# I think



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

All politicians should have to try and live on what a pensioner gets in their UK pension for at least 6 months including a winter to see if they could cope 

Listened to Cameron today and he just doesn't understand anything in what is the real world for millions.


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

I think most politicians have, evidenced by their position, demonstrated the wherewithal not to arrive in the situation of having as their only source of income, a UK state pension. (This is a good thing, because we don't want idiots as politicians anymore than we have to). So the idea of forcing them to live on an income that is inconsistent with their abilities is, if I may say so, rather silly. It would prove nothing.

I though Cameron's speech was simply brilliant. His summary of the election results said basically that common sense prevailed. Now where have I heard that before?


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Well obviously it's silly but they would certainly learn from it. Many people are expected to live off far less than that so it's not as if it's what they deem breadline living surely? 

Cameron gives me the creeps. The sooner he's replaced with Boris the better


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

I think being born into privilege isn't a measure of ability


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

porps said:


> I think being born into privilege isn't a measure of ability


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priti_Patel. For example.


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

rona said:


> Well obviously it's silly but they would certainly learn from it. Many people are expected to live off far less than that so it's not as if it's what they deem breadline living surely?
> 
> Cameron gives me the creeps. The sooner he's replaced with Boris the better


There is no chance of that. George will be our Prime Minister from 2020-2025 as he well deserves.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

I think the only abilities needed to be a tory mp are lying and a complete lack of compassion


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Satori said:


> There is no chance of that. George will be our Prime Minister from 2020-2025 as he well deserves.


God help us all


----------



## RockRomantic (Apr 29, 2009)

rona said:


> All politicians should have to try and live on what a pensioner gets in their UK pension for at least 6 months including a winter to see if they could cope
> 
> Listened to Cameron today and he just doesn't understand anything in what is the real world for millions.


I remember when there was a petition for Ian Duncan Smith to do exactly this, needless to say it never happened (like anyone was expecting otherwise) but it would be very interesting to how they would fair with it.

And completely agree, they are so out of touch.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Camerons speech was packed with lies & spin, he absolutley terrifies me. He knows the MSM will never bring him to account & expose tory lies, this is no democracy.

Chunky sums it up perfectly


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Satori said:


> There is no chance of that. George will be our Prime Minister from 2020-2025 as he well deserves.


What, for DOUBLING the deficit & being responsible for the slowest recovery in *300 YEARS? :Wideyed *



porps said:


> I think the only abilities needed to be a tory mp are lying and a complete lack of compassion


As its always been. Nye Bevan words sum up tory tactics, as true today as they were then.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Satori said:


> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priti_Patel. For example.


Priti Patel is a truly awful human being - completely an utterly devoid of compassion. Little wonder shes doing so well the party.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Satori said:


> There is no chance of that. George will be our Prime Minister from 2020-2025 as he well deserves.


George Osborne being prime minister is the stuff of nightmares. But still, I think you're right in saying that he will be the next Tory leader because he has all the qualifications - he is a privileged millionaire who has no idea of how most of the country lives; and his smugness, smarminess and condecension levels are off the board. Absolutely typical Tory leader material.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Spellweaver said:


> George Osborne being prime minister is the stuff of nightmares. But still, I think you're right in saying that *he will be the next labour leader because he has all the qualifications *- he is a privileged millionaire who has no idea of how most of the country lives; and his smugness, smarminess and condecension levels are off the board. Absolutely typical Tory leader material.


 sorry but your slip made me laugh - he probably does have all the qualifications to be the next labour leader  You could of course be describing Teflon Tony Blair.

In fairness I don't think pensioners have done so badly in recent years, they have been more protected from cuts than other groups. Going back to my dear old Mum (sorry) she has no private pension so lives on the basic state pension with some pension credit (if its still called that). She lives on her own, hasn't paid council tax in about 30 years (she was on long term unemployment benefit then sickness benefit before pension age) as its paid for her, gets free TV licence and heating allowance and a bus pass. She eats well on home made fresh food with fruit and vegetables but is very resourceful and never wastes any food, she has coffee out with friends several times a week, her house is warm (although not of the generation to leave heating on all day) and she has managed to save money every week so that she has savings - she is about to have some new windows installed from those savings. She doesn't have holidays or run a car and because she has lived alone on benefits for many years has got used to managing on a small income but despite living on the state pension she is by no means poor.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Satori said:


> There is no chance of that. George will be our Prime Minister from 2020-2025 as he well deserves.


I wouldn't bet on that - I think Theresa May will give him a good run for his money  whilst I like Boris he is a bit of a loose cannon.


----------



## Bisbow (Feb 20, 2012)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> sorry but your slip made me laugh - he probably does have all the qualifications to be the next labour leader  You could of course be describing Teflon Tony Blair.
> 
> In fairness I don't think pensioners have done so badly in recent years, they have been more protected from cuts than other groups. Going back to my dear old Mum (sorry) she has no private pension so lives on the basic state pension with some pension credit (if its still called that). She lives on her own, hasn't paid council tax in about 30 years (she was on long term unemployment benefit then sickness benefit before pension age) as its paid for her, gets free TV licence and heating allowance and a bus pass. She eats well on home made fresh food with fruit and vegetables but is very resourceful and never wastes any food, she has coffee out with friends several times a week, her house is warm (although not of the generation to leave heating on all day) and she has managed to save money every week so that she has savings - she is about to have some new windows installed from those savings. She doesn't have holidays or run a car and because she has lived alone on benefits for many years has got used to managing on a small income but despite living on the state pension she is by no means poor.


I agree with this. My aunt lives on the basic pension in her own home, keeps warm, eats very well and gets annoyed with people complaining that they can't manage. She can still send money to my grandchildren as she says they are worse off than she is.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> sorry but your slip made me laugh - he probably does have all the qualifications to be the next labour leader  You could of course be describing Teflon Tony Blair.
> 
> In fairness I don't think pensioners have done so badly in recent years, they have been more protected from cuts than other groups. Going back to my dear old Mum (sorry) she has no private pension so lives on the basic state pension with some pension credit (if its still called that). She lives on her own, hasn't paid council tax in about 30 years (she was on long term unemployment benefit then sickness benefit before pension age) as its paid for her, gets free TV licence and heating allowance and a bus pass. She eats well on home made fresh food with fruit and vegetables but is very resourceful and never wastes any food, she has coffee out with friends several times a week, her house is warm (although not of the generation to leave heating on all day) and she has managed to save money every week so that she has savings - she is about to have some new windows installed from those savings. She doesn't have holidays or run a car and because she has lived alone on benefits for many years has got used to managing on a small income but despite living on the state pension she is by no means poor.


Lol!! I really must start reading my posts before I press the post reply button!  Going to alter it as soon as I've finished this reply. Yes, you're right, I could be describing Tony Blair - but then I've always said that he was not a Labour MP but just a diluted Tory, (Double-checked to make sure I've got my labours and tories right! )

I'm glad your mum is managing on her pension - but tbh my and my OH are neairng rtirement age and, despite the fact that we will have private pensions as well as the state pension, the thought of my life depending on the whims of someone like Osborne frightens me to death.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Spellweaver said:


> Lol!! I really must start reading my posts before I press the post reply button!  Going to alter it as soon as I've finished this reply. Yes, you're right, I could be describing Tony Blair - but then I've always said that he was not a Labour MP but just a diluted Tory, (Double-checked to make sure I've got my labours and tories right! )
> 
> I'm glad your mum is managing on her pension - but tbh my and my OH are neairng rtirement age and, despite the fact that we will have private pensions as well as the state pension, the thought of my life depending on the whims of someone like Osborne frightens me to death.


I can understand that, we will be thinking about it too within the next 5 - 8 years but I doubt the tories will risk taking away benefits from pensioners as a huge part of their support comes from the "grey vote".

Going back to politicians being out of touch with reality I think that applies across the political spectrum, so many of them are career politicians and have come from privileged backgrounds, gone to Oxford/Cambridge and have never run a business or worked in the real world let alone lived on a budget.


----------



## ForestWomble (May 2, 2013)

Seeing politicians having to live on benefits for a year would be a reality show I'd be interested in.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I can understand that, we will be thinking about it too within the next 5 - 8 years but I doubt the tories will risk taking away benefits from pensioners as a huge part of their support comes from the "grey vote".
> 
> Going back to politicians being out of touch with reality I think that applies across the political spectrum, so many of them are career politicians and have come from privileged backgrounds, gone to Oxford/Cambridge and have never run a business or worked in the real world let alone lived on a budget.


I wouldn't be too sure about that. The heartless graspers think pensioners will either be dead or succumbed to dementia by 2020. http://morningstaronline.co.uk/a-0e47-Attack-over-65s-as-theyll-be-dead-by-2020#.VhZbXuxVikp

(Its funny but non of my grandparents or older generations in my family voted tory - & having cared for many pensioners over the years they all shared a common hatred of the tory party lol. I remember my Nan being livid when Thatcher said penrioners should wrap themselves in tin foil to keep warm lol Obviously their views reflect my strongly socialist area )


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> In fairness I don't think pensioners have done so badly in recent years, they have been more protected from cuts than other groups. Going back to my dear old Mum (sorry) she has no private pension so lives on the basic state pension with some pension credit





Bisbow said:


> I agree with this. My aunt lives on the basic pension in her own home, keeps warm, eats very well and gets annoyed with people complaining that they can't manage. She can still send money to my grandchildren as she says they are worse off than she is.


Although I could and will probably have to live on not much more than the basic state pension I don't think a politician could. To try and get them to live on JSA or similar would be a step too far


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

Animallover26 said:


> Seeing politicians having to live on benefits for a year would be a reality show I'd be interested in.


Seeing them out on their 4r53s and having to survive for that same year on the street would be an even more interesting reality show. 

I'd personally like to know if their smug fat 4r53s were capable of keeping them warm across a winter's night.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

noushka05 said:


> I wouldn't be too sure about that. The heartless graspers think pensioners will either be dead or succumbed to dementia by 2020. http://morningstaronline.co.uk/a-0e47-Attack-over-65s-as-theyll-be-dead-by-2020#.VhZbXuxVikp
> 
> (Its funny but non of my grandparents or older generations in my family voted tory - & having cared for many pensioners over the years they all shared a common hatred of the tory party lol. I remember my Nan being livid when Thatcher said penrioners should wrap themselves in tin foil to keep warm lol Obviously their views reflect my strongly socialist area )


Yes I read that too. The TaxpPayers Alliance don't have to win votes/elections though. Much as they might like to think they are very influential I can't see any tory government purposefully making policy that will alienate a large number of their voters/supporters. They also want to get rid of stamp duty and that hasn't happened and they complain non stop about local/national government waste.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Animallover26 said:


> Seeing politicians having to live on benefits for a year would be a reality show I'd be interested in.


There was a programme a few years ago along those lines

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...paid-4-000-series-showed-living-benefits.html


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

The trouble with politicians living like "common people" for a short while is that they cannot possibly experience what it is like to live on benefits. True, for a short while they can play at having very little or no money, or being homeless, or living in a house with rising damp and no heating; they can play at eating cheap, sometimes unwholesome food, or going withut food altogether in order to feed children.

But however long they are "playing" at that, they know at the end of the day or week or whatever that they will be going back to their comfortable, well-fed, wealthy lives and leaving it all behind. They can never experience the utter despair of being stuck in that situation forever, with all the worry of the "what ifs" - ie what if I become ill/can't work/lose my home/the government stops even more of my benefits/the government pulls another scam like making me pay bedroom tax/the social services have my kids taken away because I cannot provide for them.

