' government over the last few years rather than just a meddlesome bunch of incompetents and quango's allowing the financial service sector free reign to balls up, banks that had maintained some semblance of reality on lending, rather than looking to increase profits on the ever mounting credit card debts, some of the pain to come may have been avoided.

Well said!

It's funny how the banks have made a huge balls-up with this sub-prime mortgage malarkey and yet it's the tax payer (ie. ALL of us - we all pay somewhere along the line) and customer who will be footing the bill.

Not very funny at all how the CEO's of these banks get away with it scott free with not one of them 'falling on his sword' and in most cases still pocketing six or even seven figure bonuses. Bastards.

BTW.

When you say 'credit crunch' are you talking about the banks not lending money (eg. for mortgages) so easily, or are we really talking about 'inflation' where prices are rocketing? For sure theres a link but the two are not necessarily one and the same!

Marco
24-09-2008, 20:35
Some great points being made here, chaps! I'll comment more later on.

Once thing though, which really does get on my tits, is the people who smoke and drink to excess and who consider this a necessity, not a luxury.

There are people who moan and groan about having no money to spend on food or REAL essentials in life because they're too bloody busy smoking or drinking all their money away!! :steam:

These people need to learn to realise that smoking and drinking to excess is NOT essential and if they didn't do it, or if they reduced the amount they consumed, they'd have a hell of a lot more disposable income to spend on the things in life that really matter - and it's not a flash new car or a big house, either!

People like this, and there are millions of them, need to get out of the mentality that they're entitled to smoke and drink. The fact is if you can't afford it, and you do it regardless, causing you to cut back on essentials like good food (and I don't mean expensive) and basic essentials for your family then quite simply you're living beyond your means!!

I'll never forget the Jamie Oliver programme on television about free range chickens, where a pretty grossly overweight woman (who also smoked) complained that she couldn't afford to spend an extra £2 on a free range chicken, and had to buy the battery-raised, chemically saturated, tasteless shit. Well maybe if she gave up the fags and cut down on the crisps she'd be able to afford to eat decent chicken!!!

More later...

Marco.

anthonyTD
24-09-2008, 20:37
hi all,
again some good points i think [collin especially] but even though a lot is to do with banks lending too much money to people that cant really afford a certain type of living statues, you have to except that if your a strong enough person, [mentally] you can resist the peer presure and the temptation of living beyond your means, even if you do get at least two credit card aplications through your door every week! the esentials going up in price affects us all, but some people choose to use the common sense they were born with and in the good times make provisions to provide for the times when everything goes tits up, which history has proven time and time again does happen, and quite regularly!
i agree there are a lot of people that live in this country that are constantly living on the bread line through no fault of their own, and these are the ones that have my full sympathy, but sympathy is of no use to them, when they cant even afford the bare esentials to live!!!
anthony...:(

aquapiranha
24-09-2008, 20:53
I believe that these days there has been a huge change between what people consider luxuries, and what would have been considered an indulgence say 20 years ago. To illustrate, when I was a kid we had a gas meter, an electric meter and even at one point a meter on the TV! also, we would often wake up to ice on the INSIDE of the windows in winter, and would huddle around the gas fire when it was cold. I wore "hand-me-down" clothes and I am willing to bet our diet could have been more nutritious. In all of this though, looking back I have no memory of ever feeling deprived in any way, and I know my parents did the best they could for us and for that I will always be grateful...

Fast forward about 30 years and today it seems everybody feels their lives are not complete without flash cars, big TV's, expensive designer clothes and jewellery, big houses and two holidays in the sun each year. As soon as anything happens that threatens to deprive them of thes modern essentials, they consider themselves hard done by, and cry poverty!

It is all about expectation - these days people expect to live in a "centrally heated, gold plated, plasma screened 4X4 utopia" and they do not know how to cope without it.

Marco
24-09-2008, 20:55
Hear hear!!! :clap:

Marco.

Mike
24-09-2008, 20:59
And what happened to the post I just made? :steam:

Marco
24-09-2008, 21:01
No idea dude :confused:

The Internet's been playing up tonight, though. I've been cut off three times, and normally that never happens.

Marco.

Mike
24-09-2008, 21:04
Ok.... I'll repeat it:


I don't think this thread is about 'the credit crunch' at all! :scratch:


It seems to be more about how some people piss their money up against the wall! Perhaps a change in thread title may be in order?

:lolsign:

anthonyTD
24-09-2008, 21:09
I believe that these days there has been a huge change between what people consider luxuries, and what would have been considered an indulgence say 20 years ago. To illustrate, when I was a kid we had a gas meter, an electric meter and even at one point a meter on the TV! also, we would often wake up to ice on the INSIDE of the windows in winter, and would huddle around the gas fire when it was cold. I wore "hand-me-down" clothes and I am willing to bet our diet could have been more nutritious. In all of this though, looking back I have no memory of ever feeling deprived in any way, and I know my parents did the best they could for us and for that I will always be grateful...

Fast forward about 30 years and today it seems everybody feels their lives are not complete without flash cars, big TV's, expensive designer clothes and jewellery, big houses and two holidays in the sun each year. As soon as anything happens that threatens to deprive them of thes modern essentials, they consider themselves hard done by, and cry poverty!

It is all about expectation - these days people expect to live in a "centrally heated, gold plated, plasma screened 4X4 utopia" and they do not know how to cope without it.

well said steve,
i remember the ice on the inside of the windows at my parents house, we didnt have gas, we had a poxy little coal fire, and in the real cold winters my mam used to dress my brother and me in front of a paraffin heater, hand me down clothes were the norm, and at christmas you got one main toy that you really valued!:) things couldnt go on the way they have been for the last few years,if it was alowed to, things would undoubtably be a lot worse than they are going to be in the next few months etc.
:)

aquapiranha
24-09-2008, 21:11
Ok.... I'll repeat it:


I don't think this thread is about 'the credit crunch' at all! :scratch:


It seems to be more about how some people piss their money up against the wall! Perhaps a change in thread title may be in order?

:lolsign:

I think you are right. But the way I see it is that people only realise there is something going wrong when they start to lose out on luxuries. I only hope things get better before people are REALLY in trouble and are under threat of losing their homes or jobs.


To qoute Sad Cafe.. "If I got nothin'....it's nothin' to lose... ( or is that tolouse? oh well..)

Marco
24-09-2008, 21:29
Mikey,

LOL. Change it to whatever you like, but it's a diverse discussion and bound to go off on a tangential angle. The "credit crunch" title is relevant because of people's borrowing from banks, and borrowing credit in general, and quite rightly the government's impact on that, which has been alluded to already.

I think it's about making yourself as resilient as possible to the decisions of any government in power. If you are prone to leading a lifestyle funded by someone else's money, i.e. from loans and credit cards (and I'm talking about on luxury items here) then quite simply you'll be more affected by government policies on these matters than those who live within their means and manage on whatever money they have of their own.

Marco.

Iain Sinclair
24-09-2008, 21:46
I agree with Marco's points, which saves me having to come up with any of my own.

Mike
24-09-2008, 21:52
Marco,

I see what you mean, but the term 'credit crunch' alludes to the problem where many people are unable to obtain credit. In some cases this may be a good thing.

IMHO the main problem with the credit crunch is where it is impossible for some people to obtain mortgages (particularly first time buyers), this could have a massive knock on effect on the the housing market. In fact it is already happening with property values falling all over the place, which ironically should benefit the first time buyers, except they can't get a mortgage! :mental: :doh:

But why have non of these high ranking bank executives been kicked up the arse? Why do they still get bonuses that make many peoples lifetime income look pathetic?... If it were up to me (and I'm sure Jeremy Clarkson would agree here) they should be 'shot in the face'! :mad:

It's all a bit daft if you ask me.

aquapiranha
24-09-2008, 22:09
What you say it is all true Mike. Every "chain" needs bottom feeders, wether the housing market or the food chain if the lowest denominator disappears the whole thing collapses. My brother is a chartered surveyor working for a natioonal company, and he fears for his job in the current climate, but says there are still people trying to sell their homes who cannot grasp the concept that the housing market is cooling. They think that the bit of decking at the bottom of the garden or the hanging baskets next to the porch warrant another 10K on the asking price ( blame all the DIY shows in the TV..). It is a real shame, and the reason the banks will not lend is because they have shot themselves in the foot and can see what is coming. Legislation is what is needed here perhaps?

I imagine Mr. Clarkson is too busy making bags of cash himself to worry about the credit crunch. It would seem the gravy train is approaching the end of the line.

Marco
24-09-2008, 22:21
But why have non of these high ranking bank executives been kicked up the arse? Why do they still get bonuses that make many peoples lifetime income look pathetic?...


I agree. Coming from a sales environment (and I've worked for some pretty big companies in the past and reaped the rewards for being successful) I can relate to this.

How it works is quite simple: if you make the company you're working for money, you're rewarded accordingly, and if it's a huge 'blue chip' company you're working for such as one of the major banks, then the rewards are massive! I wouldn't grudge anyone their bonus, or whatever, as a result of achieving their targets, or being entrepreneurial in some way. It's what being a saleperson is about.

However, if you fail in a 'hi-end' sales environment such as you have alluded to, and fail royally, then the consequences should be severe (and usually are) normally resulting in the sack. But clearly this doesn't always happen! I'm afraid that just like in many other working environments there is an odious 'jobs for the boys' situation in existence where 'indiscretions' are overlooked or covered up in some way. Usually though you only get away with it once!

Marco.

Steve Toy
25-09-2008, 01:38
The advice to live within your means is all well and good but for the fact that the government has borrowed recklessly even through the good times. They won't be the ones paying it all back, we will be - in higher taxes.

Marco
25-09-2008, 08:25
Then, as there's nothing we can do about it, we just have to budget accordingly! All politicians are as bad as each other - they're all scumbags ultimately looking after No1, although some dress this up better than others.

But the government aren't the ones making the idiots with the 'keeping up with the Jones's' mentality, or the weak-willed who succumb to peer pressure, do what they do...

It's a tough old world out there and those with gumption who plan properly, show prudence, and have confidence in their financial decision making will survive better than others.

Marco.

Puffin
25-09-2008, 19:19
I have only just caught up with this thread. I agree entirely with the ethos contained in the first post. Too many people believe in the "I can so I will" philosophy. They are the headless chickens who feel that both parents have to work to keep little Harrison and Jordan in "Dimboy" games so that it increases their ADHD, from which of course they suffer, to explain why they behave like ar*eh**es. They spend so much time at work making enough to pay off the minimum on the credit cards to be able to buy the children their "guilt" treats, they don't have the time to spend with their beloved darlings, and would rather fall in front of the tele. What happened to the good old value of "If I don't have the money I can't afford it"
While were on the subject of chickens, IMHO shit chicken tastes better than free range!

EDIT: Just read the above thread. Marco it is those who plan properly and show prudence who get shit on the most. Tax on earnings, Tax on savings, Tax on gains, Tax on dying. Go into a nursing home, "Oh you've got to sell that nice house you worked so hard to achieve". Those who saved nothing and paid no tax get it free!

Mike
25-09-2008, 19:45
So.... about 'the credit crunch'???

It's really not about that at all is it? :(

Puffin
25-09-2008, 20:10
Oooerrr, I see what you mean, maybe I just wanted a rant. I'll stick to only 3 words daily in future, more than 3 is clearly too much temptation!

Cotlake
25-09-2008, 20:11
Go into a nursing home, "Oh you've got to sell that nice house you worked so hard to achieve". Those who saved nothing and paid no tax get it free!

That is a good point and something many married or joint home owners are not aware of, expecting that the house will naturally form part of the estate for the inheritors.

Not so now. If you and your partner/wife are joint owners and one of you needs to go into care, the local authority can put a claim on the property for payment of the care and in real terms make the surviving partner homeless and steal the kids inheritance. This is something I'm dealing with at the moment. I've been quoted £800 to do the legal documentation but I'm working to find a cheaper way. Your property and inheritance can be protected in such situations but the joint house ownership needs to be legally severed and a new deed drawn up showing a 50% each seperate ownership of the property. In addition a trust needs to be set up so that the partner and kids get their planned inheritance which should also cover cash and investments. If one partner needs to go into care, the LA can't put a claim on 50% of the property because you can't sell half the house! The trust should protect cash and investments. If you are not aware of this, anyone in this situation should seriously look into it. Of course, thereafter, the option remains for private care to be payed for, but at least the family stakeholders remain in control.

Cotlake
25-09-2008, 20:15
While were on the subject of chickens, IMHO shit chicken tastes better than free range!

Clearly you have been conditioned to enjoy eating shit ;)

Puffin
25-09-2008, 20:21
Greg. You can sever a joint tenancy and hold the propety as "tenants in common", both owners can then will their share to whoever they wish. I am not completely conversant with trust law, but so far as a 50% share of a proprty is concerned, I would have thought that it might be possible to force a sale to recover half. If you are co-habitees and you hold the proprty as joint tenants, if one party objects to a sale you can take court action to force a sale. So if a Local Authority have the power..........

Puffin
25-09-2008, 20:23
Not only do I eat it, I guess some would say I talk it as well!!!!!

Cotlake
25-09-2008, 20:36
Hi Puffin,

I don't doubt your understanding. I hate civil law. Give me criminal law every time. I know for certain that measures can be put in place to protect the estate to a point of completely preventing the LA from getting their grubby hands on it. It's just about finding an affordable way of doing it.

Best wishes,

Greg

Mike
25-09-2008, 20:55
Hi Puffin,

I don't doubt your understanding. I hate civil law. Give me criminal law every time. I know for certain that measures can be put in place to protect the estate to a point of completely preventing the LA from getting their grubby hands on it. It's just about finding an affordable way of doing it.

Best wishes,

Greg

I have a little knowledge of this, but I do not know if the circumstances that my sister and I were in recently are the same as yours. Four years ago my mother was diagnosed with cancer (with inevitable consequences) and steps were taken to ensure that her house (which was wholly owned by her) could not fall into the hands of my step father (or family) and subsequently into the hands of 'the authorities' should he need to go into care sometime in the future.

It certainly involved solicitors and several hundred pounds, but it CAN be done. I can provide further details if need be Greg, perhaps via PM or telephone?

Regards,
Mike.

Mike
25-09-2008, 20:57
Oooerrr, I see what you mean, maybe I just wanted a rant. I'll stick to only 3 words daily in future, more than 3 is clearly too much temptation!

Don't worry about it... I just think the thread title may be a little off the mark. ;)

Marco
25-09-2008, 21:23
You're obsessed with bloody thread titles! I've told you if you want to change it to something more 'appropriate' then do it and shut up!! :lol:

Puffin, you've made some good points, which I'll address later, but with regard to battery-produced chickens vs. free range, we'll have to agree to differ. You're welcome to come round to my place and compare both, roasted and infused with some garlic, rosemary and lemon.

I think Mike will vouch for my wife's cooking ;)

If you prefer the battery-produced shit, I'll eat the giblets raw and shove the sinewy bits I can't chew down my pants! :eyebrows:

Marco.

Mike
25-09-2008, 21:27
You're obsessed with bloody thread titles! I've told you if you want to change it to something more 'appropriate' then do it and shut up!! :lol:

No! :upyours:

aquapiranha
25-09-2008, 22:08
By an incredibly cruel twist of fate, the credit crunch claimed my brother's job today. He is (was) a chartered surveyer working for a large national company. He was called into a meeting and told he was being made redundant along with others. This is a direct result of the credit crunch and subsequent efffect it has had on the housing market. My brother worked bloody hard and endured many years of study to get where he was, and it makes my blood boil.

Another point made in this thread about the idle never paying anything and the honest, hard working members of society having to subsidise these layabouts is only too true. Time to stop lining the pockets of the lazy and make them work for everything they are given free by the rest of us.

Time for heads on poles !!! now, where is my pitchfork....?

:steam:

KMair
26-09-2008, 04:43
I agree with Marco's post as well. The current climate here in the US is abominable and I have never been so outraged. Our leaders in the States have run our economy into the ground and now with the bailouts there will be an even greater burden on the working class. We no longer have a middle class IMO, only wealthy and poor. I despise class envy and that is what the left in our country thrive on. We need accountability from these fat cats in D.C.!

Marco
26-09-2008, 06:56
By an incredibly cruel twist of fate, the credit crunch claimed my brother's job today.


I'm very sorry to hear that, Steve. It's always the good guys who suffer in these situations, but I'm sure that with your brother's skills and experience he'll find another job soon, perhaps even better than the one he was in. That's often how it works out - fingers crossed! :)

Marco.

P.S I mentioned to Ian, yesterday, about you meeting him from sweeping your chimney but he can't place you, so could you PM him later and explain who you are? Cheers! I’m sure it’ll click when you tell he something he remembers :smoking:

StanleyB
26-09-2008, 07:36
A good friend of mine of many years standing also got called into the office last week Wednesday and given his marching orders due to the collapse of Lehmann. He is 62, which is as good as certain unemployment for the rest of his life.
Luckily I have contacts in various professions. So I managed to fix him up with an interview for next week with another good friend. Hopefully it works out well for both of them.

I myself have seen a rapid increase of emails from potential customers, asking if my own products are just as good as something else more expensive they were looking at. Others say they were thinking of upgrading their 'this and that', but have decided to hold out and spend a bit less on an intermediate upgrade. It's been all good news for me, since I am the one getting the cheaper business. But I can't keep wondering what it must be like for the dealers and manufacturers who are reliant on an income from the sale of more expensive stuff.

Marco
26-09-2008, 08:06
A good friend of mine of many years standing also got called into the office last week Wednesday and given his marching orders due to the collapse of Lehmann. He is 62, which is as good as certain unemployment for the rest of his life.


Hi Stan,

I'm really sorry to hear that your friend lost his job. However, please don't take this the wrong way, but at 62 does he not feel that it's time to retire and enjoy life?

One of my earlier points was that we work too many bloody hours, and for too long, here in the UK. At 62, if I'm still around, I want to be in Italy (where I will move when I retire) sitting back sipping a glass of Chianti watching the sunset on the Tuscan hills from my patio, not still slaving away somewhere... :smoking:

I know it depends on whether you can afford to retire or not, but I can't help but feel it's a shame that your friend doesn't have provisions in place at 62 to allow him to give up work. Is he getting any redundancy money or does he have a private pension in place?

It's important to plan for the future. I took out a private pension plan when I was 28, which when it matures will provide me (and of course my wife) with a nice little nest egg for our retirement years, but I know when you're young it's so easy not to think of the future when you are older, so things get put off and put off until it's too late.

To be honest, and I'm working hard towards it, I would like to retire at 50, or the very latest 55, which I know is early but through hard work and some successful property investments, I'm on target to achieving my goal. Life's too short to spend all of it (or the vast majority of it) working. My grandfather and uncles (who owned chip shops and restaurants) worked into their 80s and then died shortly afterwards, so had no time to enjoy their money. I just don't see the point. For some people their jobs are their lives, but that most certainly isn't me - it's simply a means to an end.

No-one knows how much time they have left on this earth. I recovered last year, rather fortunately, from a spinal tumour which could have killed me or left me paralysed from the waist down. Things like that give you a different perspective on life and make you re-evaluate your priorities...

Marco.

aquapiranha
26-09-2008, 08:08
I'm very sorry to hear that, Steve. It's always the good guys who suffer in these situations, but I'm sure that with your brother's skills and experience he'll find another job soon, perhaps even better than the one he was in. That's often how it works out - fingers crossed! :)

Marco.

P.S I mentioned to Ian, yesterday, about you meeting him from sweeping your chimney but he can't place you, so could you PM him later and explain who you are? Cheers! I’m sure it’ll click when you tell he something he remembers :smoking:

Thanks Marco, I am sure as you say he will find something else, fingers crossed.

I do not know what Ian's member name is here, so I cannot PM him..... :scratch:

Marco
26-09-2008, 08:24
LOL. It's "Ian Walker" :)

Marco.

Marco
26-09-2008, 09:48
I have only just caught up with this thread. I agree entirely with the ethos contained in the first post. Too many people believe in the "I can so I will" philosophy. They are the headless chickens who feel that both parents have to work to keep little Harrison and Jordan in "Dimboy" games so that it increases their ADHD, from which of course they suffer, to explain why they behave like ar*eh**es. They spend so much time at work making enough to pay off the minimum on the credit cards to be able to buy the children their "guilt" treats, they don't have the time to spend with their beloved darlings, and would rather fall in front of the tele.


This is so sad but unfortunately true.

What some parents don't seem to realise is that what a child wants and NEEDS more than anything else is love and attention. All the toys and clothes in the world don't make up for a child growing up in a loving environment where both parents are focussed on their marriage or partnership, spend time with their kids, and bring them up properly. This is the environment I grew up in.

Parents who are so career-obsessed that they have little time for their children, or who end up divorced from arguing all the time, being unfaithful or whatever, often raise dysfunctional children because they've been damaged or traumatised psychologically in some way during the growing up process, mainly through emotional neglect. Don't underestimate the effect this has on children. Parents often don't realise how unhappy their kids are until it's too late.

The other side-effect of shoving kids in front of the TV or the computer to 'keep them quiet' is that they grow up with little or no social skills simply because they're interacting so infrequently with other human beings. Try having a conversation with an average teenager these days. Look at the type you meet working in shops or restaurants - they look at you as if you're a piece of shit and you're lucky if you get a grunt out of them, far less an ability to be in any way articulate or to confidently discuss a serious subject. Manners have also completely gone out the window. As such we're raising a race of zombies with the social skills of prehistoric man.

Of course, there are many exceptions to this and some kids are a credit to their parents, but these days this seems to be more an exception than the rule. It's so important for parents to take an active interest daily in their children's lives and not be obsessed with careers or making money to pay the mortgage. What use is running around like a headless chicken ensuring the mortgage is paid and having a flash new car in the driveway if completely unknown to you slowly but surely, due to emotional neglect, you're raising a dysfunctional child?

It seems to me that in modern life with all its pressures we’ve often got completely the wrong priorities.

Marco.

lurcher
26-09-2008, 11:09
Look at the type you meet working in shops or restaurants - they look at you as if you're a piece of shit and you're lucky if you get a grunt out of them, far less an ability to be in any way articulate or to confidently discuss a serious subject. Manners have also completely gone out the window. As such we're raising a race of zombies with the social skills of prehistoric man.

1950: Teddy Boys
1960: Mods and Rockers
1970: SkinHeads
1980: Punks

I sometimes think that we forget the past (you know, that time when we were young) wasn't perfect either.

Marco
26-09-2008, 11:33
LOL. But, Nick, that doesn't necessarily mean that those people behaved badly or as I've described above with today's teenagers. Some did of course but you can't tar everyone with the same brush.

My wife was a punk (as well as all the records she still has her 'Destroy' t-shirts and Vivian Westwood bondage kegs) and as a teenager assures me that she well behaved, articulate, and had excellent social skills, although of course I only have her word for that :lolsign:

Most of her friends were punks, too, and all of them were in the top set at school. I was the same, although I was into heavy metal and motorbikes. So I wouldn't label punks, or any of the above you've listed, as necessarily lacking social skills or being badly behaved.

The point is if some parents spent more time with their kids and brought them up properly then we wouldn't have some of the 'Neanderthals' populating our world today.

Marco.

lurcher
26-09-2008, 12:27
LOL. But, Nick, that doesn't necessarily mean that those people behaved badly or as I've described above with today's teenagers. Some did of course but you can't tar everyone with the same brush.

Well, just looking back on the history, you will find that a percentage of those groups did behave badly, in the same way that a percentage of todays kids behave badly. I suggest you are the one with the tar brush in hand.


My wife was a punk (as well as all the records she still has her 'Destroy' t-shirts and Vivian Westwood bondage kegs) and as a teenager assures me that she well behaved, articulate, and had excellent social skills, although of course I only have her word for that

Yes, of course, but her view was from within, thats the point am trying to make, from equivilant position in the 70's I doubt you would have given your wife the chance to show she was "well behaved, articulate, and had excellent social skills"


So I wouldn't label punks, or any of the above you've listed, as necessarily lacking social skills or being badly behaved.

