Jump to content
David

The Politics Thread 2019

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

Interesting article here on far right violence by Owen Jones. Think it sums up recent debates on here pretty well. Would be interested if anyone can point out any obvious bias/factually incorrect information.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/22/far-right-violence-on-rise-where-is-outrage

Cant comment on the factual correctness of the article but you cant see bias in the article? Really?

The fact that he can pretty much discuss every murder by a far right activist in the UK in the last 10 years, in one newspaper column maybe shows that it is probably not as major a  problem as he is making out.

I have read about every incident that he mentioned in his article too, so not really sure what his point is.

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Cant comment on the factual correctness of the article but you cant see bias in the article? Really?

The fact that he can pretty much discuss every murder by a far right activist in the UK in the last 10 years, in one newspaper column maybe shows that it is probably not as major a  problem as he is making out.

I have read about every incident that he mentioned in his article too, so not really sure what his point is.

I hadn't heard about many of the far right attacks and would guess plenty of other people would be the same.

I think his point is the final paragraph.

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

I hadn't heard about many of the far right attacks and would guess plenty of other people would be the same.

I think his point is the final paragraph.

Yes, a very strange paragraph. Following his article about whipping up hatred, he concludes that incidents against white people are not being reported, some may even find that comment racist?

So, did a brief bit of research:-

Mohammed Saleem, murdered in 2013 by a Ukranian man that had been in the UK for less than a week. Reported in all MSM outlets.

Mushin Ahmed, murdered in 2016 by 2 scagheads high on drink and drugs, they have never given any reason for the murder. Reported in all MSM outlets.

Went on to watch Owen Jones interview on BBC again.

A few points.

- Attacks on journalists is an attack on free speech? How many times has this been applied to Tommy Robinson?

- He was attacked and blames Tommy Robinson followers and calls him a convicted right wing thug.

- Cant wait to point out hes a white guy...why? Does he think people cannot see that?

- His evidence that he was attacked by members of the far right? Absolutely none. Claims to have some but cannot disclose it?

Basically, the guy is the sort of person that is a major part of the problem that he pretends to be defending.

 

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, uttoxram75 said:

Your trying too hard to be funny mate.

Some people are genuinely struggling. I'm glad your ok but not every poor person is worthy of ridicule and some of us do really care about the sort of world our grandkids will inherit.

My joke was aimed at Gboro who seemed genuinely shocked that a house was selling in a London for £8m. If he has only just caught on to London property prices he is more out of touch than I imagined. I doubt £8m would buy anything too great in the prime areas of London.

For the record I was not laughing or ridiculing anyone struggling either. My response was specific to a post he made on capitalism not social welfare.

By the way, how do you know I am ok? You know very little about me (other than I am from the oh so prosperious South) but you carry on assuming and slurring me if it helps the agenda.  I will share this with one of my grandkids next time I see them, after I am poked them in the eye with a sharp stick.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, i-Ram said:

My joke was aimed at Gboro who seemed genuinely shocked that a house was selling in a London for £8m. If he has only just caught on to London property prices he is more out of touch than I imagined. I doubt £8m would buy anything too great in the prime areas of London.

For the record I was not laughing or ridiculing anyone struggling either. My response was specific to a post he made on capitalism not social welfare.

By the way, how do you know I am ok? You know very little about me (other than I am from the oh so prosperious South) but you carry on assuming and slurring me if it helps the agenda.  I will share this with one of my grandkids next time I see them, after I am poked them in the eye with a sharp stick.

Of course I know that property prices in London are incredible. I mentioned it because genuinely there was something popped up on the BBC World Service channel last night. No idea what it was about, but it came to mind. 

And I found your comment amusing, but you never know what other people's experiences are. What I see as funny might be too close to the bone for others. 

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, SillyBilly said:

When I first moved down South I was on £53k, it doesn't buy you much of a life in London as a single man. It genuinely doesn't and this is what frustrates me, people need to live on the other side of the curtain (or a high cost of living area in this case) and try it before they comment. There is a boat load of stress and pressure to earn it, that is a constant though. Reality is you are either heavily subsidised, squeezed middle or stinking rich in London. That tax cut would have helped that squeezed middle group. I was far better off earning £30k in the Midlands. Granted if you want to sleep in a HMO you may save some dollar but when you're holding down a very responsible job student living isn't actually that appealing. You won't have a hope in hell of ever buying either, your after tax income is swallowed in rent. I moved out after 3 years, as many do.

The final paragraph is right but we all have different priorities. People make choices. I would like to think I will be finished work 25 years before retirement age. But I reckon I will have worked as many hours by that point as people who will go the full distance. I choose to do it differently and am okay with the arrangement overall.

 

I get what you are saying, but there's a difference between stress from a hard, demanding professional job and the stress of not knowing if you will be able to put food in the kids' mouths tonight. 