_"You will never understand
How it feels to live your life
With no meaning or control
And with nowhere left to go.
You are amazed that they exist
And they burn so bright,
Whilst you can only wonder why.
Rent a flat above a shop
Cut your hair and get a job
Smoke some **** and play some pool
Pretend you never went to school,
But still you'll never get it right
'Cause when you're laid in bed at night
And watching roaches climb the wall,
If you called your dad he could stop it all
Yeah
You'll never live like common people
You'll never do what common people do
You'll never fail like common people
You'll never watch your life slide out of view
And then dance and drink and screw
Because there's nothing else to do_
*
Pulp - Common People Lyrics*


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Absolutely love that song!


----------



## ForestWomble (May 2, 2013)

Consider your repped @Spellweaver


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Animallover26 said:


> Consider your repped @Spellweaver


Thank you


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Yes I read that too. The TaxpPayers Alliance don't have to win votes/elections though. Much as they might like to think they are very influential I can't see any tory government purposefully making policy that will alienate a large number of their voters/supporters. They also want to get rid of stamp duty and that hasn't happened and they complain non stop about local/national government waste.


When the Tories have changed the voting boundries in their favour, destroyed trade union ties with labour, they will have achieved their aim in fully destroying the opposition. So I don't think they'll be too worried about losing some pensioner votes. The Taxpayers Alliance is a very powerful & dangerous right wing think tank.

_" TaxPayers' Alliance is very active and highly successful at shaping the news_" https://newsframes.wordpress.com/2011/09/15/taxpayers-alliance-news/

"_arguably the most influential pressure group in the country_" - http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/oct/09/taxpayers-alliance-conservative-pressure-group


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

noushka05 said:


> When the Tories have changed the voting boundries in their favour, destroyed trade union ties with labour, they will have achieved their aim in fully destroying the opposition. So I don't think they'll be too worried about losing some pensioner votes. The Taxpayers Alliance is a very powerful & dangerous right wing think tank.
> 
> _" TaxPayers' Alliance is very active and highly successful at shaping the news_" https://newsframes.wordpress.com/2011/09/15/taxpayers-alliance-news/
> 
> "_arguably the most influential pressure group in the country_" - http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/oct/09/taxpayers-alliance-conservative-pressure-group


So rally your troops and match them then. Fight the good fight and all that.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> The trouble with politicians living like "common people" for a short while is that they cannot possibly experience what it is like to live on benefits. True, for a short while they can play at having very little or no money, or being homeless, or living in a house with rising damp and no heating; they can play at eating cheap, sometimes unwholesome food, or going withut food altogether in order to feed children.
> 
> But however long they are "playing" at that, they know at the end of the day or week or whatever that they will be going back to their comfortable, well-fed, wealthy lives and leaving it all behind. They can never experience the utter despair of being stuck in that situation forever, with all the worry of the "what ifs" - ie what if I become ill/can't work/lose my home/the government stops even more of my benefits/the government pulls another scam like making me pay bedroom tax/the social services have my kids taken away because I cannot provide for them.
> 
> ...


I love the Pulp, love this song Val! . My lovely Nan use to tell me about ,not roaches but, blackclocks climbing their walls when she was a kid & when they put the light on they would all disappear. Looking at some of the state of some of rented accommodation people are having to live in & the abject poverty we have now, I fear we're heading back to those 'good ole days'.

I know this is a bit old, but I just couldn't miss this opportunity lol


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> So rally your troops and match them then. Fight the good fight and all that.


That's what people are trying to do with all these protests but the tories are moving the goal posts all the time, making it harder & harder :/.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Just to say that I had forgotten just how much I loved Pulp.
And this thread is now being read with Different Class playing in the background.

Carry on......


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Not a celeb meme one but one from 70yr old 'Joan' that's just caught my eye.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> I love the Pulp, love this song Val! . My lovely Nan use to tell me about ,not roaches but, blackclocks climbing their walls when she was a kid & when they put the light on they would all disappear. Looking at some of the state of some of rented accommodation people are having to live in & the abject poverty we have now, I fear we're heading back to those 'good ole days'.
> 
> I know this is a bit old, but I just couldn't miss this opportunity lol


I love this Jo - it's absolutely brilliant and I can't believe it was from the election before last. It's a fantastic skit on all the deadful things he would do once he was in power - but isn't it terrifying just how the "common people" fell for his lies, and how many of the things in the vid have proved to be true?



noushka05 said:


> That's what people are trying to do with all these protests but the tories are moving the goal posts all the time, making it harder & harder :/.


And instead of reporting the protests correctly, the media try to shift the focus all the time. For example, in the protests at Manchester, instead of reporting on the subject of the protests, all the media wanted to do was stir people up into disgust at those who threw eggs in order to turn their attention away from the protests against the Tories. Anyone would think most of the media was owned by Tories - oh, wait a minute, it is!

Even the local radio station is not immune - whilst I was driving to work the other morning I was listening to the local BBC radio station and a Tory MP was saying how scary it was, and how he felt soooo intimidated by the horrid protestors, some of who were throwing eggs (shock, horror!). I remember thinking that if he and the rest of his colleagues continue their "not listening" to the people, and continue their oppression of the people, then it won't be very long before protestors feel that they need to do more than throw eggs. Wonder how intimidated he'd feel then?


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

It wasn't just MPs who were being pelted with eggs, it was journalists and other attendees and they were being spat at too.

Is this really the only way the protestors can think of to get their point across? By throwing things and 'intimidating' people? (Im sure even Tory MPs have a right to feel intimidated!) Of course the media are going to report it - that's what the media is there for. I'm sure to most people not particularly sympathetic to the protestor's cause, they will have come across as a load of idiotic thugs who don't deserve to be taken seriously and I believe that those who did throw eggs and spit at people have to take responsiblity for that.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

A few years ago a protester threw an egg at John Prescott and Prescott turned round and tried to thump the protester.
No one mentioned 'intimidation' and for some Prescott's reaction to the egg was seen as his finest hour, while for others he was seen as a thug.
Strange how different reporting can be when the eggs are thrown at any MP but a Tory one.


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

silvi said:


> A few years ago a protester threw an egg at John Prescott and Prescott turned round and tried to thump the protester.
> No one mentioned 'intimidation' and for some Prescott's reaction to the egg was seen as his finest hour, while for others he was seen as a thug.
> Strange how different reporting can be when the eggs are thrown at any MP but a Tory one.


I'm not quite sure what you mean by this post - no one will remember why the egg was thrown in the first place, just that is WAS thrown. Which is what I'm saying, the man who threw it was protesting about what Labour was doing to the NHS but most will just remember the 'thug' that threw the egg. I don't think what people thought of Prescott has any relevance really.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

bearcub said:


> It wasn't just MPs who were being pelted with eggs, it was journalists and other attendees and they were being spat at too.
> 
> Is this really the only way the protestors can think of to get their point across? By throwing things and 'intimidating' people? (Im sure even Tory MPs have a right to feel intimidated!) Of course the media are going to report it - that's what the media is there for. I'm sure to most people not particularly sympathetic to the protestor's cause, they will have come across as a load of idiotic thugs who don't deserve to be taken seriously and I believe that those who did throw eggs and spit at people have to take responsiblity for that.


If I was angry enough to throw an egg at a politician I would be more than happy to "take responsibility " for it - what makes you think that the protesters who did this are not taking responsibility?

Tbh I think that only we British could get incensed and shocked that protesters threw eggs - to me, it seems a bit of a harmless thing to do. Spitting is not nice - but then, neither is the Tories' treatment of the poor, the disabled, the needy, the ill - and neither are the journalists who misreport things to make the Tories always look good.

And of course Tories have a right to feel intimidated - my suggestion wasn't that they shouldn't feel intimidated, but rather than they'd better get used to much worse if they don't alter their policies. Perhaps the British people are finally becoming fed up of their money and rights being taken from them by the Tories - perhaps they are finally beginning to realise they can do something about it.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

bearcub said:


> I'm not quite sure what you mean by this post - no one will remember why the egg was thrown in the first place, just that is WAS thrown. Which is what I'm saying, the man who threw it was protesting about what Labour was doing to the NHS but most will just remember the 'thug' that threw the egg. I don't think what people thought of Prescott has any relevance really.


Do you really remember who threw the egg? 
The protest was about Blair's government and the NHS, but all the papers (and satirical programs) that we saw were about Prescott's reaction to the egg throwing.

What I am saying is that emphasis on the incident was different when shown in the media.

I do agree to some extent that it is the action that is remembered rather than the subject of the protest, but that is the fault of how each protest is reported (and often deliberately so)

But in the recent Manchester protests the egg-throwers have been depicted as 'intimidating thugs' and it is their behaviour that has been under scrutiny, whereas in the 'Prescott incident', it was Prescott's behaviour under scrutiny.


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> If I was angry enough to throw an egg at a politician I would be more than happy to "take responsibility " for it - what makes you think that the protesters who did this are not taking responsibility?
> 
> Tbh I think that only we British could get incensed and shocked that protesters threw eggs - to me, it seems a bit of a harmless thing to do. Spitting is not nice - but then, neither is the Tories' treatment of the poor, the disabled, the needy, the ill - and neither are the journalists who misreport things to make the Tories always look good.
> 
> And of course Tories have a right to feel intimidated - my suggestion wasn't that they shouldn't feel intimidated, but rather than they'd better get used to much worse if they don't alter their policies. Perhaps the British people are finally becoming fed up of their money and rights being taken from them by the Tories - perhaps they are finally beginning to realise they can do something about it.


They have to take responsibility for the fact that the protestors - the vast majority of who did not throw eggs or spit - looked on the whole like a bunch of thugs with no real cause. That is how the media report it and that is what, as I said, those not sympathetic to the protestor's cause, will see. It's unfortunate and unfair, but it is the case that the general public just prefer respectable people and take them more seriously.

@silvi no I didn't remember who threw the egg, I think I was only 14 at the time(!) but I looked it up and it was under an 'on this day' section on the BBC website.

I do think it was the spitting that was more of the issue at the Tory conference - people expect a bit of egging and as @Spellweaver says, egging is pretty much harmless. The spitting I heard about on LBC because one of their reporters was spat at in the face but to be fair, they reported it very neutrally at the time.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

bearcub said:


> They have to take responsibility for the fact that the protestors - the vast majority of who did not throw eggs or spit - looked on the whole like a bunch of thugs with no real cause. *That is how the media report it and that is what, as I said, those not sympathetic to the protestor's cause, will see.* *It's unfortunate and unfair, but it is the case that the general public just prefer respectable people and take them more seriously*.


And that's exactly what I meant when I said:

"_And instead of reporting the protests correctly, the media try to shift the focus all the time. For example, in the protests at Manchester, instead of reporting on the subject of the protests, all the media wanted to do was stir people up into disgust at those who threw eggs in order to turn their attention away from the protests against the Tories. Anyone would think most of the media was owned by Tories - oh, wait a minute, it is_!"

If the press had reported the egg throwing as a just response of an oppressed people to a tyrannical government, then the general public would think the protestors were acting respectably and would take them seriously.


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> And that's exactly what I meant when I said:
> 
> "_And instead of reporting the protests correctly, the media try to shift the focus all the time. For example, in the protests at Manchester, instead of reporting on the subject of the protests, all the media wanted to do was stir people up into disgust at those who threw eggs in order to turn their attention away from the protests against the Tories. Anyone would think most of the media was owned by Tories - oh, wait a minute, it is_!"
> 
> If the press had reported the egg throwing as a just response of an oppressed people to a tyrannical government, then the general public would think the protestors were acting respectably and would take them seriously.


And I think that if there had been no egg throwing but especially no spitting, the protestors would have had a greater chance of coming across as acting respectably and perhaps have been taken more seriously by the general public regardless of any media bias.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

bearcub said:


> And I think that if there had been no egg throwing but especially no spitting, the protestors would have had a greater chance of coming across as acting respectably and perhaps have been taken more seriously by the general public regardless of any media bias.


