ChatterBank3 mins ago
Whay Can't We End This Madness?
34 Answers
Answers
“Note, our underclass do not have the luxury of being able to raise a family by subsistence
11:31 Fri 15th Apr 2016
TTT, A few year ago our very intelligent **** you it's not our money decided that the streets down our way needed RED Painted area's to warn drivers that they were approaching side streets, an aufull lot of money was spent on this, mind you it was not their money, within 12 months it turned out that their stupid Idea did not work, I let my views known in a Council meeting, it was like talking to a wall.
@T3
Maybe the anti British don't know who you mean : -
i) because of your* repeated failure to name actual (user)names
ii) because nobody whom you might care to name would (be stupid enough to) self-identify as anti-British and thus respond to your bait.
* you and every other AB user who *habitually* uses this term of abuse.
Maybe the anti British don't know who you mean : -
i) because of your* repeated failure to name actual (user)names
ii) because nobody whom you might care to name would (be stupid enough to) self-identify as anti-British and thus respond to your bait.
* you and every other AB user who *habitually* uses this term of abuse.
Here are some figures on overseas aid spending, along with some of the corrupt recipients, that must make even the biggest supporters of foreign aid a little less supportive.
http://
http://
http://
http://
@aog
I only asked because I often find myself opposing some of the views, repeatedly expressed on AB, so I'm often left having to guess whether I'm on the $(!+ list, or not. (Maybe just everyday paranoia?)
Anyway, what label to apply to aid-devotees number 1 & 2?
http://
I only asked because I often find myself opposing some of the views, repeatedly expressed on AB, so I'm often left having to guess whether I'm on the $(!+ list, or not. (Maybe just everyday paranoia?)
Anyway, what label to apply to aid-devotees number 1 & 2?
http://
I find it interesting (odd) that this view of foreign aid treats other countries 'holistically', ie the Nation's president, government staff, company CEOs etcetera are "not allowed" to become personally wealthy, or buy up London property (distorting market values) while their fellow countrymen/women ate still living in rickety shacks and living by subsistence farming yet, when it comes to our own country, such inequalities are heartily approved of, not to mention necessary to motivate the shiftless working classes to pull their fingers out and climb that greasy pole, themselves.
(Note, our underclass do not have the luxury of being able to raise a family by subsistence farming. All our land is owned, by somebody much more well off. We are utterly dependent on either governmen handouts or a living wage and *nothing else*).
(Note, our underclass do not have the luxury of being able to raise a family by subsistence farming. All our land is owned, by somebody much more well off. We are utterly dependent on either governmen handouts or a living wage and *nothing else*).
“Note, our underclass do not have the luxury of being able to raise a family by subsistence farming…”
Do you honestly believe, Togo, that our “underclass” would be ar5ed to take up “subsistence farming” given the opportunity? Most of them cannot be bothered to keep their kitchens tidy or make themselves a cup of coffee. To suggest they might eke a miserable living by working the soil is a bit of a stretch. In any case, they don’t need to as you have (half correctly) pointed out. The “underclass” do not depend on the minimum wage as they would not get out of bed for £7 an hour. Not for them the rigours of crawling out of their pit at some ungodly hour to struggle through the rain and snow to a local factory. They have a far more agreeable source of income courtesy of the taxpayer (kindly facilitated by the government) plus, of course, a little bit of "cash in hand" work when it suits them.
But back to the question, this utter madness will never end. Governments of all persuasions like spending other people’s money, especially on foreigners. It makes them feel good and adds to their “street cred” on the world stage. They long ago gave up worrying about the little people paying their taxes (some of whom are on the minimum wage). Tax levels used to be determined by working out how much was needed and levying the appropriate amount. Now they are levied on the basis of the maximum they can get away with. Then they think about it can be squandered. So it is with Overseas Aid (sorry, I keep calling it “Aid” when it is actually “development”). 0.7% of GDP has been enshrined in law, so it must be spent whether it’s needed or not. There is little or no control over where or on what it is spent and unsurprisingly (bearing in mind the destinations of the funds) much of it ends up misappropriated.
The country has £1 trillion of debt. This debt is still accumulating at an alarming rate. Yet the government thinks it is perfectly reasonable to borrow upwards of £12bn to pour down the drain, leaving the little people on seven quid an hour to service the loan. Madness does not adequately describe it.