Genuinely not trying to belittle your post. But until we get to the position where children don't have to go hungry, I'm not happy with the way we run the country. And honestly I think we can improve things for the vast majority of the population, however the chase for endless profit has to stop. 

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

Of course I know that property prices in London are incredible. I mentioned it because genuinely there was something popped up on the BBC World Service channel last night. No idea what it was about, but it came to mind. 

And I found your comment amusing, but you never know what other people's experiences are. What I see as funny might be too close to the bone for others. 

No problems buddy.  I remain disappointed with with Uttox painting me in a way that suited his narrative. Time for me, and my humour, to stay out of this thread again. 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

But until we get to the position where children don't have to go hungry, I'm not happy with the way we run the country. And honestly I think we can improve things for the vast majority of the population, however the chase for endless profit has to stop. 

One of the problems we face is that too many people, when faced with the issue of kids going hungry, simply deflect by pointing out that some of those cases are because the parents have selfishly prioritised other things (drugs, drink, fags, gambling, massive TV - the list goes on)

Whilst that's undeniably true in some cases - it does a gross disservice to those who aren't in that position and are just genuinely living in poverty. And it also does nothing to solve the root cause of inequality caused by the endless pursuit of profit

Even the most right wing of posters on here seem happy to admit that neoliberalism/capitalism is out of control in many ways - but the question is really, what are you going to do about it? I don't know how people can see it and then still vote for more of it 😞

Changing the subject slightly- is anyone up to speed with what's going on in Hong Kong? I've not really got my head around it, but it seems pretty serious given the millions of people protesting in the streets

Edited by SchtivePesley

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

One of the problems we face is that too many people, when faced with the issue of kids going hungry, simply deflect by pointing out that some of those cases are because the parents have selfishly prioritised other things (drugs, drink, fags, gambling, massive TV - the list goes on)

Whilst that's undeniably true in some cases - it does a gross disservice to those who aren't in that position and are just genuinely living in poverty. And it also does nothing to solve the root cause of inequality caused by the endless pursuit of profit

Even the most right wing of posters on here seem happy to admit that neoliberalism/capitalism is out of control in many ways - but the question is really, what are you going to do about it? I don't know how people can see it and then still vote for more of it 😞

Changing the subject slightly- is anyone up to speed with what's going on in Hong Kong? I've not really got my head around it, but it seems pretty serious given the millions of people protesting in the streets

I genuinely dont know the answer here but how many of these children are born into poverty and how many go from living normal lives to a situation if poverty?

I can think of anything more selfish than having children when you cannot afford to bring them up and I think some of this goes back to a generation who saw having children as a career rather than as a lifestyle choice.

I'd love to have more kids but know that I could not afford to give them the lifestyle I would want my children to have, so I didnt have any more,well that plus the fact my wife hated me 🤣

Realise the above will not be a popular statement but think it is a question that should be asked.

Share this post


Link to post
45 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

One of the problems we face is that too many people, when faced with the issue of kids going hungry, simply deflect by pointing out that some of those cases are because the parents have selfishly prioritised other things (drugs, drink, fags, gambling, massive TV - the list goes on)

Whilst that's undeniably true in some cases - it does a gross disservice to those who aren't in that position and are just genuinely living in poverty. And it also does nothing to solve the root cause of inequality caused by the endless pursuit of profit

Even the most right wing of posters on here seem happy to admit that neoliberalism/capitalism is out of control in many ways - but the question is really, what are you going to do about it? I don't know how people can see it and then still vote for more of it 😞

Changing the subject slightly- is anyone up to speed with what's going on in Hong Kong? I've not really got my head around it, but it seems pretty serious given the millions of people protesting in the streets

My work colleague is from Hong Kong and he says the protesters don't have local accents. Beyond that, I know nothing. 

Share this post


Link to post
57 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

I genuinely dont know the answer here but how many of these children are born into poverty and how many go from living normal lives to a situation if poverty?

Realise the above will not be a popular statement but think it is a question that should be asked.

It's a fair enough question to ask, as at least you're acknowledging there is more to it than just "scroungers".

Maybe one of the downsides of a liberal welfare state is that there will always be those who take advantage. Under Blair I'm sure that happened, but then under austerity and the Tory "iron fist" you can clamp down on that by introducing sanctions and things like Universal Credit, but then the side effect is that this begins to affect regular people who find themselves in trouble. I know several people who have, through no fault of their own ended up out of work and totally screwed over by the current benefits system, relying on family and friends to get them through 6-12 months of hell, trying to get their life back on track. A lot of less fortunate people don't have that support network and end up on the streets I'm sure

Personal political choices I guess. Do you hate scroungers so much that you'd accept innocent people dragged into poverty as a result of trying to tackle those who take advantage. It's a no from me

Share this post


Link to post
37 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

It's a fair enough question to ask, as at least you're acknowledging there is more to it than just "scroungers".