And I think that if here had been no egg throwing then the media would have found something else with which to discredit the protesters - anything other than report concisely and fairly about what was happening and why they were protesting.

I lost all faith in the veracity of our media's reporting when I realised that even Al Jazeera was giving a more truthful and unbiased report of Thatcher's funeral - none of our media showed the protesters.

Anyway, must go to bed now - thank you for an interesting and pleasureable discussion


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

silvi said:


> But in the recent Manchester protests the egg-throwers have been depicted as 'intimidating thugs' and it is their behaviour that has been under scrutiny, whereas in the 'Prescott incident', it was Prescott's behaviour under scrutiny.


Because it was his behaviour that was the more extreme


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> I love this Jo - it's absolutely brilliant and I can't believe it was from the election before last. It's a fantastic skit on all the deadful things he would do once he was in power - but isn't it terrifying just how the "common people" fell for his lies, and how many of the things in the vid have proved to be true?
> 
> And instead of reporting the protests correctly, the media try to shift the focus all the time. For example, in the protests at Manchester, instead of reporting on the subject of the protests, all the media wanted to do was stir people up into disgust at those who threw eggs in order to turn their attention away from the protests against the Tories. Anyone would think most of the media was owned by Tories - oh, wait a minute, it is!
> 
> Even the local radio station is not immune - whilst I was driving to work the other morning I was listening to the local BBC radio station and a Tory MP was saying how scary it was, and how he felt soooo intimidated by the horrid protestors, some of who were throwing eggs (shock, horror!). I remember thinking that if he and the rest of his colleagues continue their "not listening" to the people, and continue their oppression of the people, then it won't be very long before protestors feel that they need to do more than throw eggs. Wonder how intimidated he'd feel then?


It is brilliant & so accurate! Like a prophecy  As is 'Don't Stop Me Now'. Just in case you haven't seen it, this is brilliant as well Val lol






And here are a few of those 'cuts' -

60,000 NHS staff, 730,000 Public sector workers, 20,000 Army, 5,000 Navy, 5000 RAF, 7,000 Firefighters, 22,000 Police. All these cuts & all the cuts to the welfare state & Osborne still managed to double the deficit:Wideyed. I know who the real threat to this country is & it certainly aint Jeremy Corbyn.

I just hope people got what they voted for.

If things carry on the way they are people will either be crushed or there will be an uprising - I fear it will be more than eggs being thrown. The tories know this - the snipers on the roof weren't there for nothing



bearcub said:


> It wasn't just MPs who were being pelted with eggs, it was journalists and other attendees and they were being spat at too.
> 
> Is this really the only way the protestors can think of to get their point across? By throwing things and 'intimidating' people? (Im sure even Tory MPs have a right to feel intimidated!) Of course the media are going to report it - that's what the media is there for. I'm sure to most people not particularly sympathetic to the protestor's cause, they will have come across as a load of idiotic thugs who don't deserve to be taken seriously and I believe that those who did throw eggs and spit at people have to take responsiblity for that.


Below is what the GM Police Chief Super said. I think that is amazing considering the number of people there & the strength of feeling. Its a disgrace the media aren't focusing on this - along with the governments lies, their corruption, cronyism, crimes against humanity, wildlife & the environment.


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I wouldn't bet on that - I think Theresa May will give him a good run for his money  whilst I like Boris he is a bit of a loose cannon.


I think I might place a wager now whilst the odds are still worthwhile. I'll go for George as PM, Boris as Home Secretary, Theresa with Health and IDS as Chancellor. Dream team.


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

noushka05 said:


> It is brilliant & so accurate! Like a prophecy  As is 'Don't Stop Me Now'. Just in case you haven't seen it, this is brilliant as well Val lol


Hilarious. " that's why they call me Mr parasite....":Hilarious


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Satori said:


> Hilarious. " that's why they call me Mr parasite....":Hilarious


I know! It tickles me every time:Hilarious


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Satori said:


> I think I might place a wager now whilst the odds are still worthwhile. I'll go for George as PM, Boris as Home Secretary, Theresa with Health and IDS as Chancellor. Dream team.


God help us


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> It is brilliant & so accurate! Like a prophecy  As is 'Don't Stop Me Now'. Just in case you haven't seen it, this is brilliant as well Val lol
> 
> 
> 
> ...


See, the police aren't all bad are they


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

bearcub said:


> See, the police aren't all bad are they


No of course they're not, I know two coppers personally lol. I wouldn't have any problem with the police if they maintained their impartiality like that - but unfortunately & all too often they don't. :/


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Reading some of this thread anyone would think its the first time there has been protests against governments - its been going on for hundreds of years and is part of what makes this country great. I see there were even protests at the screening of the film about Suffragettes the other night. Snipers on the roof is nothing new @noushka05 - lets not forget Brighton and the bombing of the Grand Hotel during the Conservative conference in 1984.

Like them or not they are our democratically elected government so why do some people think its acceptable to try and overthrow them by violent means? Then what? inflict on the country a government they rejected at the election? Labour and Mr Corbyn have a good few years to make their case and convince people that they are a viable alternative so I think they would be better spending their time and efforts on that.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Like them or not they are our democratically elected government so why do some people think its acceptable to try and overthrow them by violent means? Then what? inflict on the country a government they rejected at the election? Labour and Mr Corbyn have a good few years to make their case and convince people that they are a viable alternative so I think they would be better spending their time and efforts on that.


I agree that this is the way that the Labour Party should be going and it is the way they are definitely trying to go (certainly at a local level anyway). But media reporting just lately gives hardly any details of what Labour figures are saying unless they can take the pi55 out of it.

There were statements made by Labour speakers about Theresa May's speech and particularly to her references to immigration, and they were made immediately. But they were ignored, so Labour activists moved to Twitter and Facebook to state their case.

It's happening more and more that the only way anyone but the Tories can get their point across without a biased report being made is on social media. And the problem with social media is that even though it has been going for years, it is still in its relative infancy in being able to attract a broad spectrum of voters.
And this makes people think that they have to 'do something' to at least attract attention.

When you are being ignored you don't just shut up or go away.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

rona said:


> Because it was his behaviour that was the more extreme


Fair enough.
But in that case why were the egg throwers this time around depicted by some as 'thugs', when in the earlier incident, the egg thrower was seen as much less extreme than the politician?

It's a confusing point actually, as, like @bearcub, I was quite young when it happened. But it's an event that for some reason stayed with me, and it made me think about it because people nowadays are calling people throwing eggs 'thugs'.
I thought that throwing eggs (particularly rotten eggs) was a tradition of political protest from the past....but I may have got that wrong


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

silvi said:


> Fair enough.
> But in that case why were the egg throwers this time around depicted by some as 'thugs', when in the earlier incident, the egg thrower was seen as much less extreme than the politician?


Because the egg throwers are seen as the most extreme


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

silvi said:


> I agree that this is the way that the Labour Party should be going and it is the way they are definitely trying to go (certainly at a local level anyway). But media reporting just lately gives hardly any details of what Labour figures are saying unless they can take the pi55 out of it.
> 
> There were statements made by Labour speakers about Theresa May's speech and particularly to her references to immigration, and they were made immediately. But they were ignored, so Labour activists moved to Twitter and Facebook to state their case.
> 
> ...


I can see it must be frustrating but I think everyone needs to calm down a bit and take stock. Really understand why they lost the election and work to put that right and regain trust - that might take some time, its only been a few months. I've been totally shocked this time at the amount of hatred openly expressed, perhaps because in previous elections I wasn't participating in a forum like this, I'm not sure. I've had friends with different politics to me many times and we've been able to discuss/debate without getting nasty but it seems a lot of the posts and links are negative and full of hatred and I don't believe that is the way to win people over. If noush and others are right about the tories and what they intend to do then the tide will soon swing back the other way and Labour need to be ready and able to prove they can be trusted whereas at the moment all I seem to hear is hissing/spitting hatred.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Ofc the media dont report it accurately, same as with every other story in the media... Why do people even still bother with that crap,? I really don't understand it.. They know its always biased and often just completely untrue but they keep tuning in as If they couldn't bear to go without thier daily dose of brainwashing. Boggles the mind. You want papers to print the truth? Stop buying thier lies then


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

rona said:


> Because it was his behaviour that was the more extreme


Personally i find systematic and ongoing attacks on the poor, the ill, and the homeless to be more extreme than throwing an egg.

Sooner or later the eggs wont just be eggs anymore. The snipers are evidence of just how much the scumbags fear the people, now all we need is for the people to realise how powerful we really are.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Reading some of this thread anyone would think its the first time there has been protests against governments - its been going on for hundreds of years and is part of what makes this country great. I see there were even protests at the screening of the film about Suffragettes the other night. Snipers on the roof is nothing new @noushka05 - lets not forget Brighton and the bombing of the Grand Hotel during the Conservative conference in 1984.
> 
> Like them or not they are our democratically elected government so why do some people think its acceptable to try and overthrow them by violent means? Then what? inflict on the country a government they rejected at the election? Labour and Mr Corbyn have a good few years to make their case and convince people that they are a viable alternative so I think they would be better spending their time and efforts on that.


Have labour governments ever felt the need to have snipers at their conferences? I don't know. If not could it be tory govts are always so divisive with their brutal unjust policies, & they feel the need for extreme measures of protection?

Millions of people are absolutely desperate - all hope gone. Many feel cheated that democracy wasn't served by a bias media serving a right wing agenda. Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't you say you voted tory because the economy was safer in their hands? lol Maybe because practically everything the tories say is a blatant lie & everything they do devoid of humanity. They are chipping away at our rights & freedoms, changing laws to ensure everything is in their favour. Bit by bit destroying any semblance of democracy we had. As Silvi says, the media wont allow Corbyn a fair hearing. Have you seen all they have thrown at him already? Do you really believe they will let up on the spin? They are terrified the masses will see neoliberalism & austerity for what they are so they ridicule & demonise him & other left wingers at every opportunity. Cant people honestly see our most vulnerable are suffering like never before under a modern govt?? Cant they see the destruction being caused to our environment?? our wildlife?? This is tory ideology for you. The politics of greed & selfishness.

.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Welcome to tory Britain. Is there any wonder people hate the tory party?


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

porps said:


> Personally i find systematic and ongoing attacks on the poor, the ill, and the homeless to be more extreme than throwing an egg.
> 
> .


Well you've quoted something I posted completely out of context haven't you? 

You don't think this is why I made the suggestion of the first post?


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> Welcome to tory Britain. Is there any wonder people hate the tory party?


Sadly that's the reality of the situation for many people  i know i dont live there anymore but i still hope the tory grip can be broken before it's too late for the country.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

rona said:


> Well you've quoted something I posted completely out of context haven't you?
> 
> You don't think this is why I made the suggestion of the first post?


Have i? I quoted your whole post how is that losing the context? I am not saying you think the egging was the most extreme thing to happen, but that i dont agree with the media or anyone else that does believe that. The cleansing at the ark was far more extreme than that.

Oh i reread it.. Maybe you meant Prescotts behaviour was the more extreme in which case i apologise for the misunderstanding.. Was an honest mistake not an attempt to twist your words out of context. What i said still holds true though


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

noushka05 said:


> Have labour governments ever felt the need to have snipers at their conferences? I don't know. If not could it be tory govts are always so divisive with their brutal unjust policies, & they feel the need for extreme measures of protection?
> 
> Millions of people are absolutely desperate - all hope gone. Many feel cheated that democracy wasn't served by a bias media serving a right wing agenda. Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't you say you voted tory because the economy was safer in their hands? lol Maybe because practically everything the tories say is a blatant lie & everything they do devoid of humanity. They are chipping away at our rights & freedoms, changing laws to ensure everything is in their favour. Bit by bit destroying any semblance of democracy we had. As Silvi says, the media wont allow Corbyn a fair hearing. Have you seen all they have thrown at him already? Do you really believe they will let up on the spin? They are terrified the masses will see neoliberalism & austerity for what they are so they ridicule & demonise him & other left wingers at every opportunity. Cant people honestly see our most vulnerable are suffering like never before under a modern govt?? Cant they see the destruction being caused to our environment?? our wildlife?? This is tory ideology for you. The politics of greed & selfishness.
> 
> .