No, again, because you were inside that group, can't you see how you are applying two sets of standards here?


The point is if some parents spent more time with their kids and brought them up properly then we wouldn't have some of the 'Neanderthals' populating our world today.

Fair enough, thats your view. But I would remind you that part of the point of being a kid is to rebel, and just as well I say, otherwise most of the music we spend our excess income on reproducing (because I am sure non of us are so foolish to make use of credit facilities to purchase such essential items) would never have come to be.

Marco
26-09-2008, 12:55
Nick,

I completely understand what you're saying, and partly agree, but similarly I can only speak from my own experience and comment accordingly.

For me, things have got worse since parents have been put under more and more pressure to work longer hours to pay ever-increasing large mortgages and keep up with the cost of living in general.

Consequently, there is less time to spend interacting properly with their children, and so the temptation is to shove them in front of the TV or computer to 'keep them quiet'. This simply didn't happen to the same degree in the 70s and 80s when I was growing up, at least not where I was.

When I was a kid I was out all the time playing with my mates at football, cycling, making things, or whatever, and consequently developing my social skills from interacting with others - not sat 'zombified' in front of a TV or computer. I also spent lots of 'quality time' with my parents where we went out on days to the beach, the zoo, out for meals in restaurants, walking together, going on holiday together - all sorts of stuff. I wasn't 'abandoned' once with a child minder because we done everything together as a family.

So often nowadays parents don't have the time or sadly the inclination to do this because of their 'busy lives'; I find it quite sad - and the consequences of this behaviour is there for all to see in so many of our younger generation...

Marco.

lurcher
26-09-2008, 13:08
So what you are saying, is the problem is caused by the changes to society and the expectations placed on people partly by their peers, but mainly by the media in all its forms. or in other words, as the adults in this process, its all of use who are to blame.

Despite what some of the media would like us to think (creating a enemy is a great way of rallying people around a cause, just look at history) I believe we all have to take responsibility for the state of the world, not just stand back and point fingers.

As a example, its easy to point fingers at the non working "underclass", and I agree it would be better if we didn't have that situation, but just blaming them won't make any difference. And looking at the current unimployment numbers, if someone waved a magic wand and removed them from the face of the world, it would (by definition) make less than a 6% difference to the country.

Meanwhile, as we all look one way, where we are told the people whos fault it is live, a small percentage strips huge amounts of money from society and pays bugger all back in the form of taxes. Now given that those are the very folk who control the media, wonder why they want to focus our anger elsewhere?

Marco
26-09-2008, 13:35
So what you are saying, is the problem is caused by the changes to society and the expectations placed on people partly by their peers, but mainly by the media in all its forms. or in other words, as the adults in this process, its all of use who are to blame.


Not necessarily. What I'm saying is that as adults we have to take proper responsibility for our part in society, and then by doing so the overall situation will hopefully improve.

To take things to a more serious level, it makes my blood boil when I see young children who look only about five or six years old wandering the streets late at night in towns when they should be tucked up in their beds at home, especially when their parents are out in the pub getting pissed (or worse), caring not a jot where their kids are or what they're up to! And they show no regret or remorse for doing so. No wonder there's so much youth crime in the UK.

Quite simply 'parents' like that (for want of a better word), and there are thousands of them, don't deserve to have children, and most certainly are not taking proper responsibility for their part in society. They're scum, a waste of space, and contribute nothing but grief for everyone - they are a disgrace to society.

Traditional family values are being eroded more and more because of what I outlined earlier; it's a scarily short process of being the neglected kid of today (e.g shoved in front of a TV or computer and not 'bothered with') to the drunken, layabout, violent youth of tomorrow...

Why do you think so many kids take drugs? Because they're bored and don't feel wanted or valued. And it's rife in all sections of society!

Marco.

lurcher
26-09-2008, 13:54
Traditional family values are being eroded more and more because of what I outlined earlier; it's a scarily short process of being the neglected kid of today (e.g shoved in front of a TV or computer and not 'bothered with') to the drunken, layabout, violent youth of tomorrow...

Yes, I agree, and other than demonise parts of society, what are you suggesting we should do about it?

Marco
26-09-2008, 14:00
Vote me in as Prime minister and I'll sort the bastards out! :lolsign:

;)

Marco.

lurcher
26-09-2008, 14:06
Maybe, but I just think we are directed to consider the wrong bastards. It seems to me the top 6% of society are as useless and distructive as the bottom 6%

Marco
26-09-2008, 14:10
True - both could be said to deserve scumbag status. This is not a class thing though; it's not about that. It's about re-evaluating our priorities in life: what really matters as opposed to what's no more than of superficial importance, as I mentioned earlier.

Marco.

lurcher
26-09-2008, 14:35
Agreed its not a class thing, but you started from the beginning directing the blame for what you saw as the problems in society at a particular part of that society, I was just trying to direct your attention to another part of society that could be equally held to blame for some of those faults.

I don't regard the fact that there is a small powerful group in the country that have more of the available wealth that seems fair as a issue of class, just of fairness and equality.

For example, if the wealth of the top 5% were distributed amongst the top 50% of wage earners, then many of the problems the government faces would be removed, tax could fall, as the likes of you and me don't have access to the ways of paying zero tax that is avalable to the top 5%, immediate better things happens.

SPS
26-09-2008, 14:38
To take things to a more serious level, it makes my blood boil when I see young children who look only about five or six years old wandering the streets late at night in towns when they should be tucked up in their beds at home, especially when their parents are out in the pub getting pissed (or worse), caring not a jot where their kids are or what they're up to!

Marco.


If is wasn't for all those kids roaming.. the parents would not be able to afford to be in the pub.. the good old social ??

those of us who work.. cannot afford to be in the pub.. and have to put up with their kids on the streets...
steve

Marco
26-09-2008, 14:42
Agreed its not a class thing, but you started from the beginning directing the blame for what you saw as the problems in society at a particular part of that society, I was just trying to direct your attention to another part of society that could be equally held to blame for some of those faults.


Fair enough, and that's accepted, but I don't want the main thrust of the discussion I started to lose its focus: namely that we spend too much time working these days, worrying about paying mortgages, etc, etc, in general living beyond our means caring about things that don't really matter, and family life and children are suffering as a result.

How do you think that situation is best improved?

Marco.

Marco
26-09-2008, 14:47
If is wasn't for all those kids roaming.. the parents would not be able to afford to be in the pub.. the good old social ??

those of us who work.. cannot afford to be in the pub.. and have to put up with their kids on the streets...
steve

Excellent point, Steve. That's one thing the top 5% Nick refers to (not including aristocracy) can't be accused of - most of them have made their money through being successful in business, and as such actually contribute to society, even if they take more than they give...

What do the layabouts and scum who scrounge 'off the Social' contribute that's positive?

I know what I'd do with them!

Marco.

Puffin
26-09-2008, 15:14
I have been a family lawyer for many years. If you knew how much money was poured into finding foster carers for children whose parents were not parented themselves and therefore unable to parent their own children, the sums are enormous. I have just finished a care case where there have been umpteen hearings, the last ran for four days. Everyone is legally represented (on Legal Aid), Local Authority, Mother, Father, Guardian for the child. This was in relation to the mother's third child. The previous two (of whom she did not know who the father's were) were adopted two years ago. There is a putative father who has had nothing to do with it to date. It is one years old.

There is an epidemic. Millions are being spent on the parents before these cases ever come to court and of course afterwards. This ONE case must have cost £100,000 in total.

On the point of youths of the past. I was skinhead at 14, and had some close shaves (pun intended). But we had no inclination to kill anyone. These days it's not sufficient to rough someone up, they're not satisified unless they are left for dead. Take the recent case of the death of the perfectly decent young girl punk who had her head stamped on so badly, she could not be recognised. I (and most others of that ilk) had the nouse to discern who was real threat and hard enough to take it, and those easy targets that you left alone.

Wheres it all going to end !!!:(:(

lurcher
26-09-2008, 15:46
Excellent point, Steve. That's one thing the top 5% Nick refers to (not including aristocracy) can't be accused of - most of them have made their money through being successful in business, and as such actually contribute to society, even if they take more than they give...

Well, at that point we will have to agree to disagree Marco, if you regard taking more than they give as contributing, then you have a entirly different view on simple arithmetic to me.


How do you think that situation is best improved?

Unfortunatly I don't think there is a quick fix, much as you seem to be sugegsting one, unless we are happy to give up any moral pretext of being a civilised society it will take time. It will need money spending, lots of it, it will need long term policys that are designed to remove the ghettos (both physical and mental). Just taking away their means of living won't do, there has to be an alternative in place first. And unfortunatly while the media keeps the hatred going, and the people in Whiteall continue to worry about the vote of the mythical middle England its not going to happen.


These days it's not sufficient to rough someone up, they're not satisified unless they are left for dead.

Watching Vinny Jones shut someones head in a car door and then walk away with a bag full of money can't help with that.

Mike
26-09-2008, 15:57
LOL. But, Nick, that doesn't necessarily mean that those people behaved badly or as I've described above with today's teenagers.

Who's 'fault' do you think this is Marco, in your opinion? (seeing as we're pointing fingers)... I'm really not sure of the point you are trying to make. :scratch:


Seems to me that many of the parents of these 'badly behaved teenagers' are people of 'our' generation, eg, the very punks (or whatever) of the 70's that you mention!

I'm pretty damn sure that when I was a teenager there were plenty of my age peers who certainly were not behaviour models for anyone of any generation. I can't help but think that this 'element' is present in every era, past, present and future.

Marco
26-09-2008, 16:57
LOL, guys, you've completely missed my point!

Nick,

When I asked how best could this situation be resolved, I wasn't talking about the scumbags who leave their kids out in the street unattended at night, or those who scrounge 'off the Social' - what I meant was how best is the situation that we're all working too many hours to pay huge mortgages, etc, obsessed with material possessions, and so many people are living beyond their means to 'keep up with the Jones's', and getting into serious debt in the process best resolved?

I would like your view on *this* specifically. I thought I made myself quite clear, but obviously not...

Also, regardless of how much the top 5% take from society at least they're contributing something in the first place! Unlike the layabout scumbags scrounging 'off the social' who are nothing but a drain on society and contribute f*ck all!!!

They are a useless waste of space and need sorted out. Answer me this: what good do these morons contribute?

Mike,

What I meant was that the punks I knew when I was a teenager, and many of my other friends, were intelligent, articulate, confident, people who had no lack of social skills because they had been brought up by caring parents in a loving family environment where the parents all took an active interest in what their kids got up to on a daily basis and interacted with them accordingly. Many parents don't seem to have the time to do that now because they're all running around like headless chickens trying to maintain a lifestyle that they can ill afford.

Contrast that will a lot of teenagers today (certainly the one I meet - again I can only comment from my own experience) and so many of them seem introverted, lacking in self-esteem and social skills, and unable to articulate themselves properly, and they're not from deprived backgrounds.

I'm convinced much of this is down to their parents not interacting with them properly and instead shoving them in front of the TV or computer at any early age to 'keep them quiet' instead of providing proper support and encouragement and involving them in family social activities so that they have plenty opportunity to develop their social skills and feel wanted and valued as a result.

Have I made myself clearer now? :)

I'm sorry if you disagree but this is how I feel.

Marco.

Mike
26-09-2008, 17:13
Mike,

What I meant was that the punks I knew when I was a teenager, and many of my other friends, were intelligent, articulate, confident, people who had no lack of social skills because they had been brought up by caring parents in a loving family environment where the parents all took an active interest in what their kids got up to on a daily basis.

Contrast that will a lot of teenagers today (certainly the one I meet - again I can only comment from my own experience) and so many of them seem introverted, lacking in self-esteem and social skills, and unable to articulate themselves properly, and they're not from deprived backgrounds.

I'm convinced much of this is down to their parents not interacting with them properly and instead shoving them in front of the TV or computer at any early age to 'keep them quiet' instead of providing proper support and encouragement and involving them in family social activities so that they have opportunity to develop their social skills.

I'm sorry if you disagree but this is how I feel.

Marco.

Marco, I don't necessarily disagree. I'm just pointing out that the "intelligent, articulate, confident people who had no lack of social skills" that you mention, are in many cases, the parents of todays teenagers (and that includes me). So what went wrong? :confused:

How do we 'fix it'?.... or does it actually need 'fixing' at all?.... are we just looking back with rose tinted specs and saying "it wasn't like that in my day"??... Maybe we have become the 'boring old farts' which we all derided 'so' back in our own youths? ;)

I don't have the answer! :(

Marco
26-09-2008, 17:21
I'm glad you now see where I'm coming from! :)


So what went wrong?


I think I've more than touched on it with what I've written so far. We're too busy working trying to pay for things that ultimately aren't that important.

Marco.

Mike
26-09-2008, 17:34
We're too busy working trying to pay for things that ultimately aren't that important.

Sorry matey, that's WAY too simplistic! ;)

You can't tar an entire generation with the same brush. The things I'm working (too hard?) for are VERY important to me and my family. I like living in a nice area that's not riddled with crime, drugs and prostitution etc etc... (and yes, I have lived in such an area).

If that means I don't always have as much time to spend with my children as I would like then so be it. I'm afraid it's the lesser of two (or more) evils.

Marco
26-09-2008, 17:38
That's fine, Mike, but you're not really representative of the people I'm referring to.

You would agree that I have a point, though?

Me personally, if I had to choose, I'd rather have a simpler lifestyle in a smaller house (in a safe area) which I can comfortably maintain well within my means than being mortgaged up to the hilt and my lifestyle funded mainly by other people's money. I dislike the stress that comes about with financial worry and the divisions this usually causes within families, which is part of the problem I've been referring to.

Marco.

Puffin
26-09-2008, 17:39
I have been a family lawyer for many years. If you knew how much money was poured into finding foster carers for children whose parents were not parented themselves and therefore unable to parent their own children, the sums are enormous. I have just finished a care case where there have been umpteen hearings, the last ran for four days. Everyone is legally represented (on Legal Aid), Local Authority, Mother, Father, Guardian for the child. This was in relation to the mother's third child. The previous two (of whom she did not know who the father's were) were adopted two years ago. There is a putative father who has had nothing to do with it to date. It is one years old.

There is an epidemic. Millions are being spent on the parents before these cases ever come to court and of course afterwards. This ONE case must have cost £100,000 in total.

On the point of youths of the past. I was skinhead at 14, and had some close shaves (pun intended). But we had no inclination to kill anyone. These days it's not sufficient to rough someone up, they're not satisified unless they are left for dead. Take the recent case of the death of the perfectly decent young girl punk who had her head stamped on so badly, she could not be recognised. I (and most others of that ilk) had the nouse to discern who was real threat and hard enough to take it, and those easy targets that you left alone.

Wheres it all going to end !!!:(:(

This country is too busy spending money to protect people from themselves!

Mike
26-09-2008, 18:07
Me personally, if I had to choose, I'd rather have a simpler lifestyle in a smaller house (in a safe area) which I can comfortably maintain well within my means than being mortgaged up to the hilt and my lifestyle funded mainly by other people's money.

I don't see how that bit is possible.

Do you mean people are living on credit?... In which case they'll have to pay it back somewhere along the line. I don't have a problem with this, thats how it works for millions of people, after all a mortgage IS credit. In which case, no I don't agree you have a point.

Or are you talking about people with mortgages who are living on 'the social' who's lifestyle is being funded by the taxpayer? In which case, yes, I can see a point. Sort of.


I'm aware that I might sound like I'm being argumentative, but be assured that is not the case. I'm just trying to get a full understanding of exactly what you are trying to say. I'm also aware that you are not a parent, and don't take this the wrong way, but what qualifications do you have to criticise others in this respect?... It's just that in some of you're above posts you do tend to come across a little, well, err, 'sanctimonious'. Sorry!

ATB,
Mike.

Marco
26-09-2008, 18:53
LOL, well that's not how it was intended to come across, so my apologies :)

Even though I don't have children, I observe what goes on with other members of my family who have kids, and in life in general, and can see the problems. I'm entitled to an opinion, and simply expressing that right.

What I'm getting at by a "lifestyle funded by other people's money" is, as I've explained earlier, people today have an 'I want it now' mentality and fund their lifestyles on credit cards to create a 'false' existence to impress their friends and neighbours. I think this is complete lunacy and wonder what drives people to do it, and more importantly, what can be done to discourage people going down this pointless road. It causes all sorts of problems in families, such as I have alluded to earlier.

Mortgages are a different matter entirely.

Marco.

Mike
26-09-2008, 19:17
people today have an 'I want it now' mentality and fund their lifestyles on credit cards to create a 'false' existence to impress their friends and neighbours.

Okey Dokey.... personally I don't have a problem with that. They'll have to pay it back and then some in the end.... You reap what you sow! ;)

Of course they'll have a bit more trouble with that at the moment, what with the 'credit crunch'... remember that? :D

Marco
26-09-2008, 19:21
Exactly! :eyebrows:

Marco.

Colinx
26-09-2008, 19:41
The entire thing about social attitudes, and the behaviour of society in general depends on how far you go back. We have ''sink'' estates, and people living on social payments, that is probably better than the down side of Victorian society.

I am mid 50's, both my parents worked full time for the first 10 or 11 years of my life. I was not dumped in front of a TV (doubt we had one), I was dumped in front of Granny. The reason both parents worked was National Service for dad, and mum working to help keep a roof over the heads of my parents and grand parents. My father decided to finish his apprenticeship before doing his National service rather starting it, and then having to finish later.

What we had at the time I suppose was a stronger sense of family, and a stronger sense of social justice. People found it harder to get credit, and it was to an extent stigmatised, (they got it on the knock, never never etc). Credit is (was) easier to get, probably too easy. Any sense of family and society have eroded over the years (general statement).

I can think of a number of people who work out if they can afford something not by the cost of purchase, but can they afford the monthly payment, if they can, they can afford it.

I can also think of a number of people who have mortgages higher than is sensible because of the safe environment feeling. What they should be paying would buy them a house in a non too smart area of town, where the schools may be a touch questionable, so they pay more to live in a ''safer'' area, or a area where the local school is a bit better, and as far as they are concerned they are doing it so that they are giving their Kids the best start they can. They do not realise that they are doing as much, or more harm than good, but thats life.

What do we do about it, well firstly we ban anyone that wants to be a politician from being one, the fact that you are dumb enough to want to do it suggest you may be short of the smarts you actually need to do it. Secondly we decide if we want a ''stateist'' government or not, having decided that, we then work out how to make a fair society. Fair as in all have a equal chance at education, health care, and when of a suitable age gainful employment. We also have a bloody hard luck at societies attitude to law and order, enforcement of it, and penalties for breaking it. We also need to put society and our attitude to each other under a little bit of a spotlight. We can not continue to cross the road to avoid a nasty little fracas, expecting a underfunded police service, followed by the social services to sort it all out for us.

We also have a very long think about taxation, both of income and properties, direct and indirect, and reasses indirect taxation downwards, with a corresponding increase in direct taxation. Any one complaining about this will have all assets sized, and will then be taken away and shot.

I will take my tongue out of my cheek now, and see if we get any response.

anthonyTD
26-09-2008, 20:45
The entire thing about social attitudes, and the behaviour of society in general depends on how far you go back. We have ''sink'' estates, and people living on social payments, that is probably better than the down side of Victorian society.

I am mid 50's, both my parents worked full time for the first 10 or 11 years of my life. I was not dumped in front of a TV (doubt we had one), I was dumped in front of Granny. The reason both parents worked was National Service for dad, and mum working to help keep a roof over the heads of my parents and grand parents. My father decided to finish his apprenticeship before doing his National service rather starting it, and then having to finish later.

What we had at the time I suppose was a stronger sense of family, and a stronger sense of social justice. People found it harder to get credit, and it was to an extent stigmatised, (they got it on the knock, never never etc). Credit is (was) easier to get, probably too easy. Any sense of family and society have eroded over the years (general statement).

I can think of a number of people who work out if they can afford something not by the cost of purchase, but can they afford the monthly payment, if they can, they can afford it.

I can also think of a number of people who have mortgages higher than is sensible because of the safe environment feeling. What they should be paying would buy them a house in a non too smart area of town, where the schools may be a touch questionable, so they pay more to live in a ''safer'' area, or a area where the local school is a bit better, and as far as they are concerned they are doing it so that they are giving their Kids the best start they can. They do not realise that they are doing as much, or more harm than good, but thats life.

What do we do about it, well firstly we ban anyone that wants to be a politician from being one, the fact that you are dumb enough to want to do it suggest you may be short of the smarts you actually need to do it. Secondly we decide if we want a ''stateist'' government or not, having decided that, we then work out how to make a fair society. Fair as in all have a equal chance at education, health care, and when of a suitable age gainful employment. We also have a bloody hard luck at societies attitude to law and order, enforcement of it, and penalties for breaking it. We also need to put society and our attitude to each other under a little bit of a spotlight. We can not continue to cross the road to avoid a nasty little fracas, expecting a underfunded police service, followed by the social services to sort it all out for us.

We also have a very long think about taxation, both of income and properties, direct and indirect, and reasses indirect taxation downwards, with a corresponding increase in direct taxation. Any one complaining about this will have all assets sized, and will then be taken away and shot.

I will take my tongue out of my cheek now, and see if we get any response.

:lolsign:;)

Iain Sinclair
26-09-2008, 21:13
What I meant was that the punks I knew when I was a teenager, and many of my other friends, were intelligent, articulate, confident, people who had no lack of social skills because they had been brought up by caring parents in a loving family environment where the parents all took an active interest in what their kids got up to on a daily basis and interacted with them accordingly. Many parents don't seem to have the time to do that now because they're all running around like headless chickens trying to maintain a lifestyle that they can ill afford.

Contrast that will a lot of teenagers today (certainly the one I meet - again I can only comment from my own experience) and so many of them seem introverted, lacking in self-esteem and social skills, and unable to articulate themselves properly, and they're not from deprived backgrounds. .

There were plenty of inarticulate teenagers in my youth (and articulate ones too of course). It's also possible that some of the introverted, inarticulate teenagers are like that with you because you're an older bloke. Many 'tongue-tied' teenagers are very articulate with their peers, but clam up when with older people.

My own two are certainly more confident and articulate than I was at their age.

Marco
26-09-2008, 21:45
It could be, Iain, but the problem does seem somewhat endemic. I definitely think kids have changed now due to the difference in the lifestyle they're subjected to at home, as outlined. It sounds like you're doing a good job with yours.

Colin,

Love it! :eyebrows:

Marco.

lurcher
26-09-2008, 22:46
I definitely think kids have changed now due to the difference in the lifestyle they're subjected to at home, as outlined.

Having just watched them on the TV, all I can say is:

"The sun is the same in a relative way, but you’re older..."

Marco
26-09-2008, 22:59
We'll just have to agree to differ, Nick. I know my own experiences :)

Btw, you appear to have 'missed' some questions I asked earlier... ;)

See my post #63.

Marco.

Iain Sinclair
27-09-2008, 08:42
It could be, Iain, but the problem does seem somewhat endemic. I definitely think kids have changed now due to the difference in the lifestyle they're subjected to at home, as outlined. It sounds like you're doing a good job with yours.



Of course, you have to remember that we British are, as a generalisation, fairly inarticulate anyway. Stiff upper lip and all that.

lurcher
27-09-2008, 09:08
We'll just have to agree to differ, Nick. I know my own experiences :)

Btw, you appear to have 'missed' some questions I asked earlier... ;)

See my post #63.

Marco.

Ok,


what I meant was how best is the situation that we're all working too many hours to pay huge mortgages, etc, obsessed with material possessions, and so many people are living beyond their means to 'keep up with the Jones's', and getting into serious debt in the process best resolved?

I am not sure we can without reversing our history since before the industrial revolution. We are taught that our value to society and those around us is measured by our ability to produce. And to display that value we consume. The only way to break that cycle is to remove the effects of advertising, media, and the entire schooling system. Most people are not stupid, they realise that they are working themself to a early grave, but they are doing it for what they believe are good reasons, that hasn't changed for many years. Its part of the makeup of us as a country, and commercial interests just take advantage of that. No one person or group is to blame.