Do you honestly believe, Togo, that our “underclass” would be ar5ed to take up “subsistence farming” given the opportunity? Most of them cannot be bothered to keep their kitchens tidy or make themselves a cup of coffee. To suggest they might eke a miserable living by working the soil is a bit of a stretch. In any case, they don’t need to as you have (half correctly) pointed out. The “underclass” do not depend on the minimum wage as they would not get out of bed for £7 an hour. Not for them the rigours of crawling out of their pit at some ungodly hour to struggle through the rain and snow to a local factory. They have a far more agreeable source of income courtesy of the taxpayer (kindly facilitated by the government) plus, of course, a little bit of "cash in hand" work when it suits them.
But back to the question, this utter madness will never end. Governments of all persuasions like spending other people’s money, especially on foreigners. It makes them feel good and adds to their “street cred” on the world stage. They long ago gave up worrying about the little people paying their taxes (some of whom are on the minimum wage). Tax levels used to be determined by working out how much was needed and levying the appropriate amount. Now they are levied on the basis of the maximum they can get away with. Then they think about it can be squandered. So it is with Overseas Aid (sorry, I keep calling it “Aid” when it is actually “development”). 0.7% of GDP has been enshrined in law, so it must be spent whether it’s needed or not. There is little or no control over where or on what it is spent and unsurprisingly (bearing in mind the destinations of the funds) much of it ends up misappropriated.
The country has £1 trillion of debt. This debt is still accumulating at an alarming rate. Yet the government thinks it is perfectly reasonable to borrow upwards of £12bn to pour down the drain, leaving the little people on seven quid an hour to service the loan. Madness does not adequately describe it.
@Specsavers Judge
// Most of them cannot be bothered to keep their kitchens tidy or make themselves a cup of coffee. //
What? You've been mixing, socially, with these types? Up close?
Or are you just regurgitating social stereotypes that you've picked up from the pernicious purveyors of poverty-porn?
// Most of them cannot be bothered to keep their kitchens tidy or make themselves a cup of coffee. //
What? You've been mixing, socially, with these types? Up close?
Or are you just regurgitating social stereotypes that you've picked up from the pernicious purveyors of poverty-porn?
@New Judge
//To suggest they might eke a miserable living by working the soil is a bit of a stretch.//
Only because it would be "tresspass", "poaching", "scrumping", theft (of woodland produce/firewood the landowner couldn't be bothered to harvest) and so on. The law is there to service the landowners and the poor have to grovel to the metaphorical mill owner because farm labouring was mechanised into non-existence and there is no alternative.
Common land gets used for no more than horse grazing and it would be antisocial for a commoner to take it upon themselves to fence it off and grow his/her own food on it.
Okay, the analogy is stretched to destruction but I'm just getting my point across.
There was a thread here, the other year about some migrants living off the fish in a canal and eating swans because they don't have love of wildlife as part of their culture.
If we give migrants no jobs *and* no benefits then they will resort to "living off the land", this time by the thousand, not ones and twos.
Provide jobs or pay compensation for failure to provide jobs. End of.
//To suggest they might eke a miserable living by working the soil is a bit of a stretch.//
Only because it would be "tresspass", "poaching", "scrumping", theft (of woodland produce/firewood the landowner couldn't be bothered to harvest) and so on. The law is there to service the landowners and the poor have to grovel to the metaphorical mill owner because farm labouring was mechanised into non-existence and there is no alternative.
Common land gets used for no more than horse grazing and it would be antisocial for a commoner to take it upon themselves to fence it off and grow his/her own food on it.
Okay, the analogy is stretched to destruction but I'm just getting my point across.
There was a thread here, the other year about some migrants living off the fish in a canal and eating swans because they don't have love of wildlife as part of their culture.
If we give migrants no jobs *and* no benefits then they will resort to "living off the land", this time by the thousand, not ones and twos.
Provide jobs or pay compensation for failure to provide jobs. End of.
What's even more annoying, hypo, is that NJ's incredible rant against a significant proportion of British people will be perceived as "pro-British", whereas anyone who argues that foreign aid, while needing more effective targeting and reform, is a worthwhile objective and an important part of trying to improve living conditions worldwide, has been pre-emptively labelled "anti-British".
"What? You've been mixing, socially, with these types? Up close? "
Mixing, yes, but socially, no. Up close? Close enough for my discomfort.
I have the misfortune to have to visit some of whom you term as the "underclass" in connection with some work that I do. (Not so much in the last 12-18 months, but in considerable numbers before that). So I’m certainly not relying on the “poverty-porn” merchants you describe so alliteratively for my information. In some of the “homes” it has been my unhappy duty to visit I doubt the RSPCA would permit a dog to live. And the conditions were nothing to do with lack of funds. In most cases it was due to lack of the ability (or sobriety) to get up out of the armchair in front of the telly.