I don't know whether they have or not without doing some research but you could look at it the other way round and say that when in power labour haven't had to fear the opposition behaving in such a violent way but accepting democracy, getting their heads down and working hard to become electable again rather than shouting its our way or we will spit at you, throw things at you and ultimately murder you.

I have not met or spoke to one person (other than a few people on this forum) who are desperate and feel all hope is gone, I'm sorry but I think some of you enjoy whipping up hysteria. We deal with people from all walks of life through our business from those buying their first homes, often on a shared ownership basis with housing associations, to pensioners taking out equity releases or down sizing homes and a heck of a lot in between. I have relatives who still live in council owned houses although most did exercise their right to buy and have moved on, a severely disabled relative who lives in a disabled flat and is in a wheelchair etc etc. Not one have expressed the sentiments you keep expressing. I'm not for one minute saying there are not desperate people out there but I simply do not believe there are the numbers who actually "are desperate and devoid of hope" as you and the celebrity lovies keep telling us there are. I absolutely do not agree with sanctions being taken against people on benefits though and do think its disgusting if they knew the woman had a child that they didn't check she had enough money to feed the child.

As to the biased media I thought the Guardian was left wing?? I also saw an analysis of the guests on the Andrew Marr show recently and they had far more left wingers "review the papers" than right including recently your Owen Jones. If no newspaper is getting the lefts point of view over then find other ways - social media or how about starting up a new paper.

I think I said I voted tory because I didn't feel the economy was safe with labour, which I still don't but you have 4.5 years to prove me wrong  and you won't do that by nasty politics, you will do that by constantly providing sensible, well thought out and dare I say it polite alternative views not by shouting, spitting and throwing eggs (or should that be toys out of the pram).


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I have not met or spoke to one person (other than a few people on this forum) who are desperate and feel all hope is gone, I'm sorry but I think some of you enjoy whipping up hysteria. We deal with people from all walks of life through our business from those buying their first homes, often on a shared ownership basis with housing associations, to pensioners taking out equity releases or down sizing homes and a heck of a lot in between.


If you really think that all walks of life only ranges from those who already own a home to those with the means to afford to buy thier first home you clearly have no idea what kind of poverty some people are dealing with.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

porps said:


> If you really think that all walks of life only ranges from those who already own a home to those with the means to afford to buy thier first home you clearly have no idea what kind of poverty some people are dealing with.


No of course I don't porps  I've never worked for social services in a poor inner city borough or been on home visits when I was nursing, my only experience of life is dealing with wealthy home owners.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I don't know whether they have or not without doing some research but you could look at it the other way round and say that *when in power labour haven't had to fear the opposition behaving in such a violent way *but accepting democracy, getting their heads down and working hard to become electable again rather than shouting its our way or we will spit at you, throw things at you and ultimately murder you.


Not sure what you meant by "the opposition"

If you meant the opposition parties, I can't remember even our biased media reporting any violence or threats of violence from the opposition parties.

If you meant people who didn't vote for the Tories (ie the majority of people in the country), then the reason Conservatives have to deal with "violent" demonstrations against their policies by the populace and Labour doesn't is that Labour policies are not as extreme, and are not so blatantly designed to transfer money to the rich and take away the rights of the poor, as Tory policies.



rottiepointerhouse said:


> I have not met or spoke to one person (other than a few people on this forum) who are desperate and feel all hope is gone, I'm sorry but I think some of you enjoy whipping up hysteria. We deal with people from all walks of life through our business from those buying their first homes, often on a shared ownership basis with housing associations, to pensioners taking out equity releases or down sizing homes and a heck of a lot in between. I have relatives who still live in council owned houses although most did exercise their right to buy and have moved on, a severely disabled relative who lives in a disabled flat and is in a wheelchair etc etc. Not one have expressed the sentiments you keep expressing. I'm not for one minute saying there are not desperate people out there but I simply do not believe there are the numbers who actually "are desperate and devoid of hope" as you and the celebrity lovies keep telling us there are. I absolutely do not agree with sanctions being taken against people on benefits though and do think its disgusting if they knew the woman had a child that they didn't check she had enough money to feed the child.


I work in a mental health hospital and, whilst I cannot go into detail because of confidentiality reasons, I see many, many cases of people who are absolutely desperate and have been made so by Tory policies destroying their lives. And that's before I even start on the people who are desperately ill and cannot get into hospital for treatment because the systematic rape of the NHS by the Tories has resulted in less money, and fewer wards and services.



rottiepointerhouse said:


> As to the biased media I thought the Guardian was left wing?? I also saw an analysis of the guests on the Andrew Marr show recently and they had far more left wingers "review the papers" than right including recently your Owen Jones. If no newspaper is getting the lefts point of view over then find other ways - social media or how about starting up a new paper.
> 
> I think I said I voted tory because I didn't feel the economy was safe with labour, which I still don't but you have 4.5 years to prove me wrong  and you won't do that by nasty politics, you will do that by constantly providing sensible, well thought out and dare I say it polite alternative views not by shouting, spitting and throwing eggs (or should that be toys out of the pram).


But if the bulk of the media is biased, how will you ever be able to see the other side in order to make an informed decision?

RPH, before I post this next bit, please don't take it as a personal attack because you voted Tory, because I don't mean it to be that at all. You obviously reasoned out how you would vote and I respect that. However, the way you came to your decision is a prime example of what I mean about the dangers of media bias towards the Tories - ie how intelligent, caring people - people such as you - can be unwittingly swayed by a biased media.

You voted Tory because you didn't believe the economy was safe with Labour, yet the actual facts do not bear that out. The trouble is, the media never reported the facts; they just reported all the hype - and because the hype is all people see, the hype is what they come to believe as the truth. The real truth is out there in social media, but how many times have links to social media been ridiculed and made to seem inferior to the mainstream media, on this forum and on others? For example, this was linked to many times on here - but it obviously did not affect your opinion about the economy not being safe in Labour hands https://skwalker1964.wordpress.com/2012/05/23/the-myth-of-the-inherited-mess-52/ There were other links too, from all sorts of online sources, all saying a similar things - and yet they are dismissed as "whipping up hysteria" because they don't appear in the Tory-biased mainstream press.

It's an insidious process - but it's a real process and one that is a danger to the rights of every person in this country. Because if the media can be - and has been - bought, how can we ever rely on anything that is reported at all? We have freedom of speech, but if that freedom is continuously being chipped away, how long will it be before we find that we really don't have freedom of speech at all?


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Spellweaver said:


> Not sure what you meant by "the opposition"
> 
> If you meant the opposition parties, I can't remember even our biased media reporting any violence or threats of violence from the opposition parties.
> 
> ...


Thank you. I will come back and read the link again but I have seen it before and do you know what switches me off straight away? This statement

"And, of course, cue much Tory guffawing and catcalling of the type that only a £25k a year private education can teach."

Puts me off reading anything else the article has to say because its simple prejudice and not keeping to the facts, therefore I don't trust the rest of what they have to say. By the way I don't read papers and I hardly watch the news - most of the articles I quote are because I've heard something and decide to go and look it up. My opinions were not swayed by a biased media but by our own experiences of running a business. Again the left have an unfortunate habit of suggesting anyone who doesn't agree with them has been brain washed by a biased media or doesn't understand the issues.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Whereas the right have an unfortunate habit of ignoring or denying the suffering of others so long as they are profiting.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

porps said:


> Whereas the right have an unfortunate habit of ignoring or denying the suffering of others so long as they are profiting.


So two wrongs don't make a right and we need to find a way of getting facts/information out in a way that can actually be trusted.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I don't know whether they have or not without doing some research but you could look at it the other way round and say that when in power labour haven't had to fear the opposition behaving in such a violent way but accepting democracy, getting their heads down and working hard to become electable again rather than shouting its our way or we will spit at you, throw things at you and ultimately murder you.
> 
> I have not met or spoke to one person (other than a few people on this forum) who are desperate and feel all hope is gone, I'm sorry but I think some of you enjoy whipping up hysteria. We deal with people from all walks of life through our business from those buying their first homes, often on a shared ownership basis with housing associations, to pensioners taking out equity releases or down sizing homes and a heck of a lot in between. I have relatives who still live in council owned houses although most did exercise their right to buy and have moved on, a severely disabled relative who lives in a disabled flat and is in a wheelchair etc etc. Not one have expressed the sentiments you keep expressing. I'm not for one minute saying there are not desperate people out there but I simply do not believe there are the numbers who actually "are desperate and devoid of hope" as you and the celebrity lovies keep telling us there are. I absolutely do not agree with sanctions being taken against people on benefits though and do think its disgusting if they knew the woman had a child that they didn't check she had enough money to feed the child.
> 
> ...


Great reply from Spellweaver, I can only add to it 

No I don't think the guardian is left wing as such, I believe its owners actually backed the lib dems in the run up to the general election lol The guardian is quite unique in that it is owned by a Trust that maintains the Guardians financial & editorial independence - so its not compromised by those who own it. Because they have full editorial freedom & no one reviews or edits their articles it attracts the most principled, respected journalists - journalists who value their integrity.

The guardian is also the only British national daily to conduct an annual social, ethical and environmental evaluation in which it examines, under the scrutiny of an independent external auditor, its own behaviour as a company.

So the Guardian is quite different to the right wing press. The right wing press is owned by a handful of billionaire, non dom media moguls - who are tory donors 

BBC: left or right wing bias? The conclusion - _So the evidence from the research is clear. The BBC tends to reproduce a Conservative, Eurosceptic, pro-business version of the world, not a left-wing, anti-business agenda. _

Please take a look at the whole article - https://theconversation.com/hard-evidence-how-biased-is-the-bbc-17028

I have provided credible links many times of proof of the skyrocketing poverty, homelessness, food bank use. Check out Trussell trust, Joseph Rowntree foundation, Oxfam if you really want the facts and the scale of the suffering. Also check out DPAC if you want to know how disabled people are suffering under the cuts. I follow dpac on twitter - just read some of these heartbreaking tweets RPH https://twitter.com/Dis_PPL_Protest/media I'm not whipping up hysteria, I'm telling the truth.

I can prove you wrong on the economy right now lol From labour Osborne inherited a growing economy & the lowest debt. Hes managed to double that debt to £1.5 TRILLION. Hes the only chancellor to lose us our AAA credit rating. But then my Son knows more about economics than he does. Osborne has no economic qualifications whatsoever. He has a 2-1 in history I believe lol

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ramesh-patel/finally-the-overspending-_b_7591088.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

Anyhow straight from the horses (pigs? lol) mouth, I have posted this before the election so you may have seen it.






Unedited video -


----------



## saffysmum (Feb 11, 2015)

porps said:


> I think the only abilities needed to be a tory mp are lying and a complete lack of compassion


And a desire to be a self-serving twunt with a very poor memory


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Tory Jesus:Hilarious


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

noushka05 said:


> Tory Jesus:Hilarious


:Hilarious:Hilarious:Hilarious Not. So only labour voters and governments give to charity.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Eh? Its a dig at inhumane tory policies RPH, the excuses they give to hammer the poor. http://www.newstatesman.com/politic...push-children-poverty-they-re-doing-it-anyway


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

By the way Noush that is quite an offensive meme to Christians, I doubt anyone would post a similar meme about Muhammed.