They are a useless waste of space and need sorted out. Answer me this: what good do these morons contribute?

You see, thats the wonderful contradiction in what you are saying. There is this group of people who have worked out that by using the system to their advantage, they can get all they want, live the life they want, without having to work from 9 to 5 till the grave. And you describe them as non contributing morons.

They contribute just as much and as little as the rest of us to society, the exist, they consume, and they create. Just because you don't value their contribution as much as others, is just your perspective. As valid a perspective as any other, but no more valid.

I would argue that the real cause of what could be seen as a problem in society now, is the way we now make ourself the most important thing, basically we measure everything as "whats in it for me". Just watch the TV, its all about instant personal gratification.

When we are all pushed to do better than the next family, often at their expense, is it not obvious why we can't leave our doors open anymore?

Marco
27-09-2008, 09:45
There is this group of people who have worked out that by using the system to their advantage, they can get all they want, live the life they want, without having to work from 9 to 5 till the grave.


Bloody hell, Nick. I can't believe I've just read that!

So that makes it ok does it, having scroungers and layabouts who contribute nothing whatsoever draining resources from the country that hard working tax payers like you or I pay towards?? - Them spawning more and more unruly brats to wander our streets causing mayhem simply to gain financial reward from child benefits???

All that is ok????

It makes my blood boil thinking that I help fund the lifestyle of these wasters :steam:

I'd bloody well ship them out of the country to some remote island and let them fend for themselves the first opportunity I got!! They're of no use to anyone.

I'm sorry, but we're MILES apart on this and I don't know of anyone, certainly people in my social circle, who would agree with you on this subject.

Frankly I'm shocked you think this way... But of course you're entitled to your opinion. I'll comment on the rest of your post later.

Marco.

lurcher
27-09-2008, 09:53
"There is this group of people who have worked out that by using the system to their advantage, they can get all they want, live the life they want, without having to work from 9 to 5 till the grave."

Bloody hell, Nick. I can't believe I've just read that!


I didn't say I believed that is was a good situation, but thats is how it works. I am not suggesting that society should not try and stop this, but it does fit your original definitions.


I'm sorry, but we're MILES apart on this and I don't know of anyone, certainly people in my social circle, who would agree with you on this subject.

I sort of assumed that would be the case.

anthonyTD
27-09-2008, 13:09
I didn't say I believed that is was a good situation, but thats is how it works. I am not suggesting that society should not try and stop this, but it does fit your original definitions.



I sort of assumed that would be the case.
hi nick,
i sort of understand where your coming from on this one, but i think you may have to explain what your really saying in a more explicit way before we can fully grasp your meaning.[say it again using diffrent words]:lol:
anthony...:):eyebrows:

lurcher
27-09-2008, 13:27
Ok, Marco started after having a go a the segment of society that do bugger all, and live off handouts from social services.

Then he wanted to know:


what I meant was how best is the situation that we're all working too many hours to pay huge mortgages, etc, obsessed with material possessions, and so many people are living beyond their means to 'keep up with the Jones's', and getting into serious debt in the process best resolved?


And I just pointed out the irony of the situation was that the group of people he would ship to a remote island have achieved exactly what he suggested.

They don't work long hours, they don't have large (or any) morgages, they seem to prefer personal gratification to material possesions, and they have little or any access to credit.

Sorry, but when I see hatred in any form displayed I will argue against it. Two wrongs do not make a right remember (though three lefts do), Just because I don't agree with Marcos view as to what should be done with the folk in question, does not mean I think its fine that such things goes on, and that solutions should not be found. Marco seems to be saying that if I don't agree with him, I must be on the "other side", the would is not black and white.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out -
because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out -
because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out -
because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me.

Mike
27-09-2008, 13:32
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out -
because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out -
because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out -
because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me.

I like that, so I had to look it up;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...

:)

The Grand Wazoo
27-09-2008, 13:40
Strange that in all the above there's no mention of morally bereft scumbags buying and selling something they've never seen. The ones who do so at no risk to themselves, on behalf of someone they've never met. The ones who expect to get a bonus every year that's several times more than most hard working folks (in the true meaning of hard work rather than being a bit pooped from a few hours yelling down the phone) see in their and their children's combined lifetimes.

Mike
27-09-2008, 13:45
Strange that in all the above there's no mention of morally bereft scumbags buying and selling something they've never seen. The ones who do so at no risk to themselves, on behalf of someone they've never met. The ones who expect to get a bonus every year that's several times more than most hard working folks (in the true meaning of hard work rather than being a bit pooped from a few hours yelling down the phone) see in their and their children's combined lifetimes.

Perhaps a little bit like the CEO's of 'the big 5' banks??? ;)

Not to mention the multitude of 'city traders' !!!

Iain Sinclair
27-09-2008, 14:30
Strange that in all the above there's no mention of morally bereft scumbags buying and selling something they've never seen. The ones who do so at no risk to themselves, on behalf of someone they've never met. The ones who expect to get a bonus every year that's several times more than most hard working folks (in the true meaning of hard work rather than being a bit pooped from a few hours yelling down the phone) see in their and their children's combined lifetimes.

I think there's a great deal of pleasure seeing these overpaid parasites get their comeuppance; the trouble is that the coming downturn is going to hurt the poor bloody infantry far more than it's going to hurt the parasites.

I can also kind of understand the people lurcher is referring to deciding not to get involved in the whole Protestant work ethic thing, especially when a series of dumb decisions by a bunch of rich Yanks can screw your job and everything you worked for years to achieve.

Iain Sinclair
27-09-2008, 14:36
I like that, so I had to look it up;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...

:)

HMHB do a great skit on that:

They came for the palmists, but I wasn’t a palmist so I did nothing
They came for the bungee jumpers, but I wasn’t a bungee jumper so I did nothing
They came for the players’ agents, but I wasn’t a players’ agent so I did nothing
They came for the Charles Manson fans, but I wasn’t a Charles Manson fan so I did nothing
They came for the reflexologists, but I wasn’t a reflexologist so I did nothing
They came for the camp TV chefs, but I wasn’t a camp TV chef so I did nothing
They came for the RoMos, I laughed
They came for the martial arts enthusiasts, but I wasn’t a martial arts enthusiast so I did nothing
They came for Eamonn Holmes and I think I’m right in saying I applauded
They came for the fire-eaters, but I wasn’t a fire-eater so I did nothing
They came for Danni Behr, I said she’s over there, behind the wardrobe

Turn a blind eye, sometimes it’s best to
Turn a blind eye, sometimes it’s best to
Turn a blind eye, sometimes it’s best to
Turn a blind eye, sometimes it’s best to
Turn a blind eye, sometimes it’s best to
Turn a blind eye, sometimes it’s best to
Turn a blind eye, sometimes it’s best to
Turn a blind eye, sometimes it’s best to

anthonyTD
27-09-2008, 17:13
Ok, Marco started after having a go a the segment of society that do bugger all, and live off handouts from social services.

Then he wanted to know:



And I just pointed out the irony of the situation was that the group of people he would ship to a remote island have achieved exactly what he suggested.

They don't work long hours, they don't have large (or any) morgages, they seem to prefer personal gratification to material possesions, and they have little or any access to credit.

Sorry, but when I see hatred in any form displayed I will argue against it. Two wrongs do not make a right remember (though three lefts do), Just because I don't agree with Marcos view as to what should be done with the folk in question, does not mean I think its fine that such things goes on, and that solutions should not be found. Marco seems to be saying that if I don't agree with him, I must be on the "other side", the would is not black and white.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out -
because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out -
because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out -
because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me.

there, see, i knew there was some logic in there, marco, nick really does have a point, the people with the type of mentality we are trying to aspire to are allready among us...:lolsign:

Beechwoods
27-09-2008, 18:39
I'm not sure of the point just made but I'm with Lurcher on this one. I can't blame anyone for their lifestyle choices and the reasons why folk find themselves on the dole, in debt, with 'too many kids' or whatever are not one-size fits all. These reasons are systemic and deep-seated. Bootstraps and hardwork alone don't cut it. Some of the most hardworking people I know are the ones who have had the shittiest life chances, and are the ones most likely to be hit by the current crisis.

It also seems curious that this thread is about unnecessary consumption - or consumption beyond means - and is found on a site devoted to a hobby that most people would consider unnecessary :) I'd guess a fair few readers have had to borrow at some point to cover an acquisition. Either short-term via credit cards or long term via other means.

At some point 'good', 'hardworking' and 'honest' folk are going to start losing their jobs and houses. When this starts affecting people we know attitudes will change, but until then I guess it's easy to point the finger at people who seem to deserve what they've got. The old adage 'there but for the grace of god go I' is a good one I think.

Iain Sinclair
27-09-2008, 18:44
It also seems curious that this thread is about unnecessary consumption - or consumption beyond means - and is found on a site devoted to a hobby that most people would consider unnecessary :) I'd guess a fair few readers have had to borrow at some point to cover an acquisition. Either short-term via credit cards or long term via other means.

At some point 'good', 'hardworking' and 'honest' folk are going to start losing their jobs and houses. When this starts affecting people we know attitudes will change, but until then I guess it's easy to point the finger at people who seem to deserve what they've got. The old adage 'there but for the grace of god go I' is a good one I think.

Well said (and the irony you point out hadn't escaped me).

anthonyTD
28-09-2008, 09:47
I'm not sure of the point just made but I'm with Lurcher on this one. I can't blame anyone for their lifestyle choices and the reasons why folk find themselves on the dole, in debt, with 'too many kids' or whatever are not one-size fits all. These reasons are systemic and deep-seated. Bootstraps and hardwork alone don't cut it. Some of the most hardworking people I know are the ones who have had the shittiest life chances, and are the ones most likely to be hit by the current crisis.

It also seems curious that this thread is about unnecessary consumption - or consumption beyond means - and is found on a site devoted to a hobby that most people would consider unnecessary :) I'd guess a fair few readers have had to borrow at some point to cover an acquisition. Either short-term via credit cards or long term via other means.

At some point 'good', 'hardworking' and 'honest' folk are going to start losing their jobs and houses. When this starts affecting people we know attitudes will change, but until then I guess it's easy to point the finger at people who seem to deserve what they've got. The old adage 'there but for the grace of god go I' is a good one I think.

hi all,
i think its inevitable that a topic like this one comes up on most internet discussions or forums from time to time, and we all have input we feel needs airing,but all jokes and finger pointing aside, like the man said, one size does not fit all, i know plenty of people who have worked hard all their lives and have lived and died with next to nothing, but you know what, they are some of the most contented and down to earth people you would ever wish to meet, and i am thankfull that i have known them, because it has helpped me on many ocasions in my life to put things into perspective, and to value whats really important. but i fear these are not the people that the likes of marco, and others on here are concerned about, i think all of us have to look in at our selves from time to time, and do what feels right to us, and for the ones we care about, yes, there are a lot of people in this world that we can look at with only knowing and seeing a glimpse into their lives and make an on the spot judgement as to what type of person we think they are, but every one has a story,if we would only listen we may come away with a diffrent perspective.
regards,anthony,TD...:)

Marco
28-09-2008, 11:17
Guys,

Basically it's very simple:

I have no problem whatsoever with people who contribute to the economy of the country by earning an honest living, even if it means some 'high flying' bank executive taking home ten times more in a month than I earn in a whole year. As long as he or she has earned it fairly and squarely, and legally, then I couldn't give a damn. The fact is they'll be working in a far more high pressure, volatile environment, and far longer hours than me, so good luck to them. However, if they 'f*ck up' big time or do something wrong and underhand then they deserve to be held accountable and punished accordingly.

I am not and never will be jealous or envious of someone else's success or wealth. Success is to be celebrated, not maligned. We can learn from the Americans here! This unfortunate way of thinking seems largely a British thing. I really dislike people who possess a jealous mentality - it's a dangerous and odious trait.

What I have a MAJOR problem with, however, is the scroungers and layabouts who contribute nothing whatsoever to the economy and who think they're entitled to take without giving anything financially in return, expecting others who contribute to the economy with their hard-earned cash to fund their layabout lifestyle. This is *NOT* right no matter what anyone says and something should be done about it.

It is a different thing entirely (although I understand the irony inferred) when a working man or woman makes a decision to cut back his or her hours and see more of his or her family, or live more within his or her means (as I've suggested) and so not work themselves into an early grave. At least they're still contributing to the economy in the meantime unlike the scumbag scroungers!! To compare the two is just obtuse.

I have no problem whatsoever with genuine people who cannot work for whatever reason claiming the benefits they need but not with scum who think it's clever to milk the system and make others pay for their layabout lifestyle. I simply cannot understand anyone who sympathises with or who attempts to justify this type of mentality.

Nick, you can speak out as much as you like, mate. It doesn't matter how much you disagree with me. This is not a forum where people are gagged for arguing with those in charge, so bring it on. I like a 'robust' debate! ;)


...but i fear these are not the people that the likes of marco, and others on here are concerned about...


Indeed not, Anthony. There are many genuine decent people such as you refer to - I don't have a problem with anyone like that. All I'm trying to do is to get people to take a step back and look at their lives to see if they're genuinely achieving what's best for themselves, their families, and their quality of life or if they're doing something rather different and counterproductive...

Marco.

anthonyTD
28-09-2008, 12:21
Guys,

Basically it's very simple:

I have no problem whatsoever with people who contribute to the economy of the country by earning an honest living, even if it means some 'high flying' bank executive taking home ten times more in a month than I earn in a whole year. As long as he or she has earned it fairly and squarely, and legally, then I couldn't give a damn. The fact is they'll be working in a far more high pressure, volatile, environment, and far longer hours than me, so good luck to them. However, if they 'f*ck up' big time or do something wrong and underhand then they deserve to be held accountable and punished accordingly.

I am not and never will be jealous or envious of someone else's success or wealth. Success is to be celebrated, not maligned. We can learn from the Americans here! This unfortunate way of thinking seems largely a British thing. I really dislike people who possess a jealous mentality - it's a dangerous and odious trait.

What I have a MAJOR problem with, however, is the scroungers and layabouts who contribute nothing whatsoever to the economy and who think they're entitled to take without giving anything financially in return, expecting others who contribute to the economy with their hard-earned cash to fund their layabout lifestyle. This is *NOT* right no matter what anyone says and something should be done about it.

It is a different thing entirely (although I understand the irony inferred) when a working man or woman makes a decision to cut back his or her hours and see more of his or her family, or live more within his or her means (as I've suggested) and so not work themselves into an early grave. At least they're still contributing to the economy in the meantime unlike the scumbag scroungers!! To compare the two is just obtuse.

I have no problem whatsoever with genuine people who cannot work for whatever reason claiming the benefits they need but not with scum who think it's clever to milk the system and make others pay for their layabout lifestyle. I simply cannot understand anyone who sympathises with or who attempts to justify this type of mentality.

Nick, you can speak out as much as you like, mate. It doesn't matter how much you disagree with me. This is not a forum where people are gagged for arguing with those in charge, so bring it on. I like a 'robust' debate! ;)



I
ndeed not, Anthony. There are many genuine decent people such as you refer to - I don't have a problem with anyone like that. All I'm trying to do is to get people to take a step back and look at their lives to see if they're genuinely achieving what's best for themselves, their families, and their quality of life or if they're doing something rather different and counterproductive...

Marco.
marco,
i dont think there is a person [in their right minds anyway] on here that would disagree with you on the scum bag mentality you describe, and yes it does annoy me and i presume a lot of other people when it would seem that these people get away with living a life like this, but, if you look at the bigger picture i would guess that a big majority of these people are in their situation because frankly, they have given up trying to live or to even aspire to the type of life it would seem the "normal" person has to be seen to be living, and these are the people that there should be help for, ie, getting them back into society and giving them a feeling of self worth again, that i feel is all it would take for the majority of "scum bags" to get off their asses and become a contributing member of of society again, but then, what do i know,after having lived and grown up on one of the worst council estates in south wales...
anthony...:)

Marco
28-09-2008, 12:37
but, if you look at the bigger picture i would guess that a big majority of these people are in their situation because frankly, they have given up trying to live or to even aspire to the type of life it would seem the "normal" person has to be seen to be living, and these are the people that there should be help for, ie, getting them back into society and giving them a feeling of self worth again, that i feel is all it would take for the majority of "scum bags" to get off their asses and become a contributing member of of society again


Anthony, I don't have a problem with those sorts of people. It's the scumbags that have bugger all wrong with them - they're just too bloody lazy to work and think: 'If I spawn enough brats and make up some fictitious invalidity then I'll get enough benefits to enable me to sit on my fat arse all day and do f*ck all' - it's those losers I have no time for!

They contribute nothing worthwhile to society whatsoever and should be made to get off their lazy backsides and earn a living!! I'd 'neuter' them after having two kids. That's more than enough specimens to add to the current 'Neanderthal' gene pool!

Watch the Jeremy Kyle show for a laugh and you'll see exactly the type of 'characters' I'm referring to.

Marco.

Steve Toy
28-09-2008, 13:25
To reconcile Marco's and Nick's respective stances as well as return this to the OP topic I have the following to say:

Britain is country divided between those who work harder than is good for their health, quality of life and general well-being on the one hand and the unproductive who self-gratify, consume and breed on the other, with the former subsidising the latter.

As we enter a phase of economic turmoil it is clearer than ever that the pattern of maintaining this state of affars by taxing the overstretched productive members of society in order to subsidise the unproductive parasites, while plugging the fiscal gap through increased public borrowing, is unsustainable.

In order to get us out of this economic quagmire the government must vastly reduce public expenditure. Initially this could be achieved by cutting out waste. Government ministers and those holding public purse strings should remember that they are public servants in charge of spending money that still belongs to the taxpayer. As such they should spend this money wisely, realising and accepting that the money is not theirs to squander as they see fit.

I do not believe in the concept of relative poverty. The state should provide only the bare minimum for survival and this should include the following:

1) Enough to eat
2) Shelter
3) Warmth
4) Security
5) Healthcare free at the point of use
6) Education free at the point of use to a certain age and then to anyone else who clearly deserves it. By that I mean they may become more productive as a result.
7) Access to public highways free at the point of use.
8) Privacy
9) Freedom of thought and expression.

I agree that if we don't provide this very basic level of existance then the unproductive are more likely to commit crime in order just to survive. The death penalty for stealing food was never effective.

I believe in equality of opportunity - everyone gets the same start in life but what they go on to achieve after that is up to them. If that creates an unequal outcome then so be it. That's fair!

Hard work should be rewarded. Success, initiative and common sense should be celebrated. I agree that those who are ill, disabled or suffer (severe) learning difficulties should receive more assistance than those who are just lazy. The unproductive should certainly not be given financial encouragement to breed for this creates not just an unnecessary burdon for the productive, it gives the unproductive a reason not to mend their ways and over successive generations lowers the IQ of the general population.

Those who live outside our economic free trading area should not be permitted to burdon our society and place greater strain on our resources and infrastructure by seeking economic asylum within our shores. International movement of people other than for tourism should be subject to bilateral agreements with individual states outside of this area. As the global population grows, ours within our boundaries should be allowed to remain stable.

By adopting the above approach I'm sure that Britain can overcome its current difficulties and everyone will benefit as a result.

lurcher
28-09-2008, 17:29
Marco, sorry, but you have created a bunch of strawmen here.


I have no problem whatsoever with people who contribute to the economy of the country by earning an honest living, even if it means some 'high flying' bank executive taking home ten times more in a month than I earn in a whole year. As long as he or she has earned it fairly and squarely, and legally, then I couldn't give a damn. The fact is they'll be working in a far more high pressure, volatile environment, and far longer hours than me, so good luck to them. However, if they 'f*ck up' big time or do something wrong and underhand then they deserve to be held accountable and punished accordingly.

Yep, but thats not the reality, if you call making a huge profit, while destroying the jobs of hard working folk a honest living, then we will have to differ on the definition of honest. I suspect thet they are not woking under any more pressure than a single mum having to work every hour she can to keep her kids fed. And I suspect that many of those you talk about are paying less tax than you and me.


I am not and never will be jealous or envious of someone else's success or wealth. Success is to be celebrated, not maligned. We can learn from the Americans here! This unfortunate way of thinking seems largely a British thing. I really dislike people who possess a jealous mentality - it's a dangerous and odious trait.

Good, I don't think anyone mentioned jealousy, as I said before, I was talking about fairness.


What I have a MAJOR problem with, however, is the scroungers and layabouts who contribute nothing whatsoever to the economy and who think they're entitled to take without giving anything financially in return, expecting others who contribute to the economy with their hard-earned cash to fund their layabout lifestyle. This is *NOT* right no matter what anyone says and something should be done about it.

Yep, agreed, what we do disagree on though is what should be done, and you seem to insist on ignoring the fact that people fitting your description exist at both ends of the financial spectra.


It is a different thing entirely (although I understand the irony inferred) when a working man or woman makes a decision to cut back his or her hours and see more of his or her family, or live more within his or her means (as I've suggested) and so not work themselves into an early grave. At least they're still contributing to the economy in the meantime unlike the scumbag scroungers!! To compare the two is just obtuse.


I never compaired them, only commented that they both fitted your requirement to find a way of working less hours.


I have no problem whatsoever with genuine people who cannot work for whatever reason claiming the benefits they need but not with scum who think it's clever to milk the system and make others pay for their layabout lifestyle. I simply cannot understand anyone who sympathises with or who attempts to justify this type of mentality.

I neither sympathise or justify their existance. As I have said before, the problem I have is with the mentality you are exposing in yourself that seems happy to group a number of people under a single tag, and point the finger of blame at them. History should show you that only negative results come from that, and the fact that you seem to have the "If you are not with me, you are against me" view only makes it more worrying. They are not "scum" or "scroungers", they are human beings like you and me, and its the way you seemingly find it easy to forget that that causes me concern.

SteveTheShadow
28-09-2008, 19:13
Having read all of this thread, I have one word that cuts through all the fog
and posturing that some of the hang 'em and flog 'em brigade are coming out with. The word is...


Thatcher.

Having lived, worked in industry and taught in South Yorks all my working life. TBW and her cronies are at the root of all the problems we face today.

To all the Thatcher loving "new entrepreneurs" who fancied themselves as property speculators and are now crying to Mom 'cos their houses are losing value faster than the Titanic took in water I say oh dear! Now sad! Never mind!

To all those who embraced public utility privatisation, bought their shares like good little Thatcherites and then had the stupidity to think they were stock market whizz-kids, able to play in the same league as the big boys I say what a set of deluded plonkers you really were Rodney!

To have stood there with my mate Phil watching from the garden of an old people's sheltered housing complex in Stainforth as a 500 strong bunch of Metropolitan Police hooligans bashed men women and children over the heads with 2ft batons on the Hatfield Main colliery pit road, then having to run as fast as we could back to out BT vans in order not to get hammered ourselves was shall we say a disturbing experience.

The communities that were so irreparably damaged by out beloved leaders still bear the scars today. To those who would criticise chavs at al as nothing more than scumbag scroungers, they ought to think for one moment why it is that they are the way they are.

In the 1980s with no hope and no chance of finding a job again, as their livelihoods were buried under out of town shopping Malls and temples of the new consumerism, the present day teenager's parents totally lost faith in "the system" that they believed had betrayed them. Labour for the late 1970s hyper inflation and point-blank refusal to pay public service employees a living wage and the Conservatives for the total contempt in which they were held by Thatcher, Tebbit et al. "the enemy within" they were called by Maggie.

Nurses were regarded by 'Thatch as "callous individuals with no regard for their patients" when they dared to stick it out for a decent wage. The four million unemployed, who were out of work through no fault of their own were branded either as "moaning Minnies" by Thatch or whingers who should "get on their bikes" and find alternative employment in the then newly burgeoning service sector, by the honourable Mr Tebbit.

So reviled by the Government, pilloried in the press as the last defiant remnants of sixties socialism and completely ignored by those in the south and other regions that had not had their hearts ripped out, these people got understandably bitter about the rotten hand they had been dealt.

A sizeable number dropped out of the system that had failed them and decided to get what they could out of a society that had basically dumped them into the toilet, forgotten about them and got on with acquiring goods and property.