Mixing, yes, but socially, no. Up close? Close enough for my discomfort.
I have the misfortune to have to visit some of whom you term as the "underclass" in connection with some work that I do. (Not so much in the last 12-18 months, but in considerable numbers before that). So I’m certainly not relying on the “poverty-porn” merchants you describe so alliteratively for my information. In some of the “homes” it has been my unhappy duty to visit I doubt the RSPCA would permit a dog to live. And the conditions were nothing to do with lack of funds. In most cases it was due to lack of the ability (or sobriety) to get up out of the armchair in front of the telly.
Substance addicts, NJ?
Note: I class video games as just one more substance of abuse. They certainly help you forget about your problems with dealing with reality.
@Svejk
Tennents? Surely there's too much stigma for non-homeless people to be seen buying it?
What even gives you the impression that I drink?
Note: I class video games as just one more substance of abuse. They certainly help you forget about your problems with dealing with reality.
@Svejk
Tennents? Surely there's too much stigma for non-homeless people to be seen buying it?
What even gives you the impression that I drink?
“If we give migrants no jobs *and* no benefits then they will resort to "living off the land", this time by the thousand, not ones and twos.”
All the more reason to restrict the influx to sustainable levels. We're told they are needed to come here to work (mainly to do the jobs that the UK's underclass will not). To suggest we must “give” jobs (which may not exist or which they may not be capable of doing) or money (which has to be borrowed) to people who arrive here with no visible means of support is the economics of the madhouse. It would do even Jeremy Corbyn proud.
“Provide jobs or pay compensation for failure to provide jobs. End of.”
Who is it you are suggesting must make this provision or these payments, exactly, Togo?
“What's even more annoying, hypo, is that NJ's incredible rant against a significant proportion of British people will be perceived as "pro-British",…”
I thought I was quite controlled actually, Jim. But of course my views are pro-British. The UK government’s first responsibility lies towards the people of the UK. Only if and when it discharges those responsibilities fully should the needs and wishes of foreigners be considered. MPs are not elected to play “…an important part [in] trying to improve living conditions worldwide”. That is not their brief. I did not raise the issue of the world’s poor living off the land and I did not suggest it was unfair that the UK’s “poor” could not do likewise because of vicious capitalism. I did not first mention the ridiculous notion that the UK’s “underclass” (which I think, by my definition, Hypo is confusing with the low paid) is unable to live off the land and is forced into a life on benefits.
It has not just recently been discovered that Foreign Aid is being misappropriated on a massive scale. It’s been evident for decades. But even if it was not, the UK comes first. It is no use saying that there’s plenty of cash for both. There is not. Money is having to be borrowed on a huge scale to sustain public spending. Until that borrowing reduces to zero and the UK’s public services are not under threat, Foreign Aid (or development, or whatever you want to call shovelling huge sums of borrowed cash into deep holes) should be completely off limits.
All the more reason to restrict the influx to sustainable levels. We're told they are needed to come here to work (mainly to do the jobs that the UK's underclass will not). To suggest we must “give” jobs (which may not exist or which they may not be capable of doing) or money (which has to be borrowed) to people who arrive here with no visible means of support is the economics of the madhouse. It would do even Jeremy Corbyn proud.
“Provide jobs or pay compensation for failure to provide jobs. End of.”
Who is it you are suggesting must make this provision or these payments, exactly, Togo?
“What's even more annoying, hypo, is that NJ's incredible rant against a significant proportion of British people will be perceived as "pro-British",…”
I thought I was quite controlled actually, Jim. But of course my views are pro-British. The UK government’s first responsibility lies towards the people of the UK. Only if and when it discharges those responsibilities fully should the needs and wishes of foreigners be considered. MPs are not elected to play “…an important part [in] trying to improve living conditions worldwide”. That is not their brief. I did not raise the issue of the world’s poor living off the land and I did not suggest it was unfair that the UK’s “poor” could not do likewise because of vicious capitalism. I did not first mention the ridiculous notion that the UK’s “underclass” (which I think, by my definition, Hypo is confusing with the low paid) is unable to live off the land and is forced into a life on benefits.
It has not just recently been discovered that Foreign Aid is being misappropriated on a massive scale. It’s been evident for decades. But even if it was not, the UK comes first. It is no use saying that there’s plenty of cash for both. There is not. Money is having to be borrowed on a huge scale to sustain public spending. Until that borrowing reduces to zero and the UK’s public services are not under threat, Foreign Aid (or development, or whatever you want to call shovelling huge sums of borrowed cash into deep holes) should be completely off limits.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.