Yes thank you Noush I understood exactly what it was digging at :Yawn


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

had


rottiepointerhouse said:


> :Hilarious:Hilarious:Hilarious Not. So only labour voters and governments give to charity.





rottiepointerhouse said:


> By the way Noush that is quite an offensive meme to Christians, I doubt anyone would post a similar meme about Muhammed.
> 
> Yes thank you Noush I understood exactly what it was digging at :Yawn


I thought it was funny as did the Christian I pinched it off. I guess not everyone has the same sense of humour :/

ETA dId you watch Osborne admit we had the lowest debt ?

And ETA again, I didn't mean anything personally, it just tickled me. I actually thought it would lighten the thread.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Sooo back on topic- Jeremy Corbyns response to the Tory conference -


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Corbyn speaks sense. I like this man


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Clearly not the "great majority of the British people" or they would have won the election.

On Jeremy Corbyn, Mr Blunkett says he would have more support for the Labour leader's political left-wing position if the party hadn't already "run this course, been down it, and seen the consequences". 

He says "times have moved on" and warns of the danger of Labour becoming a "party within a party".

We've still got to find out, four weeks on, what the cut of his jib actually is.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> *Clearly not the "great majority of the British people" or they would have won the election.*
> 
> .


But that's not true, is it? The situation that we laughingly call democracy in this country does not need the majority of British people to vote for a party to put that party in power.

The population of the UK in 2015 is estimated at 63.5 million. http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/united-kingdom-population/

In the 2015 general election, just over 11 million voted Tory. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results

Even allowing for those under voting age, that's a huge majority of us who do NOT have Tory values, who do NOT agree with their policies.

So clearly, Corbyn is right when he says that the great majority of us want a fairer and more equal society.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Spellweaver said:


> But that's not true, is it? The situation that we laughingly call democracy in this country does not need the majority of British people to vote for a party to put that party in power.
> 
> The population of the UK in 2015 is estimated at 63.5 million. http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/united-kingdom-population/
> 
> ...


I don't know how you come to that conclusion. If you add together the 36.9 who voted conservative with the 12.6 who voted UKIP (I'm assuming you wouldn't class those as sharing Corbyn's view) that equals 49.5 %. You can add together labour's 30.4 share with the SNP 4.7 share and the Green 3.8 share and get 38.9% who presumably do share most of labour's views so that is not the vast majority. I haven't counted the Lib dems 7.9 % as who knows which side of the fence they would have been at the time.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> By the way Noush that is quite an offensive meme to Christians, I doubt anyone would post a similar meme about Muhammed.


I would. If people spent their time trying not to offend religious groups none would ever be able to say anything.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I don't know how you come to that conclusion. If you add together the 36.9 who voted conservative with the 12.6 who voted UKIP (I'm assuming you wouldn't class those as sharing Corbyn's view) that equals 49.5 %. You can add together labour's 30.4 share with the SNP 4.7 share and the Green 3.8 share and get 38.9% who presumably do share most of labour's views so that is not the vast majority. I haven't counted the Lib dems 7.9 % as who knows which side of the fence they would have been at the time.


I came to the conclusion that the majority of people in the country do not have Tory values because the facts say exactly that - ie only just over 11 million people of the country have. Now, no matter how you try to twist the rest of the votes, it does not alter the fact that out of 63 million people, only 11 million voted for the Tories - ie the great majority of the British people do not share their values.

Just because our supposed democracy allows a party to be in charge of the rest of us when only 11 million voted for them, don't let it fool you into thinking that the majority of the country think their policies are ok. The majority of the country does not support bleeding dry the old, the poor, the disabled, and the ill, does not support giving the rich tax breaks and selling off our assets to private companies for peanuts, does not support selling off the NHS to private companies, does not support fox hunting, does not support badger culling. Only 11 million do that.- and that's not taking into account the fact that, going by what you have said on other threads, all the 11 million who voted Tory don't agree with all their policies, But even without those who voted Tory even though they did not support their policies, that still leaves the fact that the other 52 million of us think differently to the party in power and the people who voted them there.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Spellweaver said:


> I came to the conclusion that the majority of people in the country do not have Tory values because the facts say exactly that - ie only just over 11 million people of the country have. Now, no matter how you try to twist the rest of the votes, it does not alter the fact that out of 63 million people, only 11 million voted for the Tories - ie the great majority of the British people do not share their values.
> 
> Just because our supposed democracy allows a party to be in charge of the rest of us when only 11 million voted for them, don't let it fool you into thinking that the majority of the country think their policies are ok. The majority of the country does not support bleeding dry the old, the poor, the disabled, and the ill, does not support giving the rich tax breaks and selling off our assets to private companies for peanuts, does not support selling off the NHS to private companies, does not support fox hunting, does not support badger culling. Only 11 million do that.- and that's not taking into account the fact that, going by what you have said on other threads, all the 11 million who voted Tory don't agree with all their policies, But even without those who voted Tory even though they did not support their policies, that still leaves the fact that the other 52 million of us think differently to the party in power and the people who voted them there.


11.3 million voted tory, 3.8 million voted UKIP so that is 15.1 million who did not agree with the 9.3 million who voted labour and that was a labour before Mr Corbyn who many would argue will divide the labour party so lets wait and see what happens at the next election if he is still leader.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Missing the point on purpose rph?


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

porps said:


> Missing the point on purpose rph?


Moi? :Angelic


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Spellweaver said:


> selling off our assets to private companies for peanuts


That would be Gordon Brown then.

Going back to the election there were actually 46.4 million people eligible to vote, of those only 66% bothered to turn out so 30.6 million people voted and 15.1 million of those voted conservative/UKIP which is roundabout 50% who do support and assuming 50% don't that still doesn't make the overwhelming majority Mr Corbyn claimed.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> That would be Gordon Brown then.
> 
> Going back to the election there were actually 46.4 million people eligible to vote, of those only 66% bothered to turn out so 30.6 million people voted and 15.1 million of those voted conservative/UKIP which is roundabout 50% who do support and assuming 50% don't that still doesn't make the overwhelming majority Mr Corbyn claimed.


Typical tory manipulation of figures. Corbyn was speaking about the majority of people in the country, not the majority of people who voted at the election. Buy hey, if you can take those figures and decide who would have voted Tory, then I can take those figures and say who would have voted for Corbyn, Let's see how that manipulation works out,

An electorate of 46.4 million = 66% of the electorate - therefore if there had been a viable labour candidate such as Corbyn, then that remaining 34% would have turned out and voted labour - (in the normal way I wouldn't say anything as stupid as this. but I'm just doing what you did and manipulating the what-ifs and what-might-have-beens). So those 34%, plus the 30.4% who did vote labour, plus 7.5% from the SNP, plus 3.3% frmo the Greens, gives Labour a 76.2% of the vote as oppiosed you your UKIP/Tory alliance of around about 50% - so still a vast majority.

(And as an aside, if the fact that of all the parties, the fact that the only party that comes anywhere near tory policies is UKIP  doesn't give tory voters pause for thought, I don't know what will!


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Spellweaver said:


> Typical tory manipulation of figures. Corbyn was speaking about the majority of people in the country, not the majority of people who voted at the election. Buy hey, if you can take those figures and decide who would have voted Tory, then I can take those figures and say who would have voted for Corbyn, Let's see how that manipulation works out,
> 
> An electorate of 46.4 million = 66% of the electorate - therefore if there had been a viable labour candidate such as Corbyn, then that remaining 34% would have turned out and voted labour - (in the normal way I wouldn't say anything as stupid as this. but I'm just doing what you did and manipulating the what-ifs and what-might-have-beens). So those 34%, plus the 30.4% who did vote labour, plus 7.5% from the SNP, plus 3.3% frmo the Greens, gives Labour a 76.2% of the vote as oppiosed you your UKIP/Tory alliance of around about 50% - so still a vast majority.
> 
> ...


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Typical left wing manipulation. I took the official figures and quoted them - I did not assume how any of the non voters would vote - I simply quoted that of 30.6 million who voted 11.3 million voted tory and 3.8 million voted UKIP giving a total of 15.1 million out of the 30.6 million who voted who do not agree with Mr Corbyn which is approx 50% of the people who voted. I do not see how I have manipulated anything as I gave labour the votes for the SNP (despite Scotland kicking labour into touch) and for the Greens. If you take them away then labour only had 9.3 million. Oh dear, not so good after all.


Hey, if you can insist everyone who voted UKIP really voted Tory then I can insist that everyone who didn't vote would have voted for a more left-wing candidate such as Corbyn.  The only difference is, I akcnowledged the fact that I wouldn't normally manipulate figures like that, whereas you seem to think it's ok to manipulate figures and pretend a UKIP vote is the same s a Tory vote.

And none of it - neither your deliberate manipulation nor my joke manipulation - alters the fact that only 11 million out of 63 million voted Tory - hence the great majority of people in this country do not agreee with Tory politics and Corbyn was right to say what he did.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

A large portion of those ukip votes were in protest to the utter lack of choice. Its much more likely that had there been no ukip they would've either chosen not to vote (like so many other people who's eyes are open to the sham that is british democracy) or voted for the greens, than for either of the tory parties (the red ones and the blue ones)


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> And none of it - neither your deliberate manipulation nor my joke manipulation - alters the fact that only 11 million out of 63 million voted Tory - hence the great majority of people in this country do not agreee with Tory politics and Corbyn was right to say what he did.


From both a statistical and NLP point of reasoning, 52 million people not voting Tory != the vast majority of people do not agree with Tory politics. It only means they were inelegible to vote, didn't vote for some reason, or didn't vote Tory. Inferring much beyond that is invalid logically.

Technically, voting for another party != do not agree with Tory politics, nor does voting Tory = fully agrees with Tory politics and values (see Tactical Voting, Best Of A Bad Bunch In My Area or Don't Really Know Anything About Politics And Find It Deadly Dull But Feel I Should Vote And This Chap Did A Nice Speech At My Kid's Sports Day So Why Not? for just some reasons as to why not). Nor does not voting = I Would Have Voted Labour If They'd Had A Decent Leader (see Medical Emergency, Got Stuck At Work and I'm Not Bothering To Vote As There Is No Green/UKIP/Monster Raving Looney Party Candidate in my area for just some reasons as to why not*)

See Lies, Damned Lies, And Statistics for reasons as to why the random winging around of meaningless figures gets geeks like me rolling our eyes so much!

And no, I voted, but didn't vote Tory. Just gutted the Monster Raving Loony Party candidate didn't stand for the first time in years...

*yes, I have been spending significant time on TV Tropes lately. Why do you ask?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Jesthar said:


> From both a statistical and NLP point of reasoning, 52 million people not voting Tory != the vast majority of people do not agree with Tory politics. It only means they were inelegible to vote, didn't vote for some reason, or didn't vote Tory. Inferring much beyond that is invalid logically.
> 
> Technically, voting for another party != do not agree with Tory politics, nor does voting Tory = fully agrees with Tory politics and values (see Tactical Voting, Best Of A Bad Bunch In My Area or Don't Really Know Anything About Politics And Find It Deadly Dull But Feel I Should Vote And This Chap Did A Nice Speech At My Kid's Sports Day So Why Not? for just some reasons as to why not). Nor does not voting = I Would Have Voted Labour If They'd Had A Decent Leader (see Medical Emergency, Got Stuck At Work and I'm Not Bothering To Vote As There Is No Green/UKIP/Monster Raving Looney Party Candidate in my area for just some reasons as to why not*)
> 
> ...


Ermmmm - perhaps you missed the post where I sad:



Spellweaver said:


> - (in the normal way I wouldn't say anything as stupid as this. but I'm just doing what you did and manipulating the what-ifs and what-might-have-beens).


Just sayin!