These so called "scroungers" gave rise to the present generation of chavs who feel that "society offers us nothing, education offers our kids nothing, the government are a bunch of tossers, so why not duck, dive, wheel, deal and steal your way through life?" I heard that from a parent of an about to be excluded, kid in a school I taught in as Assistant Head Teacher a few years ago and TBH I could see her point, though it would of course have been totally unprofessional to have encouraged her and her kid down that route.

The trouble was that New Labour had to carry on the ways of Maggie because she had left such a scorched earth that none of the policies she carried out were reversible by 1997. Indeed by May 1997 there was no such thing as society, only individuals out for themselves, and so tied into property, "investments" and debt, it was impossible to do anything but get into more debt. Yep it was all false, with no manufacturing sector of any world consequence left what else could one do but make money, borrow money and shift money about to make more money?

It took 25 years for the whole edifice to crash down around our ears and poor old Mags is so senile she can't remember what day of the week it is, yet despite all this there are still folks around our way who think she was the best thing that happened to the country.

Trouble was she was elected in 1979 on the back of a let's sock it to the unions" sentiment. Hatred in other words. When you elect a government to stuff it to a group of people be it chavs immigrants or bolshy union bosses, you get the society you deserve.

Poor old Tony Blair genuinely believed that "things could only get better", but the damage was irretrievably done by 1997. The wrecking ball was in motion and there was nothing the poor lad could do to stop it. Poor Gordon is unfortunately for him about to get the Thatcher wrecking ball right in the chops.

Steve

Beechwoods
28-09-2008, 19:19
Wow. Great post, Steve. I think that just about sums it up.

Marco
28-09-2008, 19:20
Nick,


Yep, but thats not the reality, if you call making a huge profit, while destroying the jobs of hard working folk a honest living, then we will have to differ on the definition of honest.


I'm not sure I understand. Why should their actions destroy the jobs of "hard working folk"? I'm talking about in general not specific situations. Perhaps you could quote some examples of what you're referring to...

Why do you think the people you're referring to are necessarily more hard working than those "making a huge profit" and presume the latter are automatically dishonest? And if we're talking about dishonesty how much more dishonest can you get than people pretending they're disabled and making fraudulent benefit claims regarding such, or having children under the premise of making money from child benefits? That's dishonest and abhorrent in the extreme!

I guess that in reference to "hard working folk" it's a question of determining what is considered as "hard work". Hard work is not always a physical thing - some jobs are mentally demanding in a pressurised environment and require specific expertise which for those reasons commands appropriate financial reward, or where incentives are high in terms of bonus or commission. There's an old saying in sales that goes: 'work smart, not hard', and there's nothing wrong with that. This discussion is not about class or comparing how hard different sections of society work; it's about exposing the lazy scroungers who don't do ANY and get paid for it!


I suspect thet they are not woking under any more pressure than a single mum having to work every hour she can to keep her kids fed.


I have the greatest respect and sympathy for single mums, but there are different types of pressure and the type they experience is entirely different to that experienced by someone at the top of their game at the highest level in sales working for an international bank or some other major player in the financial industry. You cannot say that one type of pressure is 'superior' or more demanding than the other - there are simply too many variables.


And I suspect that many of those you talk about are paying less tax than you and me.


That is of no concern to me whatsoever. I am simply not interested who pays what in terms of tax. At least those I'm referring to are paying something, probably quite a lot, whereas the scroungers and layabouts are contributing nothing, and I don't include single mums in that if they're able to work.


Yep, agreed, what we do disagree on though is what should be done, and you seem to insist on ignoring the fact that people fitting your description exist at both ends of the financial spectra.


Nope, not at all, of course they exist at both ends of the financial spectra but those fitting my description are contributing to the economy whereas the wasters and layabouts aren't - that's the key difference. I simply object to lazy bastards getting a free ride when I have to work for everything I get in life - that's the difference!


I neither sympathise or justify their existance. As I have said before, the problem I have is with the mentality you are exposing in yourself that seems happy to group a number of people under a single tag, and point the finger of blame at them.


Well if you lie and cheat, make fraudulent benefit claims, take but don't give to the country financially, and stick two fingers up to the system that everyone else has to abide by then you deserve to have the finger of blame pointed at you for being a total and utter scumbag! Sorry, but I feel VERY strongly about this. This of course happens at both ends of the financial spectra.


History should show you that only negative results come from that, and the fact that you seem to have the "If you are not with me, you are against me" view only makes it more worrying.


You've got a point, and I agree, but this is just something that I feel extremely passionate about; it's an odious problem that I'd love to eradicate from society for the benefit of all decent honest and hard working people, and yes some of them are senior bank executives ;)


They are not "scum" or "scroungers", they are human beings like you and me, and its the way you seemingly find it easy to forget that that causes me concern.

Well, yes they're human beings, but they are also most certainly scroungers and layabouts. Given the actions of these people how could they not be described as such??

What else do you call people who are perfectly able to work but through choice don't and instead break the law by making fraudulent benefit claims and use other people's money to fund their lifestyle??? Perhaps you could come up with an alternative description for these types of human beings, criminals perhaps? The world is full of human beings, Nick, but the fact is some of them are bad, nasty or evil, and they deserve to be exposed and dealt with accordingly! Some of them come from the top 5% of earners too - I'm not disputing that.

Marco.

Marco
28-09-2008, 19:34
Hi Steve,

Great post, and well-written... That is if you're 'into' politics and political history. I'm not in the slightest, so I'll leave others who are to argue this area of the debate :)

Marco.

Prince of Darkness
28-09-2008, 19:39
Wow. Great post, Steve. I think that just about sums it up.

Seconded!http://img2.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/sign/sign0188.gif (http://www.mysmiley.net)

SteveTheShadow
28-09-2008, 19:39
Hi Steve,

Great post, and well-written... That is if you're 'into' politics and political history. I'm not in the slightest, so I'll leave others who are to argue this area of the debate :)

Marco.

Hi Marco

You could call it politics. However, That's how it was. I saw it first hand. You can't separate politics from this mess we are in at the moment. It is politicians that have buggered it up and it is politicians who will keep on buggering things up.

Steve

Marco
28-09-2008, 19:42
Yes, Steve, I don't disagree, but as I've said earlier in the thread there's a time when you have to stand on your own two feet, deal with life, and not blame everything on politicians. Did you read what I wrote before regarding this? :)

Marco.

SteveTheShadow
28-09-2008, 19:56
Yes, Steve, I don't disagree, but as I've said earlier in the thread there's a time when you have to stand on your own two feet, deal with life, and not blame everything on politicians. Did you read what I wrote before regarding this? :)

Marco.

Trouble is Marco it is politicians who have a direct effect on every aspect of our lives. I don't mind "dealing with life" as you put it or standing on my own two feet, which I do at the 'mo as a self-employed person. But when a whole section of the working population is wiped out at the behest of someone with a score to settle and a whole section of publicly owned utilities are sold off to cronies who then make billions selling it on to foreign companies. I think you are being a little naive.

These crooks then have the gall to cry for a bail out at our expense when things go wrong.

It is these parasites that should be bearing the brunt of your venom not the "chavs" who are frankly, by your own definition dealing with life, standing on their own two feet and making the best of the hand they have been dealt.

Their mums, Dads and grandparents might have, quite rightly, blamed it on the politicians but the present generation are just getting on with life as best they can, like the rest of us.

Steve

Marco
28-09-2008, 20:05
Steve,

You make some good points but like I said I'll leave the political side of the debate to others. One thing I would say though is when a government whose policies you don't agree with are voted into power, short of organising a protest, there's not much you can do about it until the time comes again to vote. So what do you do meanwhile, moan and groan about politicians and how unfair things are or simply get on with life as best you can and try to make your lifestyle as resilient as possible to their policies? I will always do the latter. Whilst I sympathise towards those who've suffered in the past at the hands of a particular government life’s too short to be bitter about political matters which you have little or no control over, and so I don’t see the point in lamenting decisions that can’t be changed, certainly in the short to medium term, and especially the past. I’m not saying you’re doing that, though.


It is these parasites that should be bearing the brunt of your venom not the "chavs"...


Parasites - I like that! That's EXACTLY what the scumbags I've been referring to are!! Cheers :)

Marco.

shane
28-09-2008, 21:38
This thread's getting more like reading the Daily Mail every day...

Marco
28-09-2008, 21:42
LOL. I'd perhaps be able to relate to that comment if I bothered reading newspapers! ;)

Marco.

shane
28-09-2008, 21:55
Perhaps you should.

Marco
28-09-2008, 22:06
Usually the only time I come into contact with a newspaper is when I'm eating fish and chips!

Actually, that's not true. I occasionally buy the Scottish Daily Record, but only to keep up to date with what's happening in the SPL, particularly with Glasgow Celtic :)

I have little interest in anything else newspapers have to offer, least of all what political slant they have. If I want news I watch it on TV or via the Internet.

Marco.

SteveTheShadow
28-09-2008, 22:12
You make some good points but like I said I'll leave the political side of the debate to others.It's not politics Marco, It's fact. Unlike politicians there is no political spin on that story.


Life’s too short to be bitter about political matters which you have little or no control over, and so I don’t see the point in lamenting decisions that can’t be changed, certainly in the short to medium term, and especially the past. I’m not saying you’re necessarily doing that, though. Why is it that whenever someone expresses a negative opinion about something that has happened, they are invariably referred to as being bitter, especially by the ones who screwed them over in the first place. All that does is divorce the action from the consequences a salving of the consciences of those who perpetrated the deeds.

I'm not bitter about what happened. I was a part of a clearing out of staff at BT after the exchanges were all converted to digital. I was made redundant in 1992 and used the opportunity to go to university as a mature student and retrain as a teacher. I was made redundant as part of a natural evolutionary process caused by advances in technology, such has been the way of the world for generations.

Miners, steelworkers and many many more workers in the nationalised industries were shat upon from a great height whether we like it or not, and a legacy of unemployment and the creation of an underclass of no-hopers has been a direct consequence of those years. As a schoolteacher I have, and continue to, work at the sharp end of the social and economic problems caused by this political meddling with people's livelihoods.

It's no good talking the old chestnut that the past is dead and we must live for today nonsense. History has a direct impact on the present and as a society we ought to be attempting to do something about the problems that have been created rather than serving ASBOs and using derogatory terms about people who largely don't deserve the labels they have forced on them by the Daily Mail readership.


Parasites - I like that! That's EXACTLY what the scumbags I've been referring to are!! Cheers :)The current financial and economic problems this country faces have nothing to do with "scumbag scroungers" and everything to do with unfettered greed.

Blaming the country's ills on immigrants, chavs and scroungers is so wide of the mark. It would be funny if it wasn't so serious. But these people are easy scapegoats and always will be.

Earlier in this thread someone mentioned shipping all the scroungers off somewhere to fend for themselves. Might I propose an alternative? Ship all the bigots xenophobes and greed infested slimeballs cluttering up this sceptered isle off to a nice desert island where they could kill each other and rip each other off without involving the rest of us. That'd be nice.


Steve

Marco
28-09-2008, 22:19
Agreed! [The last bit]. But you obviously didn't read this properly:


I’m not saying you’re necessarily doing that, though.


I wasn't accusing *you* specifically of being bitter; just simply referring to the mindset of dwelling on the past and things which none of us can do anything much about. I understand what you're saying about history and its relevance to the present day, and agree, but I simply find it easier and more practical to focus on the present, forget the past, and plan for the future - which itself is a hard enough job to be getting on with! :)


As a schoolteacher I have, and continue to, work at the sharp end of the social and economic problems caused by this political meddling with people's livelihoods.


My wife is a lecturer in key skills and art at a local college and is exposed daily to people who have suffered in this way, so I'm sure she could relate to the problems you're describing. I hear all about it on a daily basis!

Marco.

Cotlake
28-09-2008, 23:17
Having read through everything my conclusion is that there are one or two sage points being made but most of this thread is opinionated based on ignorance and a certain judgemental perception with little foundation in fact.

Most of the issues raised here are based on what the so call spongers, chavs and parasites within our society do.

For a moment, disregard your own responsible upbringing and imagine being born into a family (probably single parent) where the last three generations have been supported by the state and they are totally organised within the dependancy culture. How would you develop your life? You have absolutely no concept on doing a fair days work for a fair days pay. Actually you can't even comprehend it per se. However, you will learn from your parent(s) how to manipulate the system so you can get the best return on DWP benefits. That is actually the skill required to get the best you can and it is now passed down from generation to generation, thus providing a reasonable living without having to work because as an individual you are considered by the masses as unemployable. In terms of the welfare state, we're now on forth generation users.

Little happens in schools to break the chain or correct this kind of thing because they are always distracted with the latest bit of social/political correctness designed to ensure everyone is ok and feels valued.

Many political moves have brought great things for our country and society. In my view it started with the NHS and has moved on. The majority of people who receive state benefits to live are genuine cases. Without doubt there is a percentage that manipulate the system, but Is it right to beat them all up when they've been brought up to expect nothing different? I've worked hard for the last 30 years in my shortly to end occupation, mostly engaging with the very so called 'wasters' highlighted here. Some of them are genuinly in need of support and some just use the system occupationally........exactly, manipulation of the system has become their occupation!

However, to put this in perspective, I also see colleagues who earn the same as me but are actually pretty idle and do little to contribute to the organisational goal. I have no knowledge on the bankers who earn high bonuses, but it does seem to me that whatever level you are at within society, employment or even unemployment, there will always be a percentage of people who will take advantage of the system and make the best dishonest advantage they can for themselves. The sadness for me, particularly on the benefit front, is that the skills now being aquired at a forth generation level to manipulate the system includes no personal concept that what they do is dishonest. Moving on, even my idle colleagues or even the rich bankers don't realise the dishonesty eliment. That is the product of a moraless society. If you have a moraless society, be sure you'll get the government, local authorirty, police force et al that you morally deserve. Their performance will reflect what is currently socially acceptable, so don't complain.

The NHS and the introduction of the welfare state in the UK surely should continue to be heralded as a great move forward and in the majority of cases, those who use these organisations rightfully get supported in their moments of need. Without doubt there is a percentage who abuse the system but actually in real terms, these remain the minority (believe it or not).

If you want to continue spitting your venom at these minority groups, much more might be achieved by challenging those who might actually be able to make a difference and change the system, but be sure it is a big challenge as it is now an in-bread function. It's a bit like trying to break the chain of domestic violence or family sexual abuse. When you dig into the history you find its a family feature from generation to generation.

Marco
28-09-2008, 23:27
Great post, Greg. I will reply later. I must say, chaps, the quality of your responses in this thread have been nothing short of excellent. It's a credit to the forum. I'm off to listen to some tunes now, and then bed, so until tomorrow... :)

Marco.

anthonyTD
29-09-2008, 09:05
well put Steve and Greg,
excelent read, and very thought provoking indeed!!!
anthony...:)

Marco
29-09-2008, 09:43
Greg,


For a moment, disregard your own responsible upbringing and imagine being born into a family (probably single parent) where the last three generations have been supported by the state and they are totally organised within the dependancy culture. How would you develop your life?


That's a tough question to answer. I would hope that I'd have the strength of character not to become a victim of my circumstances and do something constructive with my life somehow by earning an honest living, but of course that's much easier said than done. There are numerous successful people today, and even some celebrities, who’ve come from similar troublesome origins that have become a success despite of them, so growing up as you describe doesn't automatically mean that you'll be victimised by the dependency culture. Strength of character and inheriting genes out with the norm amongst those you’re referring to is the key here I feel. You might end up taking after a great, great, great grandfather who once done something decent with his life! ;)


You have absolutely no concept on doing a fair days work for a fair days pay. Actually you can't even comprehend it per se. However, you will learn from your parent(s) how to manipulate the system so you can get the best return on DWP benefits. That is actually the skill required to get the best you can and it is now passed down from generation to generation, thus providing a reasonable living without having to work because as an individual you are considered by the masses as unemployable.


I don't doubt that's true, in your profession you must have had plenty of experience of this, but by accepting this situation as something that 'just exists' and 'an inevitable part of modern society' it's not helping to solve the problem, is it? I'm not for a moment suggesting that you're doing this, but some of the other posts I've read give the impression that we've just to shrug our shoulders and simply accept what these people do is an unfortunate part of life. I don't except that for one moment. They should be tracked down and prevented from leading their fraudulent existence just the same as the financial executives Nick and Steve were referring to so that hard working tax payers like you and me no longer have to fund the parasites!

Quite simply, this "dependency culture" should never have been allowed to exist in the first place. Of course people will blame the government for this and certain political decisions that have been made in the past, and I accept that's part of the problem, but I go back again to victim mentality and strength of character - it's easier to slip into the quagmire and become a victim of your circumstances than it is to stand on your own two feet and deal with life in the proper manner. Unfortunately with these people it's the former not the latter trait that usually prevails..


Little happens in schools to break the chain or correct this kind of thing because they are always distracted with the latest bit of social/political correctness designed to ensure everyone is ok and feels valued.


Tell me about it. Schools are now a misguided bastion of political correctness and this makes me nearly as mad as exposing the financial parasites in our society. I could go on in great detail about this (LOL!) but safe to say, for example, that banning competitive sports so that 'little Johhny' who's too fat to run or kick a ball (because his parents stuff him full of junk food) doesn't feel 'inadequate' or 'undervalued' is a bloody joke! - Political correctness? Pah! It's another one of modern society's self-inflicted diseases :steam:


Many political moves have brought great things for our country and society. In my view it started with the NHS and has moved on. The majority of people who receive state benefits to live are genuine cases. Without doubt there is a percentage that manipulate the system, but Is it right to beat them all up when they've been brought up to expect nothing different?


No, I guess not. But it's hard not to feel aggrieved when you have to work bloody hard for what you get in life and some layabout who's perfectly able but too lazy to work is getting paid by us through taxes for sitting on his or her (often fat) arse. That's the harsh reality I'm afraid.


I've worked hard for the last 30 years in my shortly to end occupation, mostly engaging with the very so called 'wasters' highlighted here. Some of them are genuinly in need of support and some just use the system occupationally........exactly, manipulation of the system has become thier occupation!


And we simply can't sit back and tolerate it. What would you suggest is the best way of helping to eradicate the problem? Let's move forward now from vilifying these people (which I know I've done my fair share of) to offering solutions of how to tackle the problem...


However, to put this in perspective, I also see collegues who earn the same as me but are actually pretty idle and do little to contribute to the organisational goal. I have no knowledge on the bankers who earn high bonuses, but it does seem to me that whatever level you are at within society, employment or even unemployment, there will always be a percentage of people who will take advantage of the system and make the best dishonest advantage they can for themselves.


Yes you're absolutely right, and this also pisses me off. The irony is it's quite often the people who exhibit this bad attitude who end up in the best jobs! Corruption, 'back handers’, and 'jobs for the boys' often play a big part in this. I can imagine quite a lot of this exists in your "shortly to end" profession ;)


The sadness for me, particularly on the benefit front, is that the skills now being aquired at a forth generation level to manipulate the system includes no personal concept that what they do is dishonest. Moving on, even my idle colleagues or even the rich bankers don't realise the dishonesty eliment. That is the product of a moraless society. If you have a moraless society, be sure you'll get the government, local authorirty, police force et al that you morally deserve. Their performance will reflect what is currently socially acceptable, so don't complain.


I couldn't agree more. There are many things responsible for this, but if you go right the way back through the generations the problems in existence now are in some way to do with the way people have been brought up and being victims of their circumstances. Historically, bad parents from all parts of the class divide have so much to answer for! The sad fact is some people just aren't fit to have children.


The NHS and the introduction of the welfare state in the UK surely should continue to be heralded as a great move forward and in the majority of cases, those who use these organisations rightfully get supported at their moments of need. Without doubt there is a percentage who abuse the system but actually in real terms, these remain the minority (believe it or not).


Yes of course one would presume that's the case otherwise we'd be in total turmoil.

Doing get me wrong, it might not seem like it but I'm all for supporting genuine people in need, and indeed do so by contributing to charities and doing voluntary work on occasions for certain disadvantaged groups within my local community. I actually enjoy this very much and seeing the joy you can bring to someone's life by doing something which to us seems trivial. I can also say with absolute certainty that if I were a multi-millionaire I would use some of my wealth to help the poor and disadvantaged people of this world; nothing would give me more pleasure. Have you watched the programme 'The Secret Millionaire'? If I were in their position I would emulate them.

No, I enjoy helping genuine people in need when I can - it's just the layabout parasites I can't stand. The fact is one of the greatest crimes they commit is that by fraudulently claiming benefits they're not entitled to money is, as a result, not going to the genuine people who need it. It's this that makes my blood boil more than anything!!


If you want to continue spitting your venom at these minority groups, much more might be achieved by challenging those who might actually be able to make a difference and change the system, but be sure it is a big challenge as it is now an in-bread function. It's a bit like trying to break the chain of domestic violence or family sexual abuse. When you dig into the history you find its a family feature from generation to generation.

You're absolutely right, and I'd love to be in a position to do something effective about it. Rest assured that if I were an MP finding these people and taking them to task would be amongst my number one policy priorities! As a normal citizen I wouldn't hesitate reporting these types of people to the authorities if I had the necessary proof.

As an aside, as a soon to be ex-policeman, in your estimation and experience how much crime and thus cost to the tax payer is directly attributable to children spawned by these benefits parasites roaming the streets at night instead of being indoors and looked after by normal well-adjusted responsible parents?

Marco.

Mike
29-09-2008, 12:48
What about the increases in tax we will all end up paying in order to bail out the banks who've made the royal balls up that is largely the cause of 'the credit crunch'? (remember that?)

Marco, you seem to have said you have no problem with high payed bankers receiving large bonuses if I remember rightly?

Who caused the credit crunch?

Marco
29-09-2008, 13:07
Mike,

I have no problem with highly paid investment bankers receiving large bonuses as long as they've been earned fairly and squarely, and legally. If not, then I most certainly do have a problem with it, just the same as I do with other parasites in society!

I simply abhor the 'take, take, take, but give nothing back' mentality on all levels. However I also believe that people who work in pressurised and volatile working environments who possess expertise in a specialised area deserve to be rewarded for success at whatever financial rate is applicable in their area of the profession.

If someone is making millions legitimately then I say good luck to them. It’s the same with professional footballers. Is Christiano Ronaldo worth £150k a week, or whatever he gets? I say yes he is because that’s the 'going rate' for a professional footballer at his level. It’s the same with other people who command 'ridiculous' salaries. If you're fortunate enough to enter this type of playground, in whatever profession, then as far as I'm concerned you’ve earned the right to reap the rewards. I'm just not jealous of resentful of anyone's success no matter how 'obscene' it may seem.

I'm in agreement with you about who caused the credit crunch, but I'm more interested in diversifying the discussion into other closely related subjects such as I addressed in my opening post and latterly with what I have written to Nick and Greg.

Marco.

shane
29-09-2008, 13:25
I have no problem with highly paid investment bankers receiving large bonuses as long as they've been earned fairly and squarely, and legally.

Nor me. What I do have a problem with is bankers earning huge bonusses by making criminally stupid investments with my money, and then expecting me to bail them out (as a taxpayer) when it all goes tits up and everyone's suddenly so surprised and ready to blame everyone else.

Make no mistake, the fundamental cause of this problem is pure unalloyed greed on the part of those in the finance industry, both here and in the USA, deliberately ignoring obvious and excessive risks in order to line their own pockets. That they were allowed to do this by government shows just how spineless and enthralled to money our politicians are.

As a recent recruit to the ranks of UK mortgage advisors, I have been shocked and dismayed by the number of people in the industry who regard it as their right to fleece the public for as much as they can possibly lay their grubby little hands on. I think there was a thread here a while ago about the contempt in which hifi manufacturers tend to hold their end users. Beleive me, compared to the finance industry, hifi manufacturers are as innocent as babes at their mothers' breasts!

Marco
29-09-2008, 13:29
What I do have a problem with is bankers earning huge bonusses by making criminally stupid investments with my money, and then expecting me to bail them out (as a taxpayer) when it all goes tits up and everyone's suddenly so surprised and ready to blame everyone else.