Maybe one of the downsides of a liberal welfare state is that there will always be those who take advantage. Under Blair I'm sure that happened, but then under austerity and the Tory "iron fist" you can clamp down on that by introducing sanctions and things like Universal Credit, but then the side effect is that this begins to affect regular people who find themselves in trouble. I know several people who have, through no fault of their own ended up out of work and totally screwed over by the current benefits system, relying on family and friends to get them through 6-12 months of hell, trying to get their life back on track. A lot of less fortunate people don't have that support network and end up on the streets I'm sure

Personal political choices I guess. Do you hate scroungers so much that you'd accept innocent people dragged into poverty as a result of trying to tackle those who take advantage. It's a no from me

No of course not.

I'm astounded that despite the state that the country is in, the government have still failed to tackle the real issues with the benefits system.

I mean what is Child Benefit all about? What sane system gives people money for having children without any sort of control over what the money is spent on?

Benefits should be limited to 1 child too in my opinion, that way you are still giving everyone the chance of being a parent without giving them the chance to try and turn into a career.

Obviously there is much more to the benefit system but these are 2 things that really annoy me.

Share this post


Link to post

My mom used to help single mother's on benefits. She said often these girls had come from troubled families and just wanted a baby so they could have someone to love and who loves them.

I'm sure there exists some people for whom having children is a career choice. The ones who feature in papers like the Sun for example. But they will be the focused on minority used to demonise all of them.

Share this post


Link to post
40 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

My mom used to help single mother's on benefits. She said often these girls had come from troubled families and just wanted a baby so they could have someone to love and who loves them.

I'm sure there exists some people for whom having children is a career choice. The ones who feature in papers like the Sun for example. But they will be the focused on minority used to demonise all of them.

Fair enough but these single mothers should be made to disclose who the father is.

As I said, no problem with benefits being provided for one child.

If you think these people only exist in The Sun newspaper you are very blinkered to what happens in the real world. I live next to a Guinness Trust Estate, rife with 3 and 4 child families with parents that have never done a days work in their life.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Fair enough but these single mothers should be made to disclose who the father is.

As I said, no problem with benefits being provided for one child.

If you think these people only exist in The Sun newspaper you are very blinkered to what happens in the real world. I live next to a Guinness Trust Estate, rife with 3 and 4 child families with parents that have never done a days work in their life.

Raising 3 or 4 kids is a full time job.  For one parent at least.

Share this post


Link to post
47 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

 

I'm sure there exists some people for whom having children is a career choice. The ones who feature in papers like the Sun for example. But they will be the focused on minority used to demonise all of them.

So out of touch with working class society. 

We're specialists in getting full-time jobs just as we discover we're pregnant but don't disclose it.

We're specialists in getting private rented properties for free by having kids.

We're specialists in 15 and 3/4 hour contracts. God bless the supermarkets.

We're specialists at IVAs. Why pay debt back when you don't have to?

These are choices made by people on purpose. They get into debt on purpose. Overspend on purpose. People don't work on purpose. Girls get pregnant on purpose. Yes, a percentage will have kids for other reasons, such as something to love, you're quite right. Some homes don't have love. But most is learned behaviour. Undeniably so.

Broken homes and drugs are rife.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Highgate said:

Raising 3 or 4 kids is a full time job.  For one parent at least.

Yes probably would be but they dont have to do the job full time when they get subsidised childcare 

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Norman said:

So out of touch with working class society. 

We're specialists in getting full-time jobs just as we discover we're pregnant but don't disclose it.

We're specialists in getting private rented properties for free by having kids.

We're specialists in 15 and 3/4 hour contracts. God bless the supermarkets.

We're specialists at IVAs. Why pay debt back when you don't have to?

These are choices made by people on purpose. They get into debt on purpose. Overspend on purpose. People don't work on purpose. Girls get pregnant on purpose. Yes, a percentage will have kids for other reasons, such as something to love, you're quite right. Some homes don't have love. But most is learned behaviour. Undeniably so.

Broken homes and drugs are rife.

I sometimes think I live in a parallel universe when I'm on this thread.

I'm glad it's not just me imagining things!

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

I sometimes think I live in a parallel universe when I'm on this thread.

I'm glad it's not just me imagining things!

Someone will tell me I am wrong and sarcastically mock me.

Even though half the town works at Payplan and the other half use them (debt specialists) - this is the first and only exaggeration i have used.

And it's down to poor education even though we have 2 Grammar schools and another all girls school. 

Blah blah blah.

Share this post


Link to post
36 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Fair enough but these single mothers should be made to disclose who the father is.

As I said, no problem with benefits being provided for one child.

If you think these people only exist in The Sun newspaper you are very blinkered to what happens in the real world. I live next to a Guinness Trust Estate, rife with 3 and 4 child families with parents that have never done a days work in their life.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/dictionary.cambridge.org/amp/english/rife

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.