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Spellweaver said:


> Hey, if you can insist everyone who voted UKIP really voted Tory then I can insist that everyone who didn't vote would have voted for a more left-wing candidate such as Corbyn.  The only difference is, I akcnowledged the fact that I wouldn't normally manipulate figures like that, whereas you seem to think it's ok to manipulate figures and pretend a UKIP vote is the same s a Tory vote.
> 
> And none of it - neither your deliberate manipulation nor my joke manipulation - alters the fact that only 11 million out of 63 million voted Tory - hence the great majority of people in this country do not agreee with Tory politics and Corbyn was right to say what he did.


So ignore all except those who actually voted Tory and those who actually voted Labour and its still 11.3 million against 9.3 million so Mr Corbyn should not have claimed "the great majority" because he has no more right to claim he knows the minds of the other 10 million voters or 16 million who didn't bother to vote than I do. It was 46.4 million eligible to vote not 63 million as you claim.


----------



## saffysmum (Feb 11, 2015)

Well, whatever opinion people may have of Mr Corbyn, at least it's got people talking about politics and opening their eyes to the shenanigans in and out of Westminster. This can only be a good thing, making the public realise what a gravy train it all is and the lack of any qualifications whatsoever needed to enter politics!


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Ermmmm - perhaps you missed the post where I sad:
> 
> Just sayin!


Or perhaps I was enlarging and expanding upon your observations - just sayin!


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> So ignore all except those who actually voted Tory and those who actually voted Labour and its still 11.3 million against 9.3 million so Mr Corbyn should not have claimed "the great majority" because he has no more right to claim he knows the minds of the other 10 million voters or 16 million who didn't bother to vote than I do. It was 46.4 million eligible to vote not 63 million as you claim.


I admire your persistence but it is clear that your posts are trampled underfoot.


----------



## gfdagrfd (Oct 12, 2015)

The idea of forcing them to live on an income that is inconsistent with their abilities is, if I may say so, rather silly. It would prove nothing.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

gfdagrfd said:


> The idea of forcing them to live on an income that is inconsistent with their abilities is, if I may say so, rather silly. It would prove nothing.


I've already said it's silly and no, it would prove nothing, but it would give most an incite into a life that they have never and will never know.
An eduction if you like, before they make the decisions that affect those millions in this country.
Don't you think that politicians should have some form of training (other than the old boys network) for the career they have chosen?


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

rona said:


> Don't you think that politicians should have some form of training (other than the old boys network) for the career they have chosen?


Yes I certainly do....and a lengthy court case and sentence for dereliction of duties, gross misconduct and their fraudulent lying and thieving, call it what you will.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Zaros said:


> Yes I certainly do....and a lengthy court case and sentence for dereliction of duties, gross misconduct and their fraudulent lying and thieving, call it what you will.


This was a suggestion that they do this before becoming politicians not after they are one. A bit late then don't you think? 
Their snouts are already in the trough


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

rona said:


> This was a suggestion that they do this before becoming politicians not after they are one. A bit late then don't you think?


The British justice system doesn't punish or imprison anyone for 'Pre-crimes' (their potential to be a naughty boy or girl)...

Well not yet anyway.

ETA. Apart from Charles (Salvador) Bronson aka Michael Gordon Peterson.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Zaros said:


> The British justice system doesn't punish or imprison anyone for 'Pre-crimes' (their potential to be a naughty boy or girl)...
> 
> Well not yet anyway.
> 
> ETA. Apart from Charles (Salvador) Bronson aka Michael Gordon Peterson.


Cross purposes I believe 

i'm talking about one thing and you another


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> Corbyn speaks sense. I like this man


He does speak sense, shamefully though, the media are making him look like some sort of extremist. I like him too. Honesty & integrity matter to me, that's why I have such admiration for Caroline Lucas as well.

Another honourable politician. Nye will be turning in his grave that the tories have finally got their thieving hands on his legacy - our NHS. The tory party never changes -





rottiepointerhouse said:


> Clearly not the "great majority of the British people" or they would have won the election.
> 
> On Jeremy Corbyn, Mr Blunkett says he would have more support for the Labour leader's political left-wing position if the party hadn't already "run this course, been down it, and seen the consequences".
> 
> ...


How many people would have voted for the *Con*servatives had the media done its job, I wonder?. The tories are conning us with austerity using it as a means of transfering our public assets into private pockets. Despite this slashing of our public services, the welfare state & dismantling our NHS the national debt has doubled & continues to grow & Osborne presides over the slowest recovery since records began. They have hammered the most vulnerable in society with their cuts, the majority of the population are worse off whilst the wealth of the richest has doubled - inequality is spiralling!. And the media has actually got people believing the reason this country (one of the wealthiest on the planet!) is going to the dogs is because of immigrants & 'benefit cheats'. Divide & conquer a well known tory tactic.

It is an affront to democracy that the msm is so overwhelmingly right wing biased. When the tories lie those lies not only go unchallenged by the media they are repeated by them as fact! That is not spin. That is PROPAGANDA.

Blunkett is a Blairite - he would say that about Corbyn he subscribes to neoliberal ideology (or Thatcherism - light). John Smith was real labour an honest principled man, popular with the public. It was a great tragedy when he passed away, not only for him & his family but for the labour party, democracy, the country & the world. Many believe he would have been PM.

Corbyns polices are for fairness & humanity, care for our environment. Whats not to like?? If he fails it will be down to tory deceit & media propaganda.

.

.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Funny how Labour are gradually disowning all the long serving members of their previous government, writing them off as Blairites  I found David Blunkett to be a pretty reasonable home secretary, far better than Jack Boots Jackie.

I notice you haven't responded to this post from @ClaireLouise on the NHS thread - I hope she doesn't mind me quoting it here

"I work for a trust that is making a profit. We are well staffed and patients get good care. It's the top employer in the stone wall index.
Our GPs do not work to this policy by cutting genuine referrals and are very quick with referrals for investigations.
They do prevent emergency admissions by having a first response team and a crisis social care team.
They keep referrals down by not referring everyone on immediately but by reviewing each patient themselves before doing so to prevent inappropriate referrals. Such as if I ask for a vascular referral for a patient the gp wants the results and will complete a consultation themselves prior to a referral. Previously they would just have done it.

We make money as a trust by saving money. We cut down on agency staff and provide services in the community for hospitals that were previously passed on to private agencies such as bupa which cost loads."

What a strange statement Noush

"Another honourable politician. Nye will be turning in his grave that *the tories have finally got their thieving hands on his legacy *- our NHS."

Is this the first time the tories have had their hands on our NHS since 1948? No. Lets see

NHS formed in 1948 - Tory government in power from 1951-1959 (Churchill, Eden, MacMillan). Labour back in power 1959 - 1970. Tories back from 1970 - 1974 (Heath). Labour from 1974-1979. Tories back in power from 1979 - 1997 (Thatcher/Major). Followed by the Blair/Brown years from 1997 - 2010. Tories back as part of the coalition then on their own from 2010- present day. That is 35 years of tory power out of 67 - more time than Labour yet you say they have finally got their thieving hands on his legacy


----------



## saffysmum (Feb 11, 2015)

gfdagrfd said:


> The idea of forcing them to live on an income that is inconsistent with their abilities is, if I may say so, rather silly. It would prove nothing.


But aren't a lot of people already forced to live on an income inconsistent with their abilities..?  There are people that I know, who would love to train and upskill their jobs, but are unable to afford it, either because they would have to pay fees to train, stop work to have the time, or both.....


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Funny how Labour are gradually disowning all the long serving members of their previous government, writing them off as Blairites  I found David Blunkett to be a pretty reasonable home secretary, far better than Jack Boots Jackie.
> 
> I notice you haven't responded to this post from @ClaireLouise on the NHS thread - I hope she doesn't mind me quoting it here
> 
> ...












The blairites are the neoliberals in the party. They are the ones doing the scaremongering about Corbyn. Blunkett served in Blairs cabinet, hes even worked for Murdoch at the Sun!. Only Tony could be more blarite than that . Labours Jon Trickett explains the partys transformation to 'New' labour. Many labour MPs, such as Jon & Corbyn, refused to compromise their values though & have retained their integrity & stayed true to their socialist values..



People who care about the environment & social justice are horrified at the devastation free market capitalism brings with it. Even though New labour polices are far less destructive than Conservatism, neoliberalism is an unjust ideology. Many are fed up of a tory-light party they want a clear alternative - hence the massive support for Corbyn. Its now crystal clear rapacious capitalism creates gross inequality, it benefits the few at the expense of the many & it is killing our natural world - its destroying our living planet & that is a fact. Corbyn knows this, he cares & he wants to do something about it.

Can I ask you RPH, what could possibly be more important then saving our planet?

I've noticed you haven't responded to quite a few of my posts lol I hope you've found the time to watch the videos & read the links ive posted?. I'm really interested to know your thoughts on the economy lie & mass suffering caused by Osbornes austerity. And I did intend to respond to Claires post actually lol. I don't know if to do that on here or do it on the relevant thread though?? I've decided the NHS thread so as not to take this one off track. Watch this(that?) space lol


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

noushka05 said:


> The blairites are the neoliberals in the party. They are the ones doing the scaremongering about Corbyn. Blunkett served in Blairs cabinet, hes even worked for Murdoch at the Sun!. Only Tony could be more blarite than that . Labours Jon Trickett explains the partys transformation to 'New' labour. Many labour MPs, such as Jon & Corbyn, refused to compromise their values though & have retained their integrity & stayed true to their socialist values..
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So I think I've finally managed to wade through all the links and videos you have posted noush.

You ask me what could be more important that saving the planet? I don't believe that is in our power but in the power of mother nature. The planet/climate change and progress all the time, its not that long since we were cavemen and who knows what the world will be like in a thousand years time, perhaps we will be living on other planets or perhaps mother nature will unleash some incurable disease or tsunami type disaster to wipe out all the humans leaving the planet to the wildlife. More likely we will blow ourselves up fighting each other. I have no idea but I don't believe labour policies are going to save the planet anymore than tory policies are going to cause it to destruct.

Thanks for telling me about the Trussell Trust, do you seriously think I don't already know about them? donate to them? I've linked to them myself lots of times in other threads as I believe they do a lot of good work, not just on providing food but also educating families how to live/cook on a budget and debt management

I've also read the articles by Ramesh Patel and I'd by lying if I said I fully understood them as I've never pretended to have studied economics. I will try to read up some more on the points he raises. The video of George Osborne was a lot of political point scoring and he got rattled. Big deal - same thing happened to labour's shadow City Minister when talking about the deficit

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/201...er-psspoor-channel-4-interview_n_8300176.html

I've been unable to establish the qualifications of the shadow chancellor Mr McDonnell but so far he doesn't inspire me with any confidence. Its not often I agree with Nicola Sturgeon but I do on this statement made today at their conference

Ms Sturgeon said: "T here is much that I hoped the SNP and Jeremy Corbyn could work together on. But over these last few weeks, it has become glaringly obvious that he is unable to unite his party on any of the big issues of our day.

"When he says he opposes Trident, he is attacked, not just by the Tories, but by his own shadow cabinet."

In contrast she said the SNP "stands against Trident today, tomorrow, always".

The First Minister continued: " Whether on the economy, or Trident, or even the question of whether UK forces should take part in air strikes on Syria, Labour is a party divided and in disarray.

"In fact, the only thing clear about Labour, and it becomes clearer by the day, is this - *Labour is unreliable, unelectable and unable to stand up to the Tories.*"

I will answer the NHS issues on the other thread.


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

saffysmum said:


> But aren't a lot of people already forced to live on an income inconsistent with their abilities..?  There are people that I know, who would love to train and upskill their jobs, but are unable to afford it, either because they would have to pay fees to train, stop work to have the time, or both.....