Make no mistake, the fundamental cause of this problem is pure unalloyed greed on the part of those in the finance industry, both here and in the USA, deliberately ignoring obvious and excessive risks in order to line their own pockets. That they were allowed to do this by government shows just how spineless and enthralled to money our politicians are.


Hear, hear! You're absolutely right. It's just another example of the 'take, take, take' mentality but on an altogether higher level.

The thing is though, as fundamentally wrong as this is they're still contributing something in terms of finance to the economy through their tax contributions, even if it's a pittance compared to the profit they're making. The layabout parasites who unjustifiably and fraudulently 'rip-off the social', so to speak, contribute f*ck all to anything, hence why I'm going on about them more than the bankers. I get the feeling this viewpoint is upsetting some of the Socialists amongst us! ;)

Incidentally, I'm not an anything 'ist'. Like I said, I hate politics. I just do what I need to do, legally and fairly, to achieve my goals in life with as little help from others as possible.

What then in your opinion do we do about these banker parasites and the 'waster' parasites I've referred to in earlier posts?

Marco.

shane
29-09-2008, 13:44
Remove from them the requirement to do what they do. In law, the obligation of any company is to maximise profits for it's shareholders. This requirement is placed at the top of the list, way above the public interest or client service.
Back in the eighties, we had some wonderful institutions called building societies, whose charters required them to look after the money of their depositors by using it prudently to enable others to own their own homes. Any profits they may make was shared amongst the members, who were made up of the investors and borrowers. In tghe eighties the rules were changed Most of the biggest building societies tempted their members with big single payouts to vote to covert them to banks. In a stroke, this converted them from organisations required to safeguard and protect their members' interests into extraordinarily efficient machines designed to extract the maximum profit from all and sundry with no consideration of the public good whatsoever. These organisations became totally irresponsible and were completely unregulated. It is now time that the primary responsibility of financial companies was changed from looking after the share-holder to looking after the customer, with rewards being apportioned accordingly. The bonuses should go to those who best promote the well-being and wealth of their customers, not those who maximise earnings at the customer's expense.

The damage these people are doing to the economy so far outweighs the cost of the so-called layabouts and spongers as to make any comparison pointless. £27,000,000,000 pays for several continents-full of benefit scroungers!

Marco
29-09-2008, 14:00
Yes, I totally agree but that shouldn't demean the effect that the scrounger parasites have on society, on all sorts of levels.

I suspect that there are a number of people who are more directly or indirectly affected by the behaviour of the scroungers and layabouts than by the misdemeanours of investment bankers...

For example, decent hard-working people living on a council estate where the youth crime rate is through the roof and they don't feel safe leaving their home at night because of yobs cluttering every street corner due to layabout parents not caring where their brats are or what trouble they're causing. Do you think these people are overly concerned about what investment bankers get up to?

And like I said, at least they're contributing to the economy and working for a living, even if their earnings are morally suspect. It's better to be 'morally suspect' and contribute something financially to the economy than the same and contribute diddly-squat but increasing crime and the 'Neanderthal' gene pool!

I like you're idea, though, and wholeheartedly support it. Bring back Building Societies! :)

Marco.

Mike
29-09-2008, 14:47
Yes, I totally agree but that shouldn't demean the effect that the scrounger parasites have on society, on all sorts of levels.

I suspect that there are a number of people who are more directly or indirectly affected by the behaviour of the scroungers and layabouts than by the misdemeanours of investment bankers...



Are you taking the piss? :steam:

It is 'bankers' and politicians who have f*cked up the economy, and it is the hard working members of society who are going to have to pay.

This is going to have a much bigger impact on us all than the relatively small impact that these (your expression) 'scroungers' are having.

How many of these 'scrounging parasites' are there anyway? Where do you get you're figures (if you have any)?

You have stated here and elsewhere that;

1 - you don't watch the news.

2 - you don't read newspapers.

3 - you have no interest in politics.

The last is quite incredible IMHO, politics affects ALL of us, ALL the time!!!
So where do you get your 'facts'? :scratch:

Marco
29-09-2008, 14:58
I'm not taking the piss, Mike. I gave you an example where people are directly affected in a very serious way by the actions of 'scrounger parasites', which for some reason you've chosen deliberately to ignore. There are more far important things in life than money!

Where do I get my facts? As I've said, I watch the news on TV, normally local news (which is of more interest to me generally than the national stuff) and also a number of documentaries highlighting the problems I'm referring to, plus observations from life in general. I observe in detail what goes on around me where I live, and where I've lived in the past.

I dislike politics because discussions of such bore the pants off me, and very little of the policies anyway have a serious affect on my lifestyle; I'm being totally serious about that. I just don't have that many things I'm dependant on or responsible for and very little outgoings of any description. I must stress though that I didn't get this situation handed to me on a plate. I've had to work bloody hard indeed to get to the financially secure position I'm in!

How much more independant and financially well off would you be if you had no debts or mortgage and no kids to pay for? That's why I'm not particularly reliant on what the government gets up to. I'm sorry if my viewpoint 'offends' you somehow but I'm only being honest and telling it as I see it :)

What should I do - lie to appease your sensibilities?

Marco.

Mike
29-09-2008, 15:43
What should I do - lie to appease your sensibilities?

Absolutely not!

Neither am I 'offended'. I just find it incredible that you only seem to be taking such a tiny localised view and not looking at the bigger picture.

Take more 'wide angled' view and you just might see that the biggest parasites are at the TOP of the tree!

How much of a dent in the economy do you think is being caused by the 'scrounging parasites' that you refer to? Bear in mind the government has taken B+B's £41 BILLION 'loan book' and a further £9 BILLION in other commitments onto the public balance sheet!!!!

Mike
29-09-2008, 15:44
Absolutely not!

Neither am I 'offended'. I just find it incredible that you only seem to be taking such a tiny localised view and not looking at the bigger picture.

Take more 'wide angled' view and you just might see that the biggest parasites are at the TOP of the tree!

How much of a dent in the economy do you think is being caused by the 'scrounging parasites' that you refer to? Bear in mind the government has taken B+B's £41 BILLION 'loan book' and a further £9 BILLION in other commitments onto the public balance sheet!!!!

And thats only ONE bank!

Marco
29-09-2008, 15:48
Hey, I told you before I was somewhat 'insular' minded! Remember? ;)

Basically, I only worry about the needs of my 'little island', although of course I sympathise with and respect some of the problems other people face.

Now, enough nonsense about me. I'm eagerly awaiting Greg's reply to my post earlier! :)

Marco.

Mike
29-09-2008, 16:30
Hey, I told you before I was somewhat 'insular' minded! Remember? ;)

Basically, I only worry about the needs of my 'little island', although of course I sympathise with and respect some of the problems other people face.

Ah!... but CAN you sympathise with ANY of your so called 'scrounging parasites'?... By which I mean the (probably quite large number of) ones who find themselves in a situation not entirely of their own making? And here I'm talking about some of the kids you have alluded to earlier!

Some of your earlier posts in this thread are bordering on bigotry I'm afraid to say. So, I'm sorry here Marco, but if you're going to start threads which tend to open a Hornet's nest, you're gonna have to expect to get stung a bit!

Politics are a bitch. However much you try to avoid them, you can't!

Marco
29-09-2008, 16:36
Ah!... but CAN you sympathise with ANY of your so called 'scrounging parasites'?... By which I mean the (probably quite large number of) ones who find themselves in a situation not entirely of their own making?


Are you reading this thread properly post by post or just scanning through it? :lol:

I've already said yes to Anthony regarding this when he brought it up. Get with the program, my boy! ;)

Some are unfortunate, and they have my sympathy, but I've got absolutely no time for the out-and-out lazy bastards who systematically plan to defraud the system and contribute nothing positive whatsoever to society. Why should I feel any differently towards these selfish parasites?


Some of your earlier posts in this thread are bordering on bigotry I'm afraid to say. So, I'm sorry here Marco, but if you're going to start threads which tend to open a Hornet's nest, you're gonna have to expect to get stung a bit!


No 'bigotry' is intended. I'm simply being honest about how I feel. Stings do not bother me one iota, so bring them on! I love, and indeed thrive on being controversial - it's the way I've always been on forums :eyebrows:

It's turning out to be a 'belter' of a thread!

Marco.

Mike
29-09-2008, 16:54
It's turning out to be a 'belter' of a thread!

Or a load of bollocks that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the thread title!... Sorry for the occasional (futile) attempts to drag it BOT!

Well I'm outta here (as in the thread) but just as a last word; I try (and often fail) to keep in mind desiderata (http://www.fleurdelis.com/desiderata.htm).

It might do you some good to read that, but I suspect not! :(


I have absolutely no time for bigotry.

Marco
29-09-2008, 17:02
To highlight whom I really detest, it's the people Greg's referring to in the latter part of his post below that I find so abhorrent:


Some of them are genuinly in need of support and some just use the system occupationally........exactly, manipulation of the system has become their occupation!


That is just inexcusable and I would love to do whatever I could to remove these parasites from today's society. Like I said, a remote island somewhere would be good (along with the investment bankers) where they can do what the hell they like without soiling other people's decent and honest existence with their odious ways!

I have no problem with people in the former category in Greg's post, but everyone's completely ignoring that :scratch:


Or a load of bollocks that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the thread title!... Sorry for the occasional (futile) attempts to drag it BOT!

Well I'm outta here (as in the thread) but just as a last word; I try (and often fail) to keep in mind desiderata.

It might do you some good to read that, but I suspect not!

I have absolutely no time for bigotry.


Take a chill pill and get a grip, Mike. There is no "bigotry". Why should I have to like these people? No decent person would! Anyone would think you come into this category (or someone you know)! Dear oh dear...

Marco.

shane
29-09-2008, 17:10
Honestly Marco, if you were a passenger on the Titanic you'd be fretting about the scum in steerage pilfering food from the pantry and pushing up the cost of the tickets you bought with your hard-earned cash!

Marco
29-09-2008, 17:12
:lolsign:

Marco.

anthonyTD
29-09-2008, 17:14
hi all,
again, some good points, the one thing that realy gets me about people today, especially the young, is this, if you work hard in school, get good grades, the qualifications you end up with should enable you to choose a job, profesion that you like, if you dont work hard at school, and therefore leave with little in the way of qualifications, why would you have the right to refuse any job that was offered to you because you think its below your high expectations, you shouldnt! if when you leave school, there are two jobs on the board at the job centre, one requires a person with good qualifications,the other is a cleaners job, then why shouldnt the right person for each job get exactly that! there are plenty of jobs to be done in this country, the problem is, there arent enough willing british people who will accept them, then we moan at the amount of foriegn workers coming taking our jobs, why, because they will do the jobs that need doing! but that is what should be happening with the people who are allready here and classing them selves as british, if all the able bodied young men and women in this country were made to take a job that fitted their qualifications then there wouldnt be a workforce shortage, and there would be next to no unemployment, hence no yobs hanging on street corners, hence more young people growing up with a feeling of belonging and morels.as far as i see the facts should be this, if you leave school with nothing, because of your own doing ie,you didnt work hard, and if your able bodied, ie, fit and healthy, you should have two choices, you take what jobs are offered to you, or you dont get paid!
i am sure that when the parents who as we have allready established maybe on benefits themselves find out that they have to conitnue looking after their offspring even though they wont be getting the necesay benefits for doing so anymore because they child refuses to take a job that they feel is below them, it wouldnt be long before the child is made to go out and start earning for themselves!
in my life i have done many types of jobs some i liked, some i did just to earn my own living, why should it be any diffrent for anyone else!
anthony...:scratch:

Marco
29-09-2008, 17:22
the one thing that realy gets me about people today, especially the young, is this, if you work hard in school, get good grades, the qualifications you end up with should enable you to choose a job, profesion that you like, if you dont work hard at school, and therefore leave with little in the way of qualifications, why would you have the right to refuse any job that was offered to you because you think its below your high expectations, you shouldnt! if when you leave school, there are two jobs on the board at the job centre, one requires a person with good qualifications,the other is a cleaners job, then why shouldnt the right person for each job get exactly that! there are plenty of jobs to be done in this country, the problem is, there arent enough willing british people who will accept them, then we moan at the amount of foriegn workers coming taking our jobs, why, because they will do the jobs that need doing! but that is what should be happening with the people who are allready here and classing them selves as british, if all the able bodied young men and women in this country were made to take a job that fitted their qualifications then there wouldnt be a workforce shortage, and there would be next to no unemployment, hence no yobs hanging on street corners, hence more young people growing up with a feeling of belonging and morels.as far as see the facts should be this, if you leave school with nothing, because of your own doing ie,you didnt work hard, and if your able bodied, ie, fit and healthy, you should have two choices, you take what jobs are offered to you, or you dont get paid!

Hear hear! :clap:

Anything to give the lazy good-for-nothing layabout scroungers a kick up their fat backsides and make them work for a living!!

Marco.

Iain Sinclair
29-09-2008, 18:01
The trouble is that this thread is mis-titled as the credit crunch has not been caused by dole-ites, who cannot get credit unless it's from the local loan shark at 1000% interest.

So, half the thread participants focus on the dumb fuckers who screwed the UK/US banking system, while the other half keep piping up with 'what about the scroungers?' So, re-name the thread 'What can be done about workshy scroungers?'. Job done.

PS. The standard of spelling and grammar on this thread is appalling.

Marco
29-09-2008, 18:07
Iain,

I suggested to Mike he could do that (he has the ability as a Supermoderator) since he was so obsessed with thread titles and keeping this particular discussion on-topic when so many others elsewhere don't always remain that way! :scratch:

But he refused.

Thread drift within reason is a good thing as far as I'm concerned, and besides there's another reason why this thread was named 'The credit crunch', and it's got nothing to do with any of the above...

It's a secret though, sorry!


PS. The standard of spelling and grammar on this thread is appalling.


Does that include "workshy" which is actually two separate words? Or did you miss the space bar? ;)

Marco.

Mike
29-09-2008, 18:27
But he refused.

Ain't my thread.

Marco
29-09-2008, 18:33
LOL. But I said you could do it! Remember? :eyebrows:

Marco.

Puffin
29-09-2008, 19:23
PS. The standard of spelling and grammar on this thread is appalling.[/QUOTE]

Since when did mushrooms have anything to do with a sense of belonging?

Iain Sinclair
29-09-2008, 19:41
Does that include "workshy" which is actually two separate words? Or did you miss the space bar? ;)

Marco.

One word according to my Chambers' Dictionary. The 20-volume OED's upstairs but I'm too workshy/work shy to see if it's one or two words in that.

Marco
29-09-2008, 19:46
I'd always use 'work shy', Iain, but I could be wrong. Even with "re-name", which you used, I'd probably drop the hyphen...

But sometimes these things are dual-usage.

Marco.

Iain Sinclair
29-09-2008, 19:52
I'd always use 'work shy', Iain, but I could be wrong.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/tv/article1659924.ece

I think that settles the matter.

Marco
29-09-2008, 19:57
LOL. The Sun!

Mmm...

'Work-shy' is also another viable option. Isn't pedantry such fun! :lol:

Marco.

anthonyTD
29-09-2008, 19:59
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/tv/article1659924.ece

I think that settles the matter.
whey hey,
if mr kyle cant sort it well....:mental::mental::mental::mental:
:lolsign:

Cotlake
29-09-2008, 20:05
As an aside, as a soon to be ex-policeman, in your estimation and experience how much crime and thus cost to the tax payer is directly attributable to children spawned by these benefits parasites roaming the streets at night instead of being indoors and looked after by normal well-adjusted responsible parents?

Marco.

Marco,

Remember I've still got 53 working days left until I draw my pension so it would be madness to answer your rather leading question directly, which might suggest I sign up to your own views on certain people who I professionally deal with inpartially on a day to day basis.

It is fair to say that those trapped within the dependancy culture grow up with no aspirations to acheive much in life beyond existance and function. It is difficult as a teenager to develop an aspirational future when your main examples are your non-aspirational parents and grandparents. This is what I mean about the difficulty in breaking the chain. No matter how hard we try to achieve this through education and support, fundamentally what happens in the home is the main influence.

My comments about the manipulation of the welfare system is not particularly directed at those who actually cheat or defraud the DWP, but rather it is about knowing how you can manipulate the system legitamately to gain the best benefit returns. The government is clearly to blame for this because they have a leaky system with plenty of loop holes and for several years particularly since Gordon has been in charge of the economy there has been a policy of not advertising what you can legitamately claim. This effects many like us. By way of example, consider the ease a family once claimed family allowance with the hoops you now have to jump through to claim Child Tax Credit which is basically the same thing by another name with a heap of bureaucracy attached.

As an aside, this is not necessarily (depending on your point of view) a bad thing because bureaurcracy does at least generate more employment. Afterall, I'm frequently required to justify my occupational existance through doing work about the work that I do, which in turn leads to another person doing work on the work I've done about the work I do and then the next does work on the work that someone has done on the work I have done about the work I do. All very frustrating when all I want to do is my work!

I digress. Now if benefits are your main scource of income and generally that income is not great, you'll learn the system pretty well to get the best you can out of it. The trouble is, this exactly promotes the very dependancy culture we and the government consider is unhealthy. Be sure, until it is fixed, it will continue to perpetuate from one generation to another.

With regard to the crime question, this is interesting. The vast majority of low level to medium level crime is committed by people who live within the dependancy culture. Typical types are anti-social behaviour, criminal damage and shop-lifting moving on to the more serious domestic and commecial burglary and of course robbery, popularly known as street mugging. The ASB and criminal damage type offences are generally a result of having plenty of time available but with nothing to do. Once a person leaves school (they may not have botherered or have not been made to attend) what is there to do? With a life structured on the parental guidance who themselves are trapped in the dependancy culture these people grow up to be both unemployable and are frequently rejected by support organisations and networks because of the disruption they bring with them. There's no money for the lecky meter so the TV doesn't work so they idle their time away on the street, making their own entertainment.

How do they placate within this emptiness? Ah, drugs is the answer. Drugs initially fill the emptiness but of course bring addiction which leads to an unlawful acquisitive response owing to the fact that being in the low socio-economic group, they do not naturally have the funds to support their habit. It might be worth stopping for a minute here to consider the wealthy banker on fat bonuses placating out of work emptiness with lines of cocaine easily afforded whilst at the other end of the socio-economic groups is another doing exactly the same with the cracked version of the drug! IMHO, drug addiction is the single most evident driver behind the majority of burglary, shop-lifting and other thefts including mugging.

Obviously, the solution is to sort out the drug problem isn't it? Much easier said than done. At the moment we address this almost entirely by enforcement. I've seen this for the last 30 years and enforcement has not made one jot of difference. I'm actually extreme in my view that it is a total waste of time. Simply, drug comsumption is now an acceptable social and cultral thing. Those who can afford it as ever, do it without distress unless you're a celeb who gets snapped by the tabloids whilst snorting. Even then there is the money to get detoxed if it becomes a problem. However, those with no money have no choice but to resort to crime to accommodate their need. In terms of national crime recording figures I don't have any hard facts to hand without doing some research but my occupational gut intuition is that over 50% of crime in this country could be cut if we dealt with the drugs problem properly. So far all we are doing is measuring it. Crimes are classified and certain crimes are identified as drug trigger offences. All suspects now arrested for these trigger offences are obliged to be tested for drugs. 99% of the time they test positive. Another great bureaucratic method of recording what we already know!

We are however, back to the cultural consideration. To make a change happen, surely there would have to be a major change to cultural attitude within society. If there wasn't a market, the Afgan farmers wouldn't grow their poppies.

When I was a student nurse yuff, I smoked the odd spliff. It didn't seem that big a deal to me and I concluded that it was easier to just go down the boozer with my mates for the evening. It is interesting however how many people of my age (early fifties) smoke cannabis. Alot of them are middle class successful people and they are astute enough to maintain their recreational drug use in such a way so they do not get detected. My 1st year university student daughter tells me many of her friends parents use the stuff. It's all very subversive because the acceptability trims off the thin end of the legal wedge and the next at the end of the wedge is amphetamine, LSD etc. With your stock broker/bankers using cocaine etc, the problem is not likely to go away and crime figures will continue to reflect the influence drugs have on our society as people with no money look to fill the voids in their lives with exactly the same stimulants the rich can accommodate. Be in no doubt, plenty of our upstanding law creating politicians will also be regular consumers of illegal substances.

I know I've deviated alot from the topic but I feel it all has some degree of relevance and might be just a little informative, albeit all very firmly IMHO.

Best wishes,

Greg

Marco
29-09-2008, 21:21
Excellent, Greg - and very interesting, That's another one to deal with tomorrow! Until then... :)

Marco.

shane
29-09-2008, 21:23
PS. The standard of spelling and grammar on this thread is appalling.

I think you mean "The standards of spelling and grammar on this thread are appalling". Either way, you're right, and either way it doesn't really matter.

shane
29-09-2008, 21:32
Greg, thank goodness someone here recognises the enormous complexity of the problems our society faces. The point of view that says we should simply cast adrift all those who are too lazy/bloody-minded/lefty-pinko to be bothered to try and help themselves is so puerile and simplistic as to be ridiculous.

Marco
29-09-2008, 22:07
LOL! What do you suggest then, oh great one? And of course all I'm really doing is 'sounding off'...

I'm going to listen to some music now so no doubt will read your highly erudite epistle later ;)

Marco.

Cotlake
29-09-2008, 22:22
Hi Marco,

I think your reply to Shane is condescending and not appropriate.

Now you've listened to your music I'm hopeful your next post will be more constructive.

It would be good to observe that although this is a public forum that has been established by you (good on you), you seem to retain a certain control by responding personally to anything written that might be political or controversial. It does seem at times that as a contributer I'm basically responding to you rather than the populace of the forum. You might want to dwell on that.

Best wishes,

Greg

Marco
29-09-2008, 22:35
Hi Greg,

Thanks for your comments, which have been noted.

My remark to Shane was tongue-in-cheek, as indicated by this: ';)' - the same as I presume was his remark to you suggesting that my input, or such like it, on this subject was "puerile and simplistic as to be ridiculous", which if it wasn't tongue-in-cheek could have equally been interpreted as condescending and inappropriate...

;)

All I was doing was sounding off and addressing the issue in general, not attempting to provide radical solutions to what is an undoubtedly complex problem. I think some people need to lighten up a bit.

Anyway, I shall respond to your earlier lengthy post tomorrow. Nighty, night!

Marco.

Iain Sinclair
30-09-2008, 08:02
LOL! What do you suggest then, oh great one? And of course all I'm really doing is 'sounding off'...

'A huge, living, daily increasing grievance that does no palpable
harm, is the happiest possession that a man can have.'
Anthony Trollope, 1878

Marco
30-09-2008, 08:42
Nice one, Iain. I thoroughly approve of the sentiments. Everyone enjoys a bloody good moan!

Marco.

shane
30-09-2008, 09:10
LOL! What do you suggest then, oh great one? And of course all I'm really doing is 'sounding off'...

I'm going to listen to some music now so no doubt will read your highly erudite epistle later ;)

Marco.

Me too, I guess. Sorry if that came across a little strong. I'm dealing with this crap all day, so I come here to get away from it and talk about something worthwhile like hifi. Seems like there's no escape! I do feel though that to blame everything on the scroungers and workshy is oversimplifying the problem, and at the same time casting generalised aspersions on a lot of people who are trapped in a situation not necessarily of their own making, who have not been given the tools or skills to improve their lot. If you want to blame anyone for this, blame the education system, the lack of inspired and inspiring teachers in our schools.

Marco
30-09-2008, 11:52
Greg,


It is fair to say that those trapped within the dependancy culture grow up with no aspirations to acheive much in life beyond existance and function. It is difficult as a teenager to develop an aspirational future when your main examples are your non-aspirational parents and grandparents. This is what I mean about the difficulty in breaking the chain. No matter how hard we try to achieve this through education and support, fundamentally what happens in the home is the main influence.


I absolutely agree: home is most definitely the main influence, and also what children pick up at school - don't forget just how influential and potentially damaging the time they spend there is (and also the significant amount of time spent there) and I'm not talking about what they learn from teachers! But yes, so many parents provide completely unsuitable environments (on all levels) for their kids to grow up in, and that's a huge problem.

