effective opposition

Given that it is always the state who wants to take our money for this
little exercise isn't it about time we started wondering if the feckless,
the centrally stupid and the state are not separate entities as the
feckless the centrally stupid and the state would have you believe but in
fact are one and the same thing and the responsibility for everything
falls squarely upon them and that allowing those who run it to walk away
scott free with an OBE and a very handsome pension every 5 years is not
the way for us to manage our affairs with any degree of consumer
satisfaction?[1]



[1] The thing about the fire brigades regional centres which is hot news
yesterday springs to mind. How much are you taxpayers paying because one
nasty fat **** thinks another nasty fat **** is a nasty fat **** and
doesn't give a flying **** who gets hurt as long as he proves his point
and the even fatter cunts who buy his lunches in the Square Mile look on
and applaud?

 

I'd rather be a coal miner or factory worker than working in Telesales.
What a god forsaken job.

 

And this figure gives an income of 60% of national average.

Not what most people expect 'poverty' to mean really.

Which sort of destroys the arguments about poverty since people don't
take them seriously when you claim 1 in 4 live in poverty since poverty
isn't serious deprivation.

Start giving figures about *real* poverty- malnourished, no/limited
heating in winter etc. etc. and maybe people will take it more seriously
than today where poverty apparently means no Sky Sports subscription so
dad has to go down the pub to watch the football...

 

40 years ago when I spent a few months on shift working on the line
fitting the bit on the front of the escort chassis what holds the lights
was about the same time in history when we would have been taken to task
by the lesbians for torturing the murdering micks had there have been any
lesbians back then. The torture consisted, in part, of a combination of
poor diet, disturbed sleep patterns, sensory deprivation, physical
restraint and stimulation by white noise and flashing lights. A torture
regime enjoyed by 5 thousand of us every day in Dagenham alone and not at
all dissimilar from that which we inflicted on our guests in the H blocks,

I had a fair bit of time to think about this sort of thing as I pulled my
spot welding gun backwards and forwards along it's 5 yards of track while
I did the same 14 spot welds as I did every other 1 minute and 8
seconds[1] during my 8 hour shift and I can see the advantages of
telesales over building escorts although I have no experience at all of
the former.
..



[1] average, depending on if they were doing 57 or 59 cars and hour.

 

That must make #2 very impoverished then since she's been knocked down
once on a crossing and punted of the back of my bike.

 

I can't disagree with any of your contribution to this thread but the
discussion is missing, as it has been out in the wider world, is that the
rest of the world has woken up. Even our relative advantages of education,
old money and infrastructure are being degraded at an astonishing rate. What
people will have to do and for what and what sort of social benefits can be
expected will be driven by what the workers of South America, China and
India expect. Which means a severe dose of the shits here. The world is
changing quite suddenly faster than anyone could have imagined.

The so called left have their heads buried so deeply in the shite of their
own making they can't see it coming. Can't see that everyone needs to do
their bit or STFU and shuffle off quietly. That without an overwhelming
culture of invention, innovation, imagination, mobility and Can Do there
won't be a dime left for the less able and fortunate. It's not like we
don't have a map for what's happening, it's just the mirror image of
Brittania coming up with the Industrial Revolution.

 

Failing to pump carbon monoxide through a concealed pipe in the adjoining
wall?

 

Defining poverty as an income gap is where it all goes wrong. Poverty isn't
relative it's an absolute. I'm sure we have both witnessed actual poverty
elsewhere.
I doubt there are many children in the UK living in actual poverty. Most who
are, I suspect, are put there and held there against any available help by
feckless parents.

No child in this country should be allowed to fall that low.

 

wrote in

based on what evidence? Sample size of 2 UKRMers?

Where have you sourced this? Sample size of 2 UKRMers?

Irrelevant. Absolute poverty is not a measure used by the current
governments in Westminster or Cardiff. Policy, and loads of rhetoric, is
based on the *relative* poverty definition as used by Tony Blair in his
1999 speech where he made a pledge to eliminate *relative* child poverty
by 2020.

If you want that definition of child poverty altered to only include
those in *absolute* poverty then you have some lobbying to do. Good luck
in your quest. Should be a piece of cake: after all, most people agree
with you. Apparently.

 

Bwaaahahahahahaha!

Thanks. That explains *everything*. )

 

You are a troll.

 

(The Older Gentleman) wrote in

I didn't believe him either

Well it does give a clear *aspiration* by which the outcomes of any
future policy will be measured against, until another politician has the
balls to come out and say they don't give a shit about relatively poor
people or sets another equally unachievable target. Perhaps you should
run for office and tell people straight?

 

I think the phrase is anecdotal evidence. Several UKRM contributions,
articles in the media etc.

It's not based on funded research.

I think the phrase is anecdotal evidence. Several UKRM contributions,
articles in the media etc.

It's not based on funded research.

What has the definition in Westminster or Cardiff got to do with
people's perception of what poverty is.

And I know it's been done elsewhere but relative child poverty will
never be eliminated. Unless everyone is earning the same and spending
the same it's impossible. It is an utterly pointless aspiration.

I think most people do. However I don't have any formal proof in the
form of ridiculously long documents funded at the tax payers teat and
I'm too busy paying for all this fucking nonsense to take time out to
do anything as unbalanced as lobby to change the definition of child
poverty.

This doesn't however deter me from pointing out you're spouting clap-
trap when you make spurious claims.

 

Let's just clone the good looking 16yo girls then.

Win-win.

 

Now you're getting it. Narrowing the ever increasing income inequality in
this country is something I would like to see.

You could become a professional lobbyist or stand for election and try to
put everything right, as you see it.

Allegedly spurious.

 

Yes but it's something that needs doing through corporate regulation and
inheritance provisions, not via social engineering.

 

What's the difference?

 

Isn't any regulation, law or policy social engineering? One way for one
group of people to control or modify the behaviour of another?

Or would you call it political engineering as social engineering is
reserved for the political engineering you disagree with?

 

I'd expect you, of all people, to suss that.

One is about fairness in the workplace and building a better and more
efficient corporate environment.
The other is about ever more taxation and handouts and civil service admin
and sluicing all down the kharzi.

One of the best things a large company can do is have transparency of income
for all employees. And for earnings to be justifiable in relative terms. And
for everyone to be equally accountable for their actions and effectiveness.

That's not to say company stakeholders cannot generate much greater wealth,
but they do it via profits and dividends.
IMHO all employees should be encouraged to become stakeholders. I thinl it's
quite vital.

I also think that pension type and relative provision should be level across
all the employees and Executive. So if the CEO wants a final salary scheme
guaranteed if he gets canned, so do all staff.

 

See my reply to MJ