Ability generally translates into economic success because we live in a society in which there is, broadly speaking, equality of opportunity. If it makes people feel better about themselves to blame 'society' or 'government' or the 'system' for their situation then fine.... they can continue to vote labour or pretend to be anarchists or whatever but it won't change things for them.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Satori said:


> Ability generally translates into economic success because we live in a society in which there is, broadly speaking, equality of opportunity.


We live in a society where greed is considered to be a more valuable trait than empathy or compassion, and time and time again your posts epitomise that.

But at least you, unlike many other tory voters, are actual honest about what drives you (pursuit of wealth at any cost).


----------



## Vanessa131 (Nov 16, 2014)

My great aunt receives the basic state pension, she has all her rent paid via housing benefit, she doesn't pay council tax, she doesn't pay for her TV licence, she doesn't pay for prescriptions, she also gets heating allowance. 

She has enough money to take out her entire family out for a meal once a year costing around £600, she recently put a fairly hefty deposit down for her grand daughters car, she bought an another entire riding equipment, she bought her grandson a dirt bike and all associated gear. She eats out 4-5 times a week. She regularly visits family in other areas of the UK and pays for every meal out while doing so. 

She has far more disposable income than myself, I work fulltime as well! I couldn't afford her home, nevermind her lifestyle. 

My dad is a pensioner and does very well also, being a pensioner he recently had all new windows installed throughout the house for a very reasonable price as he got n amount off for being over 70. He goes on holiday every year, he runs a car and doesn't go without anything.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

porps said:


> We live in a society where greed is considered to be a more valuable trait than empathy or compassion, and time and time again your posts epitomise that.
> 
> But at least you, unlike many other tory voters, are actual honest about what drives you (pursuit of wealth at any cost).


Thats a very interesting point Porps and one I've often wondered why only gets directed at Tories, there are plenty of Labour supporters and MPs who are extremely wealthy. Its OK to go out on demonstrations waving placards and record videos but I've not quite figured out how they square the circle whilst they are sat in their posh houses counting their money/eating at obscenely expensive restaurants while the homeless doss down in the doorways outside . It comes down to aspiration and its a basic human trait to want to better yourself and provide better for your family. I've yet to read a "what would you do if you won the lottery" type thread where the Labour supporters say they would give it all to charity or the homeless. Most want to move to a better area, get a bigger house, send their children to better schools and travel the world, just like most tories


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> So I think I've finally managed to wade through all the links and videos you have posted noush.
> 
> You ask me what could be more important that saving the planet? I don't believe that is in our power but in the power of mother nature. The planet/climate change and progress all the time, its not that long since we were cavemen and who knows what the world will be like in a thousand years time, perhaps we will be living on other planets or perhaps mother nature will unleash some incurable disease or tsunami type disaster to wipe out all the humans leaving the planet to the wildlife. More likely we will blow ourselves up fighting each other. I have no idea but I don't believe labour policies are going to save the planet anymore than tory policies are going to cause it to destruct.
> 
> ...


Thank you for taking the time 

When I say saving the planet, I mean stop destroying it with our greed. Surely you cant blame mother nature for all the pollution, the environmental degradation? We live on a finite planet we cant go on exploiting the worlds resources at this this rate, it is simply unsustainable. And its immoral as well, especially when there are green sustainable alternatives. Capitalism & environmental degradation go hand in hand - do you not agree? Isn't it therefore our moral duty to do OUR utmost to 'save our planet'? If we selfishly carry on regardless, what about all the species WE will drive to extinction? This is their home too. What about future generations? This isn't Star Trek! We cant hope for another planet to ferry them to, we have to look after THIS planet. There is no planet B, RPH.

The environment is my passion so I'm a proud Green Party member. But I can assure you as bad as new labour were, their environmental policies were pretty good. And they were in-sync with the science where applicable. Under labour Natural England did its job & was fit for purpose. Not anymore! the tories have stuffed NE with ex-NFU people & property magnets - it is now the servant of industry  Labour have always been head & shoulders above the tories when it comes protecting our living world - & animal welfare. That's because the tories are in bed with big industry - hence there getting rid of 'all the green crap' & going all out for fracking & UCG, development & industrialisation of our countryside, the badger cull . Soon they will sell off our public forests & all our natural treasures The tories 'know the price of everything & the value of nothing'. They will flog off anything for short term gain - destroy anything for votes. Intrinsic values have bypassed them.

My point about the Trussell Trust was the tories are solely responsible for this food bank crisis. They have driven a million+ people to food banks. In the run up to the election did you know they gagged the Trussell Trust, Oxfam, Shelter etc? & even churches from speaking out again the impact their heartless policies were having on peoples lives? (I'm sure I must have mentioned it) Did you know the tories blocked a £2 million EU fund to feed our poor? What kind of people are they??

That shadow minister clip is incomparable. It is a fact when labour left office Britain had the lowest National debt - meaning Osborne implemented his cruel austerity based on a lie! That video on your link is a great example of media bias though. Its a travesty to our democracy the media are not holding Osborne & the tory cabinet to account on their failed policies & blatant lies. This is their second term in government & despite ALL his cuts Osborne has still managed to double the deficit & borrow more in 5 years than labour did in 13! http://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2015_10_01_archive.html

Labour now has 7 of the worlds leading economists on board, including Thomas Piketty & Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz  http://www.project-syndicate.org/co...-economic-agenda-by-mariana-mazzucato-2015-09 Osborne record speaks for itself!

Of course the party is split between new & 'real' labour. My hope is this huge & growing grass roots movement in the party since Corby was elected will drive out the Blairites once and for all. My oh is now a labour party member & is fuming with our MP, who was 'absent' for the fiscal charter vote! My hubby is going to contact him over the weekend!


----------



## Guest (Oct 16, 2015)

The issue is not tories or labour, it's not republicans or democrats, it's that we have lost our roots as human beings....




__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10153206120379065


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Thats a very interesting point Porps and one I've often wondered why only gets directed at Tories, there are plenty of Labour supporters and MPs who are extremely wealthy. Its OK to go out on demonstrations waving placards and record videos but I've not quite figured out how they square the circle whilst they are sat in their posh houses counting their money/eating at obscenely expensive restaurants while the homeless doss down in the doorways outside . It comes down to aspiration and its a basic human trait to want to better yourself and provide better for your family. I've yet to read a "what would you do if you won the lottery" type thread where the Labour supporters say they would give it all to charity or the homeless. Most want to move to a better area, get a bigger house, send their children to better schools and travel the world, just like most tories


Surely you can be wealthy & still care more about social justice, environmental justice & fairness than having more money? Voting for a more humane, progressive party wouldn't mean rich people would lose all their money.lol If they were very rich it might mean they would be taxed a bit more, but rich socialists are happy with that. This government could fund our NHS if it chased up all the tax evading corporations. Do you not want a fairer world where the natural world is intrinsically valued & cherished? What better inheritance for our children than a habitable planet?

Its a shameful state of affairs that people are having to survive on charity in such a wealthy country - we are going back to pre welfare state.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

ouesi said:


> The issue is not tories or labour, it's not republicans or democrats, it's that we have lost our roots as human beings....
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/gumbi.ortiz.5/videos/10153206120379065/


Money is the root of all evil. How true is that. I visited my Aunty yesterday, shes 87 & the last of my lovely Nans 11 siblings. She was talking about when they young & how poor they were, but how they all shared. My Nan & Grandad lived hand to mouth. But if anyone said to my Nan "I like that" She would wrap it up in a bit of newspaper & give it to them. She was so kind. My Nan & Grandad had nothing but they had hearts of gold.


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> Money is the root of all evil. How true is that.


Incorrect, it is "The LOVE of money is the root of ALL KINDS of evil" 

Common misquotation, that one


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Jesthar said:


> Incorrect, it is "The LOVE of money is the root of ALL KINDS of evil"
> 
> Common misquotation, that one


Hey, thank you Jesthar. I would pay you in rep if I could for being my personal correcteur


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

noushka05 said:


> Thank you for taking the time
> 
> When I say saving the planet, I mean stop destroying it with our greed. Surely you cant blame mother nature for all the pollution, the environmental degradation? We live on a finite planet we cant go on exploiting the worlds resources at this this rate, it is simply unsustainable. And its immoral as well, especially when there are green sustainable alternatives. Capitalism & environmental degradation go hand in hand - do you not agree? Isn't it therefore our moral duty to do OUR utmost to 'save our planet'? If we selfishly carry on regardless, what about all the species WE will drive to extinction? This is their home too. What about future generations? This isn't Star Trek! We cant hope for another planet to ferry them to, we have to look after THIS planet. There is no planet B, RPH.
> 
> ...


How do you know in a thousand years we won't be able to inhabit another planet? Seriously though you know I don't agree so I'm not sure why you keep asking if I do. I don't believe it is in our power to "save the planet", I didn't say I blame mother nature for anything but that I believe the future of the planet lays in the hands of mother nature, not us. I think nature is more powerful than man as can be seen by natural disasters that occur every so often. I don't believe we know how long man will continue to exist. I think its inevitable that some species will become extinct - it would be a funny old word if we were trying to exist with our modern lifestyles along side dinosaurs wouldn't it? That doesn't mean I want to see species extinct but I have always been a welfarist rather than a conservationist.



ouesi said:


> The issue is not tories or labour, it's not republicans or democrats, it's that we have lost our roots as human beings....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So true. I think it would be a much nicer world if we could all opt out of the rat race and go back to basics but its never going to happen. It would also be great if we had no politicians like in Porps world but that is never going to happen either. It would just be refreshing if we could all stop playing the blame game.



noushka05 said:


> Surely you can be wealthy & still care more about social justice, environmental justice & fairness than having more money? Voting for a more humane, progressive party wouldn't mean rich people would lose all their money.lol If they were very rich it might mean they would be taxed a bit more, but rich socialists are happy with that. This government could fund our NHS if it chased up all the tax evading corporations. Do you not want a fairer world where the natural world is intrinsically valued & cherished? What better inheritance for our children than a habitable planet?
> 
> Its a shameful state of affairs that people are having to survive on charity in such a wealthy country - we are going back to pre welfare state.


Of course you can be wealthy and care but if you are saying left wingers care more about those things than having money I would have to ask you why they don't give their money to those in need if that is the case. Some of us pay high rate tax and support charities but that attitude from Clement Attlee makes me wonder why I bother and brings home the old saying "Never a good deed goes unpunished" - its seems they will hang you if you do and hang you if you don't.


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> Hey, thank you Jesthar. I would pay you in rep if I could for being my personal correcteur


 No worries - I should hope I would know that one, as it's a Bible quote!

There is, as ever, some minor varience between the translations given that no two languages ever have direct equivalence, but that's the most widely used form  For what it's worth, 'love' of money is taken to mean 'the greedy desire for it and the willingness to gain it unethically'


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> How do you know in a thousand years we won't be able to inhabit another planet? Seriously though you know I don't agree so I'm not sure why you keep asking if I do. I don't believe it is in our power to "save the planet", I didn't say I blame mother nature for anything but that I believe the future of the planet lays in the hands of mother nature, not us. I think nature is more powerful than man as can be seen by natural disasters that occur every so often. I don't believe we know how long man will continue to exist. I think its inevitable that some species will become extinct - it would be a funny old word if we were trying to exist with our modern lifestyles along side dinosaurs wouldn't it? That doesn't mean I want to see species extinct but I have always been a welfarist rather than a conservationist.
> 
> So true. I think it would be a much nicer world if we could all opt out of the rat race and go back to basics but its never going to happen. It would also be great if we had no politicians like in Porps world but that is never going to happen either. It would just be refreshing if we could all stop playing the blame game.
> 
> Of course you can be wealthy and care but if you are saying left wingers care more about those things than having money I would have to ask you why they don't give their money to those in need if that is the case. Some of us pay high rate tax and support charities but that attitude from Clement Attlee makes me wonder why I bother and brings home the old saying "Never a good deed goes unpunished" - its seems they will hang you if you do and hang you if you don't.