What I'd like to know is what exactly has created this malaise and so deep-rooted 'non-aspirational' traits amongst these people, spawning in the process generations of no-hopers? One of the answers I feel is people all too easily slipping into the quagmire and becoming victims of their circumstances instead of having the strength of character to rise up from their lowly existence and attempt to make a success of their lives. Of course as I've said this is much easier said than done, there are numerous problems, but it has been achieved before by quite a few now very successful business people, some of them are now multi-millionaires, so it can be done. My view is that a large percentage of this problem is created through pure and simple bad parenting over many generations and totally unsuitable parents providing the most dreadful role models for their children.

Oh if it were only morally and logistically feasible, and somehow cost-effective, to 'screen' or 'test' people's suitability to become parents before they could have children the world would be a much better place!!


My comments about the manipulation of the welfare system is not particularly directed at those who actually cheat or defraud the DWP, but rather it is about knowing how you can manipulate the system legitamately to gain the best benefit returns.


I don't have a problem that. If you're legitimately entitled to particular benefits from the government then first of all they should be made as easy as possible to claim, by this I mean the least amount of bureaucracy in place as possible. If the government are stupid enough to leave loopholes then no-one can blame people with the necessary know-how exploiting them! I would call that 'entrepreneurial' and support it wholeheartedly. It's something that I'm particularly good at myself, but of course in business not with benefits!

Incidentally on the subject of bureaucracy, it might keep people in jobs but that's no bloody use to the person at the other end of the chain waiting months or longer for an answer to something (say an application) which seems very straighforward!! The government and councils in particular are full of it, and I can't stand it.


Now if benefits are your main scource of income and generally that income is not great, you'll learn the system pretty well to get the best you can out of it. The trouble is, this exactly promotes the very dependancy culture we and the government consider is unhealthy. Be sure, until it is fixed, it will continue to perpetuate from one generation to another.


Yes indeed, and this is where the points Anthony made earlier come in. So many people in this country would rather sit on their backsides all day and live on benefits than doing a decent honest day's work. How can you ever hope to have high self-esteem or self-worth with that attitude? This odious "dependency culture" should be zapped out of existence and people who are perfectly healthy and able-bodied unceremoniously MADE to work by taking whatever jobs are available, whether it's cleaning toilets or working on a building site. What right do these layabouts have to unjustifiably live on benefits or refuse work simply because they don't fancy it? They need a right good boot up their lazy backsides and if I were in charge I'd be just the man to do it!!


With regard to the crime question, this is interesting. The vast majority of low level to medium level crime is committed by people who live within the dependancy culture. Typical types are anti-social behaviour, criminal damage and shop-lifting moving on to the more serious domestic and commecial burglary and of course robbery, popularly known as street mugging. The ASB and criminal damage type offences are generally a result of having plenty of time available but with nothing to do.


That's just what I thought. I'd give them something to do though - bloody jobs that need doing, there are plenty of them, or bring back National Service!

So in effect, Greg, the spawning of these yobs by the layabout parasites seeking to profit from child benefits is directly responsible for a huge percentage of crime in this country. I rest my case.

However, I would ask those who've been going on (quite rightly) about the actions of investment bankers to spare a thought for the equally huge effect, although of a different nature, the above has on all levels of society. Why should decent, honest, hard working people from all over have the quality of their lifes so adversely affected by this odious "dependency culture" and the repellent behaviour of those who perpetrate it and belong to it? Why should old people be afraid to leave their homes and live inside like prisoners, why should decent people in council estates be afraid to walk their own streets, even during the day?

Quite simply the people who create these yobs are a disease on our society and so somehow their procreation must be controlled, or somehow they must be educated to be good and responsible parents. I make no apologies for feeling as strongly about this as I do. You have to get to the root of the cause!


Once a person leaves school (they may not have botherered or have not been made to attend) what is there to do?


Find work, any work, or be made to join the army just like it used to be. The fact is if you *really* want to work you'll find work. As far as the government are concerned I think it's time to stop 'fannying about' and get tough, really tough, to rid our country of the layabouts who enter life expecting a free ride whilst rest of us have to earn an honest living!


With a life structured on the parental guidance who themselves are trapped in the dependancy culture these people grow up to be both unemployable and are frequently rejected by support organisations and networks because of the disruption they bring with them. There's no money for the lecky meter so the TV doesn't work so they idle their time away on the street, making their own entertainment.


First of all I would repeat that any genuine hardship cases should get all the help they need. Support organisations must do their job to the very best of their ability and accept that these types of people are always likely to bring disruption with them. It's up to the government to provide a better network of support by investing more money into these organisations in order that they can function more effectively.

Perhaps they'd be able to do so if so many millions of pounds wasn't being spent on dealing with the crime created by the layabout scrounger parasites who show no interest whatsoever in properly integrating into decent, honest, hard working society???

I go back again to the scrounger parasite parents of these yobs... If they took an interest in the first place in what their kids were doing and provided them with a stable loving and valued family environment instead of their children feeling bored and unwanted and consequently out roaming the streets at night (it doesn't necessarily take lots of money to achieve this; poor people too can be part of a happy loving family and have high self-esteem) there wouldn't be such an epidemic in youth crime and the horrendous problems created by it. The deeper you scratch below the surface of this endemic social disease the common denominator in almost every instance is bad parenting and people having kids who simply aren't up to the job.


How do they placate within this emptiness? Ah, drugs is the answer. Drugs initially fill the emptiness but of course bring addiction which leads to an unlawful acquisitive response owing to the fact that being in the low socio-economic group, they do not naturally have the funds to support their habit.


You're absolutely right. Like I said before, if you dig deep enough you'll find that the reason for most drug abuse is through feeling unloved and unwanted in life through bad parenting. Kids call it 'being bored' but that's not really what they mean. They feel there is no purpose to their existence, that no-one loves them or cares about them, that there is little or no hope of achieving anything worthwhile in life, basically they feel all alone, so they drown everything out with the effect from drugs. Alcohol abuse is the same - it's simply a 'crotch' people cling to, to make up for the emptiness in their lives caused by not having a loving family to care for them. Then the psychological damage is done and what could have been a good person turns into a scrounging layabout parasite or criminal, and the cycle continues...


It might be worth stopping for a minute here to consider the wealthy banker on fat bonuses placating out of work emptiness with lines of cocaine easily afforded whilst at the other end of the socio-economic groups is another doing exactly the same with the cracked version of the drug! IMHO, drug addiction is the single most evident driver behind the majority of burglary, shop-lifting and other thefts including mugging.


I agree, and you must have witnessed the evidence of this many times. Thing is, the parental neglect I've referred to above happens just as much in wealthy middle-class families as it does anywhere else. The only difference is that the problem often manifests itself in a different way with the psychological damage only becoming apparent later in what seems like a 'normal' life. There are plenty of maladjusted, psychologically damaged, 'professional' people around, and often they are the most dangerous, with 'scores to settle' because they feel that life owes them something because of their unhappy childhood ('bent' investment bankers perhaps?) and they proceed to 'settle their scores' at everyone else's expense...


Obviously, the solution is to sort out the drug problem isn't it? Much easier said than done. At the moment we address this almost entirely by enforcement. I've seen this for the last 30 years and enforcement has not made one jot of difference. I'm actually extreme in my view that it is a total waste of time.


Again I completely agree. The only way to truly eradicate the problem is to address it at ground roots level at home. But that's not likely to happen anytime soon.


Simply, drug comsumption is now an acceptable social and cultral thing. Those who can afford it as ever, do it without distress unless you're a celeb who gets snapped by the tabloids whilst snorting. Even then there is the money to get detoxed if it becomes a problem. However, those with no money have no choice but to resort to crime to accommodate their need.


Yep, that's absolutely true. What I think needs to be done is to examine why people from all walks of life choose to take drugs in the first place. Was it simply 'just for a laugh' as a normal otherwise well-adjusted teenager, and then becoming hooked on it, or something more deep-rooted such as I've already alluded to? My view is that people who abuse drugs on a regular basis (not just smoking the odd spliff) do so because there is something fundamental missing in their lives. So I guess the trick is to find what that something is and provide them with it, which is of course easier said than done.


In terms of national crime recording figures I don't have any hard facts to hand without doing some research but my occupational gut intuition is that over 50% of crime in this country could be cut if we dealt with the drugs problem properly. So far all we are doing is measuring it. Crimes are classified and certain crimes are identified as drug trigger offences. All suspects now arrested for these trigger offences are obliged to be tested for drugs. 99% of the time they test positive. Another great bureaucratic method of recording what we already know!


Indeed, and oh how I hate bureaucracy! However, like I've said we need to get to the nitty-gritty and find out exactly why so many people abuse drugs. I've already said what I think the reason is, but the question is what do we do about it? There has to be a wholesale cultural change, I feel.


When I was a student nurse yuff, I smoked the odd spliff. It didn't seem that big a deal to me and I concluded that it was easier to just go down the boozer with my mates for the evening. It is interesting however how many people of my age (early fifties) smoke cannabis. Alot of them are middle class successful people and they are astute enough to maintain their recreational drug use in such a way so they do not get detected.


I've done the same thing myself with cannabis, and taken magic mushrooms and even speed when I was a teenager, but the difference was I wasn't doing it to 'make up for' a void in my life. I was just a daft lad playing around with my mates and doing something which seemed like fun at the time; fortunately I didn't become addicted. I consider the fact that I was a happy and confident person, brought up properly by two loving and dedicated parents in a stable family home as mainly the reason that I was well-adjusted enough to later realise that taking drugs of any description was a stupid thing to do. Who knows how I would have ended up if that hadn't been the case?

Also, as you describe, there are a number of adults who habitually use cannabis for 'recreational purposes' without it adversely affecting anyone else's life, who are able to control it and not let it get the better of them. As such they're doing no-one any harm so I say good luck to them :smoking:


My 1st year university student daughter tells me many of her friends parents use the stuff. It's all very subversive because the acceptability trims off the thin end of the legal wedge and the next at the end of the wedge is amphetamine, LSD etc. With your stock broker/bankers using cocaine etc, the problem is not likely to go away and crime figures will continue to reflect the influence drugs have on our society as people with no money look to fill the voids in their lives with exactly the same stimulants the rich can accommodate. Be in no doubt, plenty of our upstanding law creating politicians will also be regular consumers of illegal substances.


It's a widespread occurrence, no doubt. Basically, though, if people can contain their drug habit and keep it 'under wraps' without it impinging negatively on anyone else's life then it doesn't really concern me. What they're doing isn't right, or legal, of course but if all they're achieving really is destroying their own health and spending fortunes of their own money in the process then hell mend them! It's when their drug habit impinges directly or indirectly on the lives of other people that it becomes a big problem.

I must say I'm enjoying our little discourse! :)

Marco.

Filterlab
30-09-2008, 12:13
Crikey, that's a post and a half Marco!

Marco
30-09-2008, 12:19
Me too, I guess. Sorry if that came across a little strong.


No problem. I think Greg misread the situation ;)


I'm dealing with this crap all day, so I come here to get away from it and talk about something worthwhile like hifi. Seems like there's no escape!


Best stick to the hi-fi rooms, then! :eyebrows:


I do feel though that to blame everything on the scroungers and workshy is oversimplifying the problem, and at the same time casting generalised aspersions on a lot of people who are trapped in a situation not necessarily of their own making, who have not been given the tools or skills to improve their lot. If you want to blame anyone for this, blame the education system, the lack of inspired and inspiring teachers in our schools.

I completely agree, but there are other things also to blame for what's going on and as such it's inevitable these things crop up in discussions like this. I will admit though that I just have a deep-rooted dislike of the scrounger layabout mentality and enjoy sounding off about it! :lol:

Marco.

shane
30-09-2008, 12:46
Oh if it were only morally and logistically feasible, and somehow cost-effective, to 'screen' or 'test' people's suitability to become parents before they could have children the world would be a much better place!!


I'm not going to comment on the whole of your post, and I intend to bow out of this thread because I find it offensive, but I can't let this one pass.

Who exactly has the right or the wisdom to decide which of his fellows has the right to breed? And why stop there? If these people are leading such empty and worthless lives and they have procreation taken away from them, then what is the point of their continued existence? Why not do the country a favour and just put them out of their misery?

It was exactly this kind of thinking that found it's ultimate expression in Auschwitz and Belsen. We need to think very very carefully about some of our ideas!

SteveTheShadow
30-09-2008, 12:59
If you want to blame anyone for this, blame the education system, the lack of inspired and inspiring teachers in our schools.


Wondered when that little chestnut would come up:steam:


With The 1988 Education Reform act and the introduction of the National Curriculum, the government took unprecedented powers to dictate what was taught in schools and how it should be delivered. There has been little let-up since. Indeed the Labour party's introduction of the National Literacy Strategy (Literacy Hour) and the National Numeracy Strategy has taken this prescription even further down the line.

No Government in the Western World prescribes what is taught and the way teachers deliver what is taught, with as much bloody-minded zeal as the UK.

Our children are tested to destruction by Foundation Stage Early Learning goals, Key Stage One SATs Key Stage 2 SATs, Key Stage 3 SATs and all this before they even start with GCSEs and A levels.

All of this is enforced by OFSTED, which was created in the first instance to enforce the National Curriculum on schools and severely punish by naming and shaming those who refused to toe the line, threatening closure if compliance did not occur.

Targets are set by Central Government on everything from Key Stage 2 SAT results to the amount of time people spend on staff meetings and training days. All of this is enforced by a massive system of bureaucracy, every department of which wants its bit of paper to hold schools accountable and punish those Heads who don't hand it all in on time.

They have now even begun to dictate how work should be planned and on which forms. This is all carried out online so that they can monitor it all from somewhere or other.

Who has to fill in all this crap? Teachers

The planning methods and accountability have created a profession of frightened rabbits, staring into the headlights of the oncoming next OFSTED inspection and scuttling around chasing bits of paper.

Quite where the teaching of kids comes into all of this, I'm not sure.

Across the primary and secondary sectors, the curriculum is now so dull, and the prescribed methods of teaching it so hemmed in by targets objectives and planned outcomes that all of the joy has been squeezed out of the job. As a result of this there is a significant minority of kids who are disaffected by the whole system, play up in class because they would rather be somewhere else and prevent those who want to learn from gaining any access to what is left of the curriculum.

OK so exclude them then......er.... no you can't do that, because there is now inclusion legislation that prevents Heads from removing those responsible for the disruption lest they go above the exclusion numbers target and get named, shamed and finally removed from their schools after the government sends the boys round. You see, the National Curriculum is an 'entitlement curriculum' which means that all kids are entitled to an education, but are not required to show any responsibility for their own behaviour or attitudes. Indeed, when I was an Assistant Head Teacher, a Head colleague of mine, uttered the words which:

a)made me fear for her sanity
b)pushed me a long way towards making the decision to get the hell out of the profession (at least on a full time basis)

What could she have said that had such an impact on my world?


there are no bad kids, only bad teachersThat such a load of sanctimonious shite could come out of the mouth of a fellow educator was more than I could stand and TBH I finished up having a stand-up row with the woman in the middle of a conference floor.

Quite what piece of bullshit propaganda she had picked this up from, I don't know but I know that teaching was never quite the same for me after that.

I had been a career person, rising to Assistant Head Teacher only five years after qualifying. But there was no way I was going to allow my own philosophy of education to be poisoned by any of that garbage.

After a lesson observation where my whole approach to teaching, philosophy etc was rubbished. I was told that my methods were no longer relevant to the school's intended future direction. The class was engaged, they were learning, were enjoying the lesson, there was no trouble, my teaching assistant, who was looking after a four kids, two of whom had learning difficulties and two of whom had behaviour issues, knew what she was doing and knew what the children were supposed to be learning, the kids knew what they were learning and why they were learning it. Not good enough apparently.

I did something most unprofessional. At 1:32 pm, I left my teaching assistant to watch my class for five minutes, followed the Head her to her office, shut the door and told her where she could stick her f**k**g job, went back to the class, bade the children goodbye, kissed my, by now tearful assistant on the cheek and walked out. I never went back.

I'm now a successful supply teacher, so much in demand from local schools that I can afford to turn down work. I love the freedom from Government dogma, am my own boss and try to give the kids, for one day at least, an experience of just how much fun and how fulfilling education can be. I look at full-time colleagues hear their conversations in the staff room and am so glad I got out when I did.

That colleagues, particularly those of the Secondary persuasion can get up and go into work every day under the circumstances in which they have to try to teach, simply amazes me.

In every profession there are good and bad people but most teachers in the State Sector are genuinely committed people with a love of learning, trying to do the best they can. Whilst at the same time being distrusted, undervalued, tied up in bureaucracy and vilified by those panderers to populist claptrap, who have no concept of the conditions in which teachers are too often asked to work but are all too willing to blame them for the current malaise spreading throughout our society.

Filterlab
30-09-2008, 13:00
Given the level of depth in this thread I won't add anything more. Interesting views though all round, this subject has obviously got people thinking a lot deeper about finance and money that normal. Personally it hasn't affected me in any big way, the industry I work in is virtually unaffected by recession due to the nature of our clients whom are always busy whether the times be boom or bust. Lucky? Yes. Thankful? Very. Wary? Definitely because one never knows what's around the corner.

Any advantages? Yep, I'm just about to buy a house and the prices are plummeting, particularly in this area which is populated largely by those who feel image is important are therefore tend to live up to their credit limit all the time.

Disadvantages? Loads, prices in general (including conveyancing) are rising as everyone covers the extra expenses of living. But what the heck, I'll just do more hours.

Marco
30-09-2008, 13:26
Who exactly has the right or the wisdom to decide which of his fellows has the right to breed? And why stop there? If these people are leading such empty and worthless lives and they have procreation taken away from them, then what is the point of their continued existence? Why not do the country a favour and just put them out of their misery?

It was exactly this kind of thinking that found it's ultimate expression in Auschwitz and Belsen. We need to think very very carefully about some of our ideas!


Shane, I don't disagree with your sentiments and I’m sorry if what I’ve written offends you. But I firmly believe that something fundamental has to be done at source to stop people who aren't fit to become parents bringing children into the world that 99.9% of the time will end up exactly the same way. If we’re ever going to eradicate some of the terrible social and economic problems from within our society the cycle somehow has to be stopped or slowed down. I'm afraid at the moment with current government policies we're just 'tickling' the problem.

Like I said, the fact is *if* there was some morally justifiable and fair way of 'vetting' potential parents as to their suitability for the role prior to having children then undoubtedly we'd have better parents raising better human beings. I don’t think there is so it won’t happen.

Marco.

SteveTheShadow
30-09-2008, 13:29
Shane, I don't disagree with your sentiments and I’m sorry if what I’ve written offends you. But I firmly believe that something fundamental has to be done at source to stop people who aren't fit to become parents bringing children into the world that 99.9% of the time will end up exactly the same way. If we’re ever going to eradicate some of the terrible social and economic problems from within our society the cycle somehow has to be stopped or slowed down. I'm afraid at the moment with current government policies we're just 'tickling' the problem.

Like I said, the fact is *if* there was some morally justifiable and fair way of 'vetting' potential parents as to their suitability for the role prior to having children then undoubtedly we'd have better parents raising better human beings. I don’t think there is so it won’t happen.

Marco.


I give up:doh:

shane
30-09-2008, 13:30
Steve, my apologies. My brevity has caused me to upset exactly the wrong person. What I said was "blame the education system, and the lack of inspired and inspiring teachers". I did not mean to imply "blame the teachers". Your post has said more eloquently and with far greater knowledge than I possess exactly why we should blame the education system, and why the inspired and inspiring teachers are leaving it in droves.

Teaching is the most important and least valued profession of all.

Marco
30-09-2008, 13:32
I give up:doh:


Why? I'm only saying what many people think but are too scared to say! :)

Marco.

shane
30-09-2008, 13:33
I give up:doh:

Me too. Let's get out of here. Fancy a pint?

Filterlab
30-09-2008, 13:35
A huge underlying factor of course was the government's incredibly "wise" decision to remove the ability to discipline children. The upshot is that kids don't learn because the teachers can't make them, young adults are now leaving school with virtually no education (you only have to look at your average ebay listing to confirm that) and are consequently unemployable. Not a fault of the teachers, a fault of the governing body. Unskilled workers means Britain loses its ability to produce things, I'm talking tangible goods, and export them and make money. The entire country drops a notch on the global economy scale and it effects the entire economy.

In the governments desperation they've launched LSC (Learning and Skills Council) in an attempt to teach adults the things they should have learnt at school - of course they would have had the teachers been able to discipline them.

The effects of absurd Government red tape are now ringing home, it took a few years to happen but it was quicker than a lot thought.

Marco
30-09-2008, 13:42
Bravo! :clap:

What a most insightful and astute observation. Bloody political correctness again! There's nothing wrong with proper discipline. Jeez, I was taught by nuns who were extremely strict and used to slap you over the knuckles with the hard edge of a ruler if they caught you not paying attention, so generally I did :lol:

It's probably why I can write and spell properly and do simple mental arithmetic without the use of a calculator or dictionary...

My old man also used to kick me up the arse or give me a cuff across the ear if I got into trouble so I very rarely repeated whatever was wrong, but he only did it because he cared, unlike the layabout parasite parents who couldn't care less and raise nothing but yobs. My dad couldn't have been a kinder more generous and loving father - it's called proper parenting, and discipline plays a big part in that. But nonsensical over-the-top political correctness has ruined any ability to discipline kids correctly either at home or in school.

As an aside, and in reference to what I mentioned earlier, have you ever watched your average teenager or young person today working in a shop trying to give you the right change when the till doesn't work it out automatically? {Shakes head in disbelief}.

Marco.

Filterlab
30-09-2008, 13:46
Cheers, compounded somewhat but you get my drift.

http://www.nestle.co.uk/NR/rdonlyres/E704F4AA-D1CB-4B04-A5DE-112AE9732C73/0/Drifter.jpg

Filterlab
30-09-2008, 13:48
I will just add that I'm ecstatically happy that the government have launched LSC, mainly because they're a client of ours and we make a lot of money from them. :)

Marco
30-09-2008, 13:56
Steve, my apologies. My brevity has caused me to upset exactly the wrong person. What I said was "blame the education system, and the lack of inspired and inspiring teachers". I did not mean to imply "blame the teachers". Your post has said more eloquently and with far greater knowledge than I possess exactly why we should blame the education system, and why the inspired and inspiring teachers are leaving it in droves.
Teaching is the most important and least valued profession of all.

Agreed. My wife is one, and a bloody good one at that!

I don't disagree with the bit in bold but why not stand up and do something to help (be as good a teacher as you can within the environment available) rather than simply quit because you don't like the system?

Teachers are essentially parents in a classroom. The pupils they're in charge of will more often than not respond to being cared for and valued than simply seen as part of the 'system' or curriculum. In my view, the best teachers are those who are able to use a natural ability to determine what makes each individual pupil 'tick' and relate to them on their level. 'Get inside their heads', if you will, so that they will respect and learn from you.

It's very much like being a good salesman, actually. Just replace the word 'learn' with 'buy'.

This is what my wife is particularly good at. The pupils in her class think she's 'cool' and in general they all pay attention and enjoy her lessons as a result. She absolutely loves her job and is highly respected amongst her fellow teachers.

Marco.

Filterlab
30-09-2008, 14:11
This is what my wife is particularly good at. The pupils in her class think she's 'cool' and in general they all pay attention and enjoy her lessons as a result. She absolutely loves her job and is highly respected amongst her fellow teachers.

It's a pleasant thing to hear that in this day and age a teacher can still command the respect of pupils, as discipline is now not allowed there's only the meeting of wavelengths left. Some have it, but unfortunately relatively few. Of course everyone has a favourite teacher and everyone can remember him or her years later, unsurprisingly it's the favourite teacher's lessons that stay with one throughout life.

Marco
30-09-2008, 14:42
She's in it for the right reasons, Rob; some aren't unfortunately.

Also some people are born with a natural ability to teach and have the personality to command the attention of a classroom. It's all very well having the academic skills, but it's your people skills that ultimately matter most. Trouble is, lots of teachers have the former but without necessarily having the latter.