I'll try again. 'Saving the planet' is a figure of speech - the earth will still be here long after life has disappeared. Saving our 'living' planet is the accurate term. The global environment is collapsing and dying as human industrial growth overwhelms natural ecosystems and the climate. According to the best scientists we are entering the 6th mass extinction. 1 in 6 species will be wiped out forever. It is OUR fault. We have a small window of opportunity to do something about it. It makes me feel sick to my stomach that people think they know better than the experts & don't care enough to fight for nature. I'll never begin to understand that mentality. Don't we owe it to all the wonderful creatures we share this planet with to stop selfishly destroying their homes to feed our insatiable greed? We don't even need scientists to tell us we are trashing our natural world - all we have to do is open our eyes RPH. How anyone can seek to justify or excuse this is beyond me -



What does being a welfarist even mean? lol Neoliberalism not only destroys the environment, it has created gross inequality. The majority of the worlds population are suffering because of this destructive ideology of greed & selfishness. Neoliberalism is like a cancer, if we fail to treat it, everything will collapse - including the global economy!

An economic system based upon endless growth that views ecosystems primarily as resources to be consumed cannot exist for long without total social, economic, and ecological collapse

_http://www.ecointernet.org/wp-conte...ial-Ecosystem-Loss-and-Biosphere-Collapse.pdf
_

Rapacious capitalism is to blame.

Governments should ensure taxes are progressive, & the wealthy should gladly pay them so there wouldn't be any need for people to rely on charity to survive - I believe that is what Attlee meant. The wealth of the richest has doubled under this government whilst the poorest have been taxed the hardest. And now we have the 2nd highest poverty in the developed world. How is that fair?? I imagine rich & poor socialists alike want a government that treats people fairly. Something capitalist governments don't do.



Jesthar said:


> No worries - I should hope I would know that one, as it's a Bible quote!
> 
> There is, as ever, some minor varience between the translations given that no two languages ever have direct equivalence, but that's the most widely used form  For what it's worth, 'love' of money is taken to mean 'the greedy desire for it and the willingness to gain it unethically'


I never realised it was a bible quote either  Are you religious Jesthar?


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

On a different theme to the above, but needs mentioning if anyone hasn't seen it yet:
Woman Tory Voter Breaks Down On BBC Question Time
A powerful example of why the Tory government is not working for ordinary people - even those who voted for them.


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> I never realised it was a bible quote either  Are you religious Jesthar?


Religious? No, but I do have a strong Christian faith


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

porps said:


> We live in a society where greed is considered to be a more valuable trait than empathy or compassion, and time and time again your posts epitomise that.
> 
> But at least you, unlike many other tory voters, are actual honest about what drives you (pursuit of wealth at any cost).


I agree - it's much more refreshing for people to be up front and honest about their views rather than playing the "Well, I voted Tory but I didn't really vote for their X,Y and Z policies" card.



rottiepointerhouse said:


> What a strange statement Noush
> 
> "Another honourable politician. Nye will be turning in his grave that *the tories have finally got their thieving hands on his legacy *- our NHS."
> 
> ...


And each time the Tories have been in power they've done more and more to dismantle the NHS until they've finally managed to cripple it.



silvi said:


> On a different theme to the above, but needs mentioning if anyone hasn't seen it yet:
> Woman Tory Voter Breaks Down On BBC Question Time
> A powerful example of why the Tory government is not working for ordinary people - even those who voted for them.


As you say, what a very powerful example. I don't see how anyone can watch that and not feel for that woman and the thousands (if not millions) like her who this government is slowly strangling. Yet some people seem to be oblivious to the fact that people are suffering in this way, and seem to prefer to salve their consciences for helping to bring about this state of affairs by pretending that the people who are in this sort of situation don't exist and that they are merely "created" by hysterical leftists on social media.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Thats a very interesting point Porps and one I've often wondered why only gets directed at Tories, there are plenty of Labour supporters and MPs who are extremely wealthy. Its OK to go out on demonstrations waving placards and record videos but I've not quite figured out how they square the circle whilst they are sat in their posh houses counting their money/eating at obscenely expensive restaurants while the homeless doss down in the doorways outside . It comes down to aspiration and its a basic human trait to want to better yourself and provide better for your family. I've yet to read a "what would you do if you won the lottery" type thread where the Labour supporters say they would give it all to charity or the homeless. Most want to move to a better area, get a bigger house, send their children to better schools and travel the world, just like most tories


Yes there are plenty of wealthy labour people. But they generally advocate more taxes for the rich to help the poor, whereas tories generally attempt to siphon money from the poor to the rich.

Yes it is a common human trait to want to provide for your family however in my experience there is never an enough point for right wingers. The left seeks to have enough, and the right constantly seeks to have more- no matter how much they have already. 
Not that i think labour has represented the left for a long long time, they certainly haven't.

Even i want to have enough. I hate the ridiculous pursuit of currency, something which i beleive has no real value, but unfortunately we live in a society where the majority are blind to the currency scam and its inevitable catastrophic failure. And one in which if i opt out i suffer, and my girl suffers.

Politics is about ideologies- that's why it always makes me laugh when people say anarchy or even communism are too idealistic to work. Ofc they are idealistic- each different veiwpoint begins with an ideal. That may not be realistic in practice but the ideal behind the stance is important. Then you go as far as you can towards that ideal.
When i follow the various different political stance to thier ideal i find myself an anarchist. But many of them desire the same things as anarchy but approach from different angles. Socialism is about sharing and helping people in need via taxation of those with plenty, communism is about sharing and ensuring complete equality via full state control of everything (and it fails only because of the involvement of the state), anarchy is about complete freedom and achieving a world where everyone gets what they need via mutual cooperation, conservatism (to me) seems to be about do it for yourself even if that comes at the expense of others.. The ideal is personal wealth gain. And those with less deserve it. I'm not a socialist or a communist but i can see that their actual ideals are compassionate ones rather than selfish ones.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Spellweaver said:


> *I agree - it's much more refreshing for people to be up front and honest about their views rather than playing the "Well, I voted Tory but I didn't really vote for their X,Y and Z policies" card.*
> 
> And each time the Tories have been in power they've done more and more to dismantle the NHS until they've finally managed to cripple it.
> 
> As you say, what a very powerful example. I don't see how anyone can watch that and not feel for that woman and the thousands (if not millions) like her who this government is slowly strangling. Yet some people seem to be oblivious to the fact that people are suffering in this way, and seem to prefer to salve their consciences for helping to bring about this state of affairs by pretending that the people who are in this sort of situation don't exist and that they are merely "created" by hysterical leftists on social media.


On not that old chestnut again :Yawn Its been said by me and plenty of other people that there was no single party that they agreed with on everything, most of us agreed with a bit of each party but had to weigh up whether to not vote at all because of that or whether to vote for the one that most represented our views or that we had most faith in. So as a business owner I felt the tories represented us better than any other party, and I wasn't alone, even Lord Sugar quit labour due to their negative business policies.

http://news.sky.com/story/1481816/lord-sugar-quits-anti-enterprise-labour

Its great if you work in the public sector and don't have to worry about business but a lot of us don't. Have you ever been self employed and had to come up with crippling taxes? Don't you think sometimes we would like to roll over and let someone else worry about everything and pay everything for us. What do you think happens to us when we can't work due to illness or our business gets cut by two thirds due to the recession. No one is offering to top up our income.

I don't actually agree with cutting tax credits to the lowest paid families but I do agree to cutting them for average families (even MPs were claiming it). However I also agree something had to be done about the benefit culture in this country and the number of families with no working adults. I have a cousin on long term benefits (his wife was too), we used to have his children to stay for holidays and one asked why we couldn't take them out on a day we were working. When we explained we had to work to earn money she said "Why? Daddy gets his money from the post office" she seriously had no understanding of working.

@noushka05 we will never agree on the environment and man made climate change, not all experts agree either so lets not pretend they do. If I took some of your posts seriously I think I would go and lay down in front of a train and get it over with, its like the grim reaper tolling a bell. Bong. You are all doomed. Bong. You are hopeless and desperate. Bong. The end of the world is nigh.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> @noushka05 we will never agree on the environment and man made climate change, not all experts agree either so lets not pretend they do. If I took some of your posts seriously I think I would go and lay down in front of a train and get it over with, its like the grim reaper tolling a bell. Bong. You are all doomed. Bong. You are hopeless and desperate. Bong. The end of the world is nigh.


Sorry but this made me laugh out loud


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Its great if you work in the public sector and don't have to worry about business but a lot of us don't.


It's great if you're a private business owner and can pretend that the hardship that those of us see every day in the public sector does not exist. But a lot of us don't. A hell of a lot of us work long hours for peanuts in the public sector instead of selling out to the private sector because _we care_ about the people who have fallen by the wayside due to the policies you Tories voted for just so that you can continue to run your private business with lower taxes.



rottiepointerhouse said:


> Have you ever been self employed and had to come up with crippling taxes?


I'm employed in the public sector and pay crippling taxes. No difference.



rottiepointerhouse said:


> Don't you think sometimes we would like to roll over and let someone else worry about everything and pay everything for us.


Don't you think that those of us who work in the public sector would like to roll over and let someone else worry about everything and pay everything for us?



rottiepointerhouse said:


> What do you think happens to us when we can't work due to illness or our business gets cut by two thirds due to the recession. No one is offering to top up our income.


What do you think happens to us when we can't work due to illness and we don't receive a pay rise or have to take a pay cut or less hours because of the recession that has been the longest recession in history due to the policies you Tories voted for? I too would like someone to offer to top up our income instead of my taxes going towards cuts in taxes for private businesses.

If you think it's so beautiful on this side of the fence, come and join us. Oh, wait a minute, you can't - there are no jobs in the public sector because of all the cuts you Tories voted for in order to enable you to continue to run your private businsses more cheaply.



rottiepointerhouse said:


> I don't actually agree with cutting tax credits to the lowest paid families


Neither do I, which is why I didn't vote for the party that said they were going to do it.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Jesthar said:


> Religious? No, but I do have a strong Christian faith


Ah right, thank you Jesthar, I just wondered x



rottiepointerhouse said:


> @noushka05 we will never agree on the environment and man made climate change, not all experts agree either so lets not pretend they do. If I took some of your posts seriously I think I would go and lay down in front of a train and get it over with, its like the grim reaper tolling a bell. Bong. You are all doomed. Bong. You are hopeless and desperate. Bong. The end of the world is nigh.


So what on earth trashed that pristine environment on those pics? The hand of God? You say not all experts agree on man made CC, yet on the previous thread you failed to find ONE single credible expert lol Who was it you gave me? that charlatan Plimer & national joke Dellingpole ?-( the self professed "interpreter of interpretations". :Wideyed ) The scientific consensus on climate change is overwhelming - 97% of the worlds leading experts. And the evidence gets stronger by the day - we know for certain that human activity is driving global warming & the experts have warned we must keep global temperatures below the 2 degree pre-industrial mark. So overwhelming is the evidence now, I don't think you could find a single respected intellectual who rejects the consensus on climate science - let alone a climate expert. To deny it would leave them open to ridicule. Blimey, even Cameron accepts the science! If that doesn't make him some sort of psychopath I don't know what does.

I'm a firm believer in science & I can see for myself the destruction big industry is doing to our living planet, I cant bury my head in the sand like you can. How someone can be under the illusion capitalism is benign is on some other planet 'now'. Mans greed & selfishness IS destroying our natural world & all its wonders - I do feel helpless & depressed- & funnily enough I have contemplated ending it all. How hilarious is that.

I doubt youre interested in this but a huge scandal was recently exposed - Exxon have known or