Marco.

anthonyTD
30-09-2008, 16:48
hi all,
physical punishment in schools, it has its followers [me included] also, its enemies, both have very good reasons why they may feel the way they do, here is one example from my own experience, there was one teacher that i have fond memories of, his name was mr davies, he taught me maths, he could be the most charming and funny character ever, and realy knew how to get the best from his pupils, but if you crossed him, you would regret it! also, another teacher, who while teaching my rather spirited brother actualy lost it in class and punched my brother so hard in the stomach that he gave him a hernia! now when it came to teaching me, that same teacher was totaly cool, and i learnt a lot from him, but i always had in the back of my mind what both these teachers were capable of, and i didnt cross them. ofcourse the injury my brother sustained would not be tolerated today, and nor should it for obvious reasons, but i understand how complex it would be to agree on how far a teacher could go as far as physical punishment is concerned, so the easiest thing was to bann it full stop.
even after everything my brother and i went through at school, i am not sure this was the right decision...yes, give a bully an excuse to do what is legall and he will take advantage of that every time, but those teachers were, and always have been in the minority.
anthony...:)

Marco
30-09-2008, 17:24
Strict but fair is the one, Anthony. I think that punching someone in the stomach is totally OTT, though.

Marco.

Iain Sinclair
30-09-2008, 17:58
.even after everything my brother and i went through at school, i am not sure this was the right decision...yes, give a bully an excuse to do what is legall and he will take advantage of that every time, but those teachers were, and always have been in the minority.
anthony...:)

In my school, they were very much in the majority.

Iain Sinclair
30-09-2008, 18:02
Like I said, the fact is *if* there was some morally justifiable and fair way of 'vetting' potential parents as to their suitability for the role prior to having children then undoubtedly we'd have better parents raising better human beings. I don’t think there is so it won’t happen.

Marco.

Leaving aside the moral issues, there's no way of knowing how an individual child will grow up. As you point out, some very successful people have come from very 'difficult' backgrounds, and there are plenty of people from comfortable/privileged backgrounds who have temporarily, or permanently, gone off the rails.

anthonyTD
30-09-2008, 18:31
In my school, they were very much in the majority.
hi Iain,
i am sorry to hear that, but as stated, in my experience this was not the case!
anthony...:)

Marco
30-09-2008, 18:32
Leaving aside the moral issues, there's no way of knowing how an individual child will grow up. As you point out, some very successful people have come from very 'difficult' backgrounds, and there are plenty of people from comfortable/privileged backgrounds who have temporarily, or permanently, gone off the rails.


That's absolutely true, Iain, but at least the child would be guaranteed a better start in life than it would brought up by the type of characters I've been referring to.

What kind of person it develops into later in life is largely in the lap of the gods...

The biggest percentage though I suspect would grow up to be well-adjusted and decent human beings, as so much of your character and personality is shaped on what you experience at an early age.

Marco.

anthonyTD
30-09-2008, 18:33
Strict but fair is the one, Anthony. I think that punching someone in the stomach is totally OTT, though.

Marco.
totally agree as stated!!!
:(

Marco
30-09-2008, 18:56
Yep, the problem is Anthony that since discipline was removed from the classroom pupils no longer have any respect for teachers. They know teachers can't lay a finger on them; indeed their politically correct-obsessed parents will have drilled this into them at an early age, so they milk it for all it's worth.

That's where good communicators and motivators come in - someone who can relate to kids and command respect through their presence; it's the difference between a good teacher and a great one. My wife is like that. The 'stick' has been taken away from teachers now so they have to use the 'carrot' properly.

Also, good teachers can motivate, not just delegate; it's about finding what someone is good at and exploiting that talent so that a child feels valued. So many kids are told throughout life that they're 'thick', which lowers self-esteem, when quite often it's the case that no-one has bothered to find out what they're good at! Every child has something to offer, but usually it's only the best teachers who find it...

Marco.

Cotlake
30-09-2008, 19:05
I don't have a problem that. If you're legitimately entitled to particular benefits from the government then first of all they should be made as easy as possible to claim, by this I mean the least amount of bureaucracy in place as possible. If the government are stupid enough to leave loopholes then no-one can blame people with the necessary know-how exploiting them! I would call that 'entrepreneurial' and support it wholeheartedly. It's something that I'm particularly good at myself, but of course in business not with benefits!


You don't get my drift. Let me give you an example.

Jane is a 17 year old living at home with Mum. She doesn't have a job and is dependant on Mum although she does qualify for her own benefits. Home is a council flat consisting of three bedrooms. Mum has one, her two brothers have the other and she has to share her room with her little 5 year old sister. The children are a product of three different relationships. Jane is fed up with her domestic situation and wants to move on but does not have the gumption to make things better for herself. She consults Mum for advise who suggests she tries the method she used when she was 17.

A month or so later, Jane is pregnant. She doesn't know or won't disclose who the father is. She remains at home and around the time her child is born, Mum meets a new man who after three days moves into the flat. Jane delivers a healthy child but Mum can't cope with her at home anymore as she has a new partner (the other siblings are already calling him their new dad after just a week) and he doesn't want a baby in the place which in anycase is not big enough for all of them. Mum kicks Jane and the new baby, recently named Twinkle out. Jane and Twinkle now have nowhere to live so they attend the local housing office requesting emergency rehousing. The local authority have a statutory obligation to provide children with a home so Jane and Twinkle are immediately placed in bed and breakfast acccommodation. This is expensive for the council so they quickly find her a flat to move into. Hey Presto, Jane and Twinkle now have a flat all to themselves, or at least until a boyfriend moves in. In the process, Jane and her new family have aquired a secure place to live, have qualified for housing allowance, various child benefits and of course she can't work because she is a full time child carer.

After Jane moved in, Mum came around. They had a big hug and celebrated Jane's manipulation of the system by taking Twinkle into town to have her ears pierced. Twinkle looks really pretty now.

Jane really appreciated Mum's advise. She said, "When Twinkle is about 15, I'll surely tell her to get pregnant. I'm so happy I did!"

That's what I mean when I talk about legitimate manipulation of the welfare system used every day by those within the culture and continuingly being passed on from generation to generation. Furthermore, to put it in perspective, as the users of this system know nothing different, it's not right to label them as scroungers, spongers, workshy or whatever. They've never known anything different. To them this exactly is a moral code in the same way we might think very differently but nevertheless also have a moral code.

Certainly the chain needs to be broken and the system changed. Somehow though, I don't think legislation will achieve this. It's much more a moral issue which will require a social change in attitude.

Marco, I understand your views towards these people within our society but personally I can't sign up to what you say. You do rather come over as if you've just walked out of the pages of Aldous Huxley's 'Brave New World'. Written in 1932, by today's standards it is quite visionary.

Best wishes,

Greg

Marco
30-09-2008, 19:12
Nice reply, Greg, and I understand now where you're coming from.


That's what I mean when I talk about legitimate manipulation of the welfare system used every day by those within the culture and continuingly being passed on from generation to generation. Furthermore, to put it in perspective, as the users of this system know nothing different, it's not right to label them as scroungers, spongers, workshy or whatever. They've never known anything different. To them this exactly is a moral code in the same way we might think very differently but nevertheless also have a moral code.


So then it's a matter of educating people and changing their "moral code" to what is acceptable in a decent, honest, hard working society. Because what is happening now is fundamentally wrong. Their "moral code" as explained in your post is simply not acceptable.

Any suggestions on how that is best achieved?

We simply can't just sit back, shrug our shoulders, and accept that this situation exists, allowing to it further worsen with time.

Marco.

Cotlake
30-09-2008, 19:38
A huge underlying factor of course was the government's incredibly "wise" decision to remove the ability to discipline children. The upshot is that kids don't learn because the teachers can't make them, young adults are now leaving school with virtually no education (you only have to look at your average ebay listing to confirm that) and are consequently unemployable. Not a fault of the teachers, a fault of the governing body.

Rob, I hope this is not intended and you meant Government. Having been a school governor for the last 14 years with the last 3 as Chair in a junior school within one of the officially classified most deprived areas of the country, I'd take exception to what you have said. In the time I've been a governor, we've raised this school out of special measures to a point where it is now an example heralded to the rest of the authority schools and in some aspects nationwide. This has been acheived by hard work by both governors and staff alike.

I empathise with Steve on his teaching experience. Certainly the national curriculum controls what teachers can teach and it comes with a shed load of bureaucracy which I am also victim of in my own occupation. The staff at my school are fantastic, committed and without doubt display a certain vocational attitude to their work. Something I feel is rather rare today. That is exactly why they choose to work in a school which presents a very challenging environment.

I retain the view that no matter how good a school or education system is, what happens in the home will continue to be the primary influence. In the life of an influenced person, school is an attachment to their experience. Home is where everything really happens.

Marco
30-09-2008, 19:52
Rob, I hope this is not intended and you meant Government. Having been a school governor for the last 14 years with the last 3 as Chair in a junior school within one of the officially classified most deprived areas of the country, I'd take exception to what you have said.


Why? Regardless of if he's referring to the government or school governors he's not referring to you or the specific job you're doing.

Marco.

Marco
30-09-2008, 20:02
By the way, I'd advise everyone to turn on the TV to Channel 4 and watch 'Jamie's Ministry of Food'.

It highlights another bugbear of mine - the horrendous lack of food culture we have in this country!

Laters...

Marco.

Cotlake
30-09-2008, 20:06
Marco,

The difference is important. The governing body is made up of the school governors. They are all volunteers from staff, parents, community linked people and local authority appointed people who actually sacrifice alot of time, take on statutory responsibilty which makes them personally legally liable. It's a big commitment and most who do it have a great commitment towards community responsibility. In general it would be wrong to blame them for the performance of children leaving school. After all, in this current control freak governed society we are subjected to, it is only innovative styles adopted by the governors and teachers that can overcome such control which actually can make the difference. I suspect Rob meant the government but I'd like it clarified (I hope you don't mind).

Best wishes,

Greg

Marco
30-09-2008, 20:16
No of course I don't mind.

I understand and appreciate the difference is important, Greg, but I think you're being potentially unfair on Rob. I agree, he probably meant the government, but if he didn't, he most certainly was not referring to anything you're directly responsible for.

Any chance now of a reply to the question I posed you earlier? :)

Marco.

Iain Sinclair
30-09-2008, 20:19
Marco, I understand your views towards these people within our society but personally I can't sign up to what you say. You do rather come over as if you've just walked out of the pages of Aldous Huxley's 'Brave New World'. Written in 1932, by today's standards it is quite visionary.

Indeed, and in more ways than one. 'Brave New World' was Huxley's reaction to the materialistic basis of US society.

As G K Chesteron wrote:
'After the Age of Utopias came what we may call the American Age, lasting as long as the Boom. Men like Ford or Mond seemed to many to have solved the social riddle and made capitalism the common good. But it was not native to us; it went with a buoyant, not to say blatant optimism, which is not our negligent or negative optimism. Much more than Victorian righteousness, or even Victorian self-righteousness, that optimism has driven people into pessimism. For the Slump brought even more disillusionment than the War. A new bitterness, and a new bewilderment, ran through all social life, and was reflected in all literature and art. It was contemptuous, not only of the old Capitalism, but of the old Socialism. Brave New World is more of a revolt against Utopia than against Victoria.'

Marco
30-09-2008, 20:23
By the way, I'd advise everyone to turn on the TV to Channel 4 and watch 'Jamie's Ministry of Food'.

It highlights another bugbear of mine - the horrendous lack of food culture we have in this country!

Laters...


Some of them don't even know how to turn a cooker on - bloody hell!! :mental:

I'm shocked and stunned...

Marco.

alb
30-09-2008, 20:37
the horrendous lack of food culture we have in this country!

Unfortunate, but not as regrettable as the poor manners exhibited by many, when eating whatever food we have.

My food bugbear is... people who take more food than they need and then leave half of it.

All seems rather insignificant though, in comparison to the other issues being tackled in this thread.
I've read this lot with some interest but don't feel sufficiently knowledgeable or eloquent to get involved with political/social discussions.
Except to say that morality and other basic skills need to be taught to every child from an early age. If the parents can't/won't do it then provision should be made at schools. Maybe then, future generations will reap the benefits. Don't think my generation will witness any improvements.

Marco
30-09-2008, 20:49
Unfortunate, but not as regrettable as the poor manners exhibited by many, when eating whatever food we have.

My food bugbear is... people who take more food than they need and then leave half of it.


Agreed! I especially hate the latter.

Just watching this programme and people are feeding their kids chips and cheese! Chips and bloody cheese!! Eeeurgh...

The funniest thing though was as Jamie was about to enter a house where he's teaching someone how to cook the camera panned in on their bins at the back of the house which were brim-full of empty beer cans and fag ends... The same person had been claiming earlier that she can't afford to eat well or feed her family properly.

Enough said!!

Also, the object of the exercise was for Jamie to teach a group of people a recipe (spaghetti and meatballs), show them how to cook it, and then they had to do the same and pass it on to two other friends. They had a meeting in a pub sometime later to compare the results and found that quite a few hadn't passed on the recipe. When confronted as to why they said that they didn't have time because of all the things they have to do.

Perhaps the irony escaped them, but if they've got the time to booze in the pub they've got the time to pass on a recipe!!! Also, how can you complain about having no money to pay bills and eat properly when you're spending money drinking in a pub and smoking? And surprise, surprise these are single mums on benefits... Get your bloody priorities right!!!!

These people are on a completely different planet {shakes head in disbelief}.

Jamie seems to be making some small progress, though... I admire his patience and dedication! :)

We'll see what happens next week!

Marco.

Cotlake
30-09-2008, 20:56
I'm not being unfair on Rob. I've done nothing to attack him. I just want a bit of clarity regarding his post.



Any chance now of a reply to the question I posed you earlier? :)
Marco.

So you want me to answer the most difficult question!

You said, Any suggestions on how that is best achieved?

The whole thing is a moral issue. The change might come if society changes. Seek out a moral code that might make this happen. Various countries have tried various options.Read up on communism etc. None have found a satisfactory result. I could suggest Christianity but I expect a backlash if I do. That's where we're at. What I can say is those who sign up to the Christianity charter on this type of thing do personally find resolution regardless of class or upbringing. I can't comment further but I do find the results very interesting.

Best wishes,

Greg

Marco
30-09-2008, 21:03
Interesting, Greg. I suppose we may as well bring religion into the 'hornet's nest', too! :eyebrows:

I do agree with you, though.

Btw, what's with the multiple colours? Are you trying to be arty-farty? ;)

Marco.

alb
30-09-2008, 21:13
Whether we have faith in God or not, it doesn't take much intelligence to realise that the Ten Commandments, were a damn good basis for fickle human beings to structure their lives around.
If everyone adhered to these simple rules, most of the problems that pervade our society would be non existant.

Filterlab
30-09-2008, 21:13
Rob, I hope this is not intended and you meant Government...

Apologies for my mis-phrasing, I was refering to the overall 'governing' of schools / management & direction of schooling as a whole rather than the governors themselves (whom I know do a lot of voluntary work from a desire for a decent education for all), I should have typed government.

Marco
30-09-2008, 21:33
Whether we have faith in God or not, it doesn't take much intelligence to realise that the Ten Commandments, were a damn good basis for fickle human beings to structure their lives around.
If everyone adhered to these simple rules, most of the problems that pervade our society would be non existant.

100% correct, Al. I'm a practicing Catholic and have faith in God. I have never mentioned this on a forum before for fear of the usual backlash from belligerent scientifically minded atheists who ridicule people for believing in things that can't be proven. Well I guess it's time that I 'came out the closet' :)

Incidentally, I don't have anything against normal, friendly, atheists or anyone else of another faith or religion to my own - just those who insist on rubbishing other people's beliefs because they don't fit with a scientific view of the world.

Marco.

Cotlake
30-09-2008, 21:34
Apologies for my mis-phrasing, I was refering to the overall 'governing' of schools / management & direction of schooling as a whole rather than the governors themselves (whom I know do a lot of voluntary work from a desire for a decent education for all), I should have typed government.

No offence taken Rob. Thanks for the clarification.

Best wishes,

Greg

Cotlake
30-09-2008, 22:11
Whether we have faith in God or not, it doesn't take much intelligence to realise that the Ten Commandments, were a damn good basis for fickle human beings to structure their lives around.
If everyone adhered to these simple rules, most of the problems that pervade our society would be non existant.

I'll sign up to that!

However it's an all new can of worms because although the ten commandments et al have been (and remain) the traditional basis of the law in our land for centuries, with a current social inclination to not recognise them or the Judao/Christian ethos, our government are now creating laws which are outside and supplimentary to them. If you explore deeper, you'll find that newly introduced laws currently considered socially right are infact an authorisation for sin within the original Judao/Christian concept.

This is an interesting development. Having moved away from a solid foundation, the laws now being introduced are very much geared to current circumstance. It is interesting that having moved away from an original moral Christian foundation, the government now feels the need to introduce a shed load of legislation on just about everything that daily effects us all. Without the original moral foundation, legislate, legislate, legislate seems to be the only option.

Someone said ( I don't recall who) Democracy is good for those without faith. They need the organisation.

Iain Sinclair
30-09-2008, 22:25
Though of course Christ encouraged fecklessness: 'Consider the liles of the field, they toil not, neither do they spin'. He was also keen on not judging others: 'Judge not, lest ye be judged and found wanting' and 'He that is without sin, let him cast the first stone'.

Marco
01-10-2008, 08:15
Oooh, we're going all 'churchy'... Maybe we should open up a confessional?

Right, who's the worst sinner here? :eyebrows:

Marco.

Filterlab
01-10-2008, 11:06
No offence taken Rob. Thanks for the clarification.

Best wishes,

Greg

My pleasure. :)

Filterlab
01-10-2008, 11:07
Right, who's the worst sinner here? :eyebrows:

:scratch: :confused:

Marco
01-10-2008, 11:12
Well Esther tells me you've been a very, very naughty boy... :bum:

Marco.

Filterlab
01-10-2008, 11:22
That my friend is not so much a sin, more of a godsend. :lol:

anthonyTD
01-10-2008, 11:53
hi all,
the ten comandments were and still are a very good morale code to live by, no matter what religeous following you may be taking, the same rules make sense, even if your not religeous at all!!!:)

Marco
01-10-2008, 12:15
I was thinking about what Iain and Shane said earlier about breeding and wondered what people would think about this. I know it's a thorny and emotive subject, but I like tackling these things especially when I have a captive and intelligent audience!

The moral thing is very difficult, and I accept the huge problems in implementing any form of restrictions on procreation, but what about some form of vetting being put into place the same as when people are considering fostering or adopting a child?

I mean not any old 'Tom, Dick and Harry' gets to foster or adopt a child - there are all manner of stringent checks one has to go through before the authorities allow couples to adopt or foster, particularly checks to see if the environment is suitable, so perhaps this could be a way forward? It would be difficult or almost impossible to implement, I know, but I think there is some merit in the idea.

It should at least mean that kids being born are raised by parents who are up to the job, and crucially in my opinion, actually *want* children. So many unfortunate children are brought into this world as 'mistakes', or rather abhorrently, as a money making exercise through the claiming of child benefits in order to fund a work-shy existence.

Your thoughts please gentlemen... :)

Marco.

anthonyTD
01-10-2008, 12:23
I was thinking about what Iain and Shane said earlier about breeding and wondered what people would think about this. I know it's a thorny and emotive subject, but I like tackling these things especially when I have a captive and intelligent audience!

The moral thing is very difficult, and I accept the huge problems in implementing any form of restrictions on procreation, but what about some form of vetting being put into place the same as when people are considering fostering or adopting a child?

I mean not any old 'Tom, Dick and Harry' gets to foster or adopt a child - there are all manner of stringent checks one has to go through before the authorities allow couples to adopt or foster, particularly checks to see if the environment is suitable, so perhaps this could be a way forward? It would be difficult or almost impossible to implement, I know, but I think there is some merit in this idea.

It should at least mean that kids being born are raised by parents who are up to the job, and crucially in my opinion, actually *want* children. So many unfortunate children are brought into this world as 'mistakes', or rather abhorrently, as a money making exercise through the claiming of child benefits in order to fund a work-shy existence.

Your thoughts please gentlemen... :)

Marco.
hi marco,
i for one think there is some merit in what you say, but how to implement it would be another thing!!!:confused:

Marco
01-10-2008, 12:31
I'm not sure either, Anthony, but perhaps some of the sages amongst us have some suggestions? Basically though, I've just thrown this idea 'out in the open', as it were, to see what people think.

I'm glad that you agree. I think the idea is eminently sensible, but sense is obviously not the only consideration here.

Marco.

Marco
01-10-2008, 15:03
Meanwhile for your amusement, read the thread Steve started which is running simultaneously on pfm:

http://www.pinkfishmedia.net/forum/showthread.php?t=53497&page=3

Have a look at posts #31 and #37 by 'mmterror'. The Jade Goody thing is f*cking hilarious!! :lol:

I also liked Aquapiranha's posts #53 and this beauty #59:


It does not explain however how despite being "rich" in a relative way the scum still want to commit crime to get more. This is not about rich and poor, it is about a complete breakdown of moral fibre, these people do not steal from the state by working on the side because they need to feed their kids, they do it through greed, pure and simple.
Time for some heads on poles..


Bloody spot on, mate! :clap:

Marco.

Colinx
01-10-2008, 15:50
hi marco,
i for one think there is some merit in what you say, but how to implement it would be another thing!!!:confused:

Given the strange requirement, and descriptive names usually applied, how about we pass some edict that means every pint of can of lager sold in the UK contains a fairly high dose of potassium bromide.

Colinx
01-10-2008, 15:56
Yes, I totally agree but that shouldn't demean the effect that the scrounger parasites have on society, on all sorts of levels.

I suspect that there are a number of people who are more directly or indirectly affected by the behaviour of the scroungers and layabouts than by the misdemeanours of investment bankers...


Marco.

are they not one and the same

Mike
01-10-2008, 16:18
Meanwhile for your amusement, read the thread Steve started which is running simultaneously on pfm:

http://www.pinkfishmedia.net/forum/showthread.php?t=53497&page=3

Have a look at posts #31 and #37 by 'mmterror'. The Jade Goody thing is f*cking hilarious!! :lol:

I also liked Aquapiranha's posts #53 and this beauty #59:



Bloody spot on, mate! :clap:

Marco.

I notice you no not mention this post:


"I find it disturbing that in this time of economic crisis blame instantly gets deflected onto those who have been discarded by capitalism. This is the ugly face of the political propaganda we are fed on a daily basis and I'd really have hoped people here had the intellect to see through it. The reality is the wheels have come off the economy due to irresponsibility and greed within corporate free-market banking practice coupled with an increasingly gullible middle class who were happy to be sold far more credit than they were ever able to realistically pay off. Those at the very bottom of the heap are usually refused credit by all but loan-sharks so are largely not in this picture. Many are not even allowed to open bank accounts and just pick up their benefit or pension in cash at the PO. The last thing the middle classes will ever do is shoulder any blame themselves and they are programmed on a daily basis not to criticise those who are making all the money at the top. Blame the poor! That's the propaganda message and it is amazing just how many folk buy it.

Tony."

Marco
01-10-2008, 16:23
Given the strange requirement, and descriptive names usually applied, how about we pass some edict that means every pint of can of lager sold in the UK contains a fairly high dose of potassium bromide.

Sorry, Colin, I'm afraid you'll have to elucidate. I haven't a clue what you mean in the first part of your sentence :confused:

As for the second part - no, because I know some nice, honest, hard-working people who drink lager!


are they not one and the same [scroungers and layabouts and investment bankers]


How many investment bankers do you know personally? I won't ask you if you know any scroungers or layabouts ;)

Marco.

Marco
01-10-2008, 16:24
I notice you no not mention this post: [Link to biased political twaddle]

Because I think, to put it mildy, most of it's a load of misguided and deluded pish from someone with a very biased political agenda! I have nothing against the genuinely poor and needy; they're completely off my radar. Unlike Mr Lonorgan, who's entitled to his opinion, I have no agenda whatsoever when it comes to politics - I don't even vote!

Perhaps you could suggest how the specific people Aquapiranha is referring to in his post are in any way defendable? And there are plenty of these parasites around!

Marco.

Mike
01-10-2008, 17:20
Oh sorry... I was misguidedly posting in reference to the thread topic.

How silly of me! :lol:


However, the implication that the current (global!) economic problems are caused by the comparatively small number of 'parasites, scumbags, etc..' is, err, what was the phrase?.. Oh yes..
a load of misguided and deluded pish

:bum:

Marco
01-10-2008, 17:41
I agree, but that's not what I've been implying. You seem to be obsessed with monetary considerations, Mike. All you appear concerned with is your tax payments and the effect of investment bankers decisions on the economy. Yes, such things are important but it's not the be-all-and-end-all.

There are many more important things in life than money and possessions. Try freedom from fear, for starters, and say, the ability of an old age pensioner not to feel like a prisoner in his or her house because of yobs congregating in an intimidating manner on every corner of their council estate as a result of being spawned by layabout parasite parents who couldn't give a damn what their yobs get up to!

These people don't give a toss what bloody investment bankers do, and rightly so.

Have you any idea the grief these vermin roaming the streets cause to people living in those areas and how they've overrun them and turned them into their own twisted playground of crime?

Should I publish, for example, some figures on the current amount of victims of 'happy slapping' caused by those normally seen in situations such as I've described above? - Or muggings and stabbings, perhaps?

Marco.

Mike
01-10-2008, 17:47
Sorry.... thought it was about the credit crunch. :D

Just like the thread Steve started on PFM in fact. :D :D

Marco
01-10-2008, 17:50
It's my thread, mate, (as you've said already) so it's about what I want it to be about ;)

Marco.

Mike
01-10-2008, 17:51
Then tittle it appropriately ya big tardy eejit!

Iain Sinclair
01-10-2008, 18:05
I was thinking about what Iain and Shane said earlier about breeding and wondered what people would think about this. I know it's a thorny and emotive subject, but I like tackling these things especially when I have a captive and intelligent audience!

The moral thing is very difficult, and I accept the huge problems in implementing any form of restrictions on procreation, but what about some form of vetting being put into place the same as when people are considering fostering or adopting a child?

I mean not any old 'Tom, Dick and Harry' gets to foster or adopt a child - there are all manner of stringent checks one has to go through before the authorities allow couples to adopt or foster, particularly checks to see if the environment is suitable, so perhaps this could be a way forward? It would be difficult or almost impossible to implement, I know, but I think there is some merit in the idea.

It should at least mean that kids being born are raised by parents who are up to the job, and crucially in my opinion, actually *want* children. So many unfortunate children are brought into this world as 'mistakes', or rather abhorrently, as a money making exercise through the claiming of child benefits in order to fund a work-shy existence.

Your thoughts please gentlemen... :)

Marco.

Such a scheme would be incredibly expensive to run (interviewing all prospective parents in depth would mean employing thousands of people all of whom would need training/vetting) difficult to enforce (how would you deal with those deemed 'unsuitable' who had children anyway?) and would be open to abuse by any authoritarian-minded government. It could only work in a totalitarian state such as Communist China.

In case you hadn't guessed, I think it's a lousy idea.

Mike
01-10-2008, 18:07
In case you hadn't guessed, I think it's a lousy idea.

Not to mention, completely unworkable!... Never mind expensive.

Colinx
01-10-2008, 18:26
Sorry, Colin, I'm afraid you'll have to elucidate. I haven't a clue what you mean in the first part of your sentence :confused:

As for the second part - no, because I know some nice, honest, hard-working people who drink lager!



How many investment bankers do you know personally? I won't ask you if you know any scroungers or layabouts ;)

Marco.

Not sure about the total I know in either case, but as one brother in law is a investment banker, granted middle to upper tiers, and the other is total waste of space layabout I do have some experience of both sides of the coin.

Why confused, suitable application levels would get rid of lager louts, Chav's and pesky lager drinkers over a period of time.

Colinx
01-10-2008, 18:49
exactly, whoever is/was responsible for the hard times that we are all about to face long since pocketed the cash, and ran away.

Trying to address the financial woes of our society, let alone the rest of the world on a forum that is based around the purchase and usage of boys toys seems just a tad out of place anyway.

A few of the posts are certainly well thought through, and expressed, and show very well how ''stateist'' we have become, where the normal working (or not) man in the street is studied, filmed, and exploited in most areas of life, while the people who have caused most of the problems are left unsupervised.

Marco
01-10-2008, 18:58
Such a scheme would be incredibly expensive to run (interviewing all prospective parents in depth would mean employing thousands of people all of whom would need training/vetting) difficult to enforce (how would you deal with those deemed 'unsuitable' who had children anyway?) and would be open to abuse by any authoritarian-minded government. It could only work in a totalitarian state such as Communist China.

In case you hadn't guessed, I think it's a lousy idea.


I'd ship these layout fuckers off to bloody Communist China!!

As for the rest, yes I know how expensive it would be, etc, etc, but the basic idea I still feel has merit. Implementing it fairly and humanely is another question :)

Colin,

I'll come back to you later. My T-bone steak awaits! :eyebrows:

Marco.

Cotlake
01-10-2008, 19:01
Hi Marco,



I mean not any old 'Tom, Dick and Harry' gets to foster or adopt a child - there are all manner of stringent checks one has to go through before the authorities allow couples to adopt or foster, particularly checks to see if the environment is suitable, so perhaps this could be a way forward? It would be difficult or almost impossible to implement, I know, but I think there is some merit in the idea.


If you want to continue to live in a democratic state with your freedom of choice as an individual, this has to be a non starter. It smacks of fascism or at least very extreme right wing politics. My previous comments about you walking out of the pages of 'Brave New World' were obviously not misguided.

In the course of my work I've walked up dark alleys to find a local girl being 'given one' against the wall. Her friend had met her by chance walking back from the chip shop. He was performing still hanging onto his opened bag of chips! It's that sort of chance thing you are suggesting we should try to legislate against. How would the government introduce the control?

I completely understand your frustration on this. When I married, I took on a ready made son. We could have said nothing to the authorities and I could simply have been step-dad and that would have been the end of it. We chose to go through the adoption process. It took three years with all of us, including my now adopted and lawful inheritor son having regular interviews and home visits from Social Services. We then had to go before a judge to have the adoption granted. It's a bit of a nonsense when any old man can walk into a family and within a week the kids call him their 'new dad'!

However, to try to control breading would be madness if we want to live in a free society. I agree, not any 'Tom, Dick or Harry' gets to foster or adopt, but when it comes to the basics of breading, generally Dick has all the answers :)

Clearly from the content of your posts and contrary to your claim, you are seriously interested in politics. To therefore be a non-voter is a very irresponsible place to be. As you have much opinion on all this discussion, you should exercise your citizens right to vote for the cadidate or party whose policies best reflect your personal thinking. At least by doing that you can justify sounding off about issues when you want to, albeit, maybe you don't have a BNP candidate standing in your area ;)

No offence intended :)

Best wishes,

Greg

Marco
01-10-2008, 19:05
Then tittle it appropriately ya big tardy eejit!

What pray is "tittle"? Is it somehow related to 'titilate' via some twisted North Eastern vernacular? :lol:

LOL, Greg. Love it! I'll 'deal' with you later, too ;)

Right, my steak's getting cold!

Much later...

Marco.

aquapiranha
01-10-2008, 19:12
I think there needs to be a distinction made between people who are poor, and people who are essentially lawless parasites. There is a big difference between the two!

Just being poor does not make you a low life dole scrounger, destined to a life of sponging from the state through choice. Some are poor for other reasons, and may use benefits to keep them going until they hit better times, as it was designed to do.

To me at least there seems to be a huge swathe of morally bereft, lawless parasites intent on contributing absolutely nothing to our society. these people should not be allowed to get away with it at the expense of honest hardworking tax payers, who, lets face it are supporting these people and feedng and clothing them via the taxes they pay each month.

Until these people are weaned off this state support, I do not see a way out of the rising crime rates we appear to have (I am of course not insinuating everyone on benefits are part of that problem)

aquapiranha
01-10-2008, 19:20
I just edited because I wanted to add that we are victims of ourselves, and by that I mean that we tell ourselves we are nothing without big fancey houses and cars, flash jewellery and mobile phones etc, and people without money have a choice - if they want to be part of this bling culture they can either go out and steal the things they think will make them somebody, or they can get a job - something it seems some of them are nor inclined to do.

Iain Sinclair
01-10-2008, 19:29
I'd ship these layout fuckers off to bloody Communist China!!

As for the rest, yes I know how expensive it would be, etc, etc, but the basic idea I still feel has merit. Implementing it fairly and humanely is another question :)

.

I have this picture of a young couple turning up for their 'parenting' interview:

Interviewer to young woman:

'You look as if you're already pregnant, without permission'

YW 'Yes, that's true, I'm afraid'

Interviewer to young man:
'Why did you get this woman pregnant?'

YM 'I didn't, we've never had sex'

Interviewer to YW: 'Then who is the father?'

YW 'I'd rather not say. You probably wouldn't believe me anyway'

Interviewer 'This is most unsatisfactory. Where are you both living? Can you provide a stable environment for the baby?'

YW: 'At the moment we're homeless. But we think we can sleep in a stable tonight'.

Interviewer: 'So, the father's unknown, you're homeless, and obviously very poor. I think a compulsory abortion is called for so the child is not a burden on society. Your names?'

YW 'Mary'
YM 'Joseph'.

Marco
01-10-2008, 19:44
:lolsign: Hilarious!

Marco.

aquapiranha
01-10-2008, 19:46
I have this picture of a young couple turning up for their 'parenting' interview:

Interviewer to young woman:

'You look as if you're already pregnant, without permission'

YW 'Yes, that's true, I'm afraid'

Interviewer to young man:
'Why did you get this woman pregnant?'

YM 'I didn't, we've never had sex'

Interviewer to YW: 'Then who is the father?'

YW 'I'd rather not say. You probably wouldn't believe me anyway'

Interviewer 'This is most unsatisfactory. Where are you both living? Can you provide a stable environment for the baby?'

YW: 'At the moment we're homeless. But we think we can sleep in a stable tonight'.

Interviewer: 'So, the father's unknown, you're homeless, and obviously very poor. I think a compulsory abortion is called for so the child is not a burden on society. Your names?'

YW 'Mary'
YM 'Joseph'.

that is a very funny analogy Iain.

One thing that puzzles me though is that there are those who feel they somehow have a "right" to have children and then get someone else to pay to support that child through most of it's life. What about the rights of those who have to foot the bill? should they not have a say where there hard earned taxes get spent? do they not have the right to live in peace without fear of crime? Sure people should have kids, but only when they are in a position to support that child in a loving environment, not because they need a council house or extra child benefit.

Not aining this at you personally Iain, just making a point, there are two sides to every story.

Iain Sinclair
01-10-2008, 19:51
that is a very funny analogy Iain.

One thing that puzzles me though is that there are those who feel they somehow have a "right" to have children and then get someone else to pay to support that child through most of it's life. What about the rights of those who have to foot the bill? should they not have a say where there hard earned taxes get spent? do they not have the right to live in peace without fear of crime? Sure people should have kids, but only when they are in a position to support that child in a loving environment, not because they need a council house or extra child benefit.

Not aining this at you personally Iain, just making a point, there are two sides to every story.

Oh sure. I just don't think policing parenting decisions is either a good idea in principle or workable in practice.

One scary fact I picked up on the evening news tonight is that there are now more pensioners than children in the UK. With the middle class seeming to have given up on having children altogether, only the poor are breeding!

aquapiranha
01-10-2008, 19:55
Oh sure. I just don't think policing parenting decisions is either a good idea in principle or workable in practice.

One scary fact I picked up on the evening news tonight is that there are now more pensioners than children in the UK. With the middle class seeming to have given up on having children altogether, only the poor are breeding!

Yes, I have noticed that the demographic is changing, as you say ore old people, less middle class kids, more working class kids. the way I see it, the middle class are putting off having kids maybe due to both having to work to keep a house running, and the working class ( now that is a misnomer) couldn't give a stuff, many of them are living free anyway! having a child isn't going to put them into poverty, the others can pay for it! lol...

Oh the irony. But seriously, what will happen if the current state you describe goes on? there will be only pensioners and neds in our country! :lol:

Iain Sinclair
01-10-2008, 20:06
Yes, I have noticed that the demographic is changing, as you say ore old people, less middle class kids, more working class kids. the way I see it, the middle class are putting off having kids maybe due to both having to work to keep a house running, and the working class ( now that is a misnomer) couldn't give a stuff, many of them are living free anyway! having a child isn't going to put them into poverty, the others can pay for it! lol...

Oh the irony. But seriously, what will happen if the current state you describe goes on? there will be only pensioners and neds in our country! :lol:

Of course the working class always did have more children than the middle class, but I don't think it's just the financial stress of needing two salaries that's keeping the middle class childless. Raising children is hard and often thankless work (if done properly), and many couples take the view that it's more trouble than it's worth.

Will things go on as they are? Impossible to say, but I'm guessing that when the financial shit really hits the fan, benefits will become less generous than they are, and more pressure will be put on those claiming to show genuine need. Many middle class people will lose their jobs, and have children because they get bored sitting around the house all day.

Then, if this bird flu we keep being threatened with actually shows up, the elderly population will be seriously reduced.

So it's not all doom and gloom!

aquapiranha
01-10-2008, 20:11
Of course the working class always did have more children than the middle class, but I don't think it's just the financial stress of needing two salaries that's keeping the middle class childless. Raising children is hard and often thankless work (if done properly), and many couples take the view that it's more trouble than it's worth.

Will things go on as they are? Impossible to say, but I'm guessing that when the financial shit really hits the fan, benefits will become less generous than they are, and more pressure will be put on those claiming to show genuine need. Many middle class people will lose their jobs, and have children because they get bored sitting around the house all day.

Then, if this bird flu we keep being threatened with actually shows up, the elderly population will be seriously reduced.

So it's not all doom and gloom!

I like your thinking there Iain. I don't want to pioint the finger, but...

I blame the lefty bleeding heart do-gooders for many of our country's ills. There is just no accountablitity, no requirement to contribute. Maybe a plague is just what we need, as you say!

Marco
01-10-2008, 20:19
I blame the lefty bleeding heart do-gooders for many of our country's ills.


Aye, the political correctness brigade! They need a bloody good slap...

Just popping in, chaps, busy now but will get to all this later :eyebrows:

Marco.

Iain Sinclair
01-10-2008, 20:27
Aye, the political correctness brigade! They need a bloody good slap....

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1069339_toilet_signs_too_pc

STUDENTS say new signs on toilets at their union building might be making their WC just a 'bit too PC'.

The traditional sign on the door of the Gents has been temporarily replaced with one that says 'toilets with urinals'.

And the sign on the Ladies now simply says 'toilets' in a move to make the lavatories more inclusive for trans-gender students.

[...]

Minutes from the union's executive meeting in July said: "The women's officer asked if any action could be taken following the directive from the council to look into gender-neutral toilets in the union.

"After discussion, the women's officer felt the solution would be to change the signs on one set of toilets in the building to `with urinals' and `without urinals' with explanatory signage.

"She felt the basement would be the most appropriate area to trial this. This was agreed."

mheh!

jimdgoulding
02-10-2008, 03:23
In my life, people are more conservative about non essential spending. Well, not in Beverly Hills, maybe, but in middle America. I have a brokerage account invested heavily in far eastern economies, and, today, I learned just how much in trouble that account is. If consumers are not spending the money, there is less need of manufacturing and labor. Have no choice, unless I want to eat the losses, but to take my broker's advice that things will turn up. I'm hoping I can recover the principle but don't expect to enjoy the 20% profit I was making. If I had it to do over again, I would have invested my savings in insured IRA's. I think we could all learn something from the French, and elsewhere perhaps, but over here, if the ruling class doesn't buy in, it ain't gonna happen. And they won't. Not unless they can get a tax break!

Marco
02-10-2008, 07:44
Iain,

Love it! :lol:

Nice to hear it from an American perspective, Jim :)

Marco.

Marco
02-10-2008, 09:34
Not sure about the total I know in either case, but as one brother in law is a investment banker, granted middle to upper tiers, and the other is total waste of space layabout I do have some experience of both sides of the coin.


So would you honestly say, discounting any personal issues you may have with him, that your investment banker brother-in-law is a "layabout" in the true sense?

What's the family doing about the other one who by all accounts *is* a "total waste of space layabout"? What age is he?

When I left school, for example, (after 6th year) if I hadn't found a job almost right away my dad would have booted me up the arse to the job centre on a daily basis until I found one! No way would he have tolerated me lounging around the house doing nothing or claiming dole money any longer than was absolutely necessary. Most parents are too soft with their kids these days, even the ones who aren't layabout parasties.

My dad used to own a couple of chip shops, and even when I was at school I was made to go in at 7am every morning before I went there to help him tidy up the shop, brushing up chips that had fallen on the floor from the busy night before, stocking shelves with soft drinks, cigarettes and sweets, dusting them, and then mopping the floor from top to bottom so the whole place was spotless. I think I got 50p a day for doing it, which was not bad in those days. It certainly gave me a work ethic from an early age.

What he didn't know though was when I was in secondary school I used to sell sweets and crisps he gave me from the shop to the kids at school and make rather more than the pocket money I got :eyebrows:. I also used to take a toy slot machine in that I was given as a Xmas present, which accepted real money as well as the toy stuff it came with, and I charged 10p a game to play and try and win the 'jackpot'. Sometimes I lost all the money if someone won, but most of the time I was quids in! I guess that was my start as a budding entrepreneur...

Marco.

Colinx
02-10-2008, 11:10
Layabout in the true sense, maybe not, contibution to society is questionable, in both personal and financial terms. Given the amount of money that is going to be needed if the world leaders manage to do a canute job on the banking sector I would think the tax revenue taken out of the banking system for the next few years will be a finger in the dyke.
As for the other one, note the in-law part of the relationship. Parents and family may excercise some control over direct family members through peer pressure, or moral code that is built in, or ingrained, it has little effect on family imports.

Marco
02-10-2008, 12:04
Hi Greg,


If you want to continue to live in a democratic state with your freedom of choice as an individual, this has to be a non starter. It smacks of fascism or at least very extreme right wing politics. My previous comments about you walking out of the pages of 'Brave New World' were obviously not misguided.


LOL! I don't disagree with your observations and can see how it must read, but basically all I want is for everyone in this country who is fit and able enough to work to find a job and pay their way in life, and hopefully through proper parenting, create siblings of the same mindset - Simple eh!

In my view the people who don't do this and who blatantly and systematically plan to do sweet F.A, who get paid through hard working people's taxes, and are part of this odious "dependency culture" you speak of, should be 'named and shamed' and made to work by taking whatever jobs which they can do of any description that are available.

In order to for these parasites not to multiply even further I believe that something fundamental must be done at source in terms of restricting their procreation but whatever that is I'm not sure. One thing's for sure though, it'll take a damn sight more than simply trying to 'educate' these people properly and what the government is currently doing about it (not a lot) to make serious inroads into the problem!!


In the course of my work I've walked up dark alleys to find a local girl being 'given one' against the wall. Her friend had met her by chance walking back from the chip shop. He was performing still hanging onto his opened bag of chips! It's that sort of chance thing you are suggesting we should try to legislate against. How would the government introduce the control?


It would be impossible, I know. I guess that gives a whole new meaning to the term a 'quick poke'! And, hey, maybe he was using a condom; did you check? :eyebrows:


I completely understand your frustration on this. When I married, I took on a ready made son. We could have said nothing to the authorities and I could simply have been step-dad and that would have been the end of it. We chose to go through the adoption process. It took three years with all of us, including my now adopted and lawful inheritor son having regular interviews and home visits from Social Services. We then had to go before a judge to have the adoption granted. It's a bit of a nonsense when any old man can walk into a family and within a week the kids call him their 'new dad'!


I know; it's bloody ridiculous! You see, all I'm trying to get across here is that people of any description planning to have children should be subject to the similar scrutiny that you undertook when going through the adoption process. At the end of the day the PRIMARY consideration should always be the welfare of the child, NOT the parental 'wants' of potential parents. That may sound harsh, but I firmly believe in this principle, and if the authorities did too the country would be in a much better state than it is. *BUT*, equally, I understand how dictatorial, morally wrong, and unmanageable the process of selection would be.


However, to try to control breading would be madness if we want to live in a free society. I agree, not any 'Tom, Dick or Harry' gets to foster or adopt, but when it comes to the basics of breading, generally Dick has all the answers.


Hehe… I like that one! By the way, where does bread-making come into it? ;)


Clearly from the content of your posts and contrary to your claim, you are seriously interested in politics. To therefore be a non-voter is a very irresponsible place to be. As you have much opinion on all this discussion, you should exercise your citizens right to vote for the cadidate or party whose policies best reflect your personal thinking. At least by doing that you can justify sounding off about issues when you want to, albeit, maybe you don't have a BNP candidate standing in your area.


LOL. You're becoming quite a comedian, aren't you! One thing I most definitely am not is racist.

You have a point and I know where you're coming from, but trust me I am not "seriously interested" in politics - at least certainly not the yawn-inducing stuff one reads in newspapers or watches on political programmes on TV, and sometimes on the main news. I've always wondered, for example, what sort of geek watches the 'Parliament Channel' live (somewhat of a misnomer) on Satellite TV, where perhaps four people in an empty House of Commons are debating in great detail the rights of lollipop ladies or some such nonsense; perhaps anorak-wearing insomniacs? :lol:

Party political broadcasts, 'Question Time', and all that sort of guff bores me to tears, and when I hear terms like 'Neo-liberalism' 'Quasi-socialist', 'left of centre' this, 'right of centre' that, my eyes glaze over in utter disinterest! I hate 'labels' - and that includes 'middle-class', 'upper middle-class', 'lower middle-class', 'working-class', and all that shite. People are just people and should be judged as who they are as individuals and nothing more. It's all pure snobbery!

No, Greg, what I'm interested in are PEOPLE and certain social issues which either directly affects me in some way or that I'm particularly passionate about. The subject under discussion here is one such example.

I don't vote because a) I think most politicians are self-centered baffoons (why should I vote for someone I don't like?), and b) because like I said before very few policies of any major party directly affect my lifestyle in a significant way. I guess that if I was going to vote it would be for the Liberal party, or whatever they're called these days, but only because they've not been in power before and I'd be curious to see what they would do. I also wouldn't have a problem with the Green party getting in because I'm a bit of a 'Greeny' (as is my wife) in terms of the way we live, and I respect the environment. I would imagine that we're in the top 10% of the country in terms of our carbon footprint.

Looking forward to your reply later :)

Marco.

Marco
02-10-2008, 14:37
Colin,


Layabout in the true sense, maybe not, contibution to society is questionable, in both personal and financial terms.


You see that's my point: it's the fact that he's contributing something to society which elevates him from the rank of a fully 'paid-up' bona fide layabout ;)


As for the other one, note the in-law part of the relationship. Parents and family may excercise some control over direct family members through peer pressure, or moral code that is built in, or ingrained, it has little effect on family imports.

"Imports" - I like that! I guess that it depends on how close you guys are.

Marco.

Filterlab
02-10-2008, 14:41
Hehe… I like that one! By the way, where does bread-making come into it? ;)

Maybe those from poor 'breading' kneed a dictionary. ;)

No offence meant to anyone, it's a gag based on a misspelling. :)

Marco
02-10-2008, 15:41
Hehe... I just love the fact that there are so many (highly observant) pedants on here!

Or should that be 'pendant'? :scratch:

Marco.

Filterlab
02-10-2008, 15:48
Or should that be 'pendant'? :scratch:

Only if I let it hang out for a few minutes.

Marco
02-10-2008, 16:20
:lolsign:

Marco.

thrunobulaxx
02-10-2008, 17:37
Well Musical Fidelity must have seen the crunch coming, either that or they are paying too much for metal:eyebrows:
http://www.musicalfidelity.com/products/vseries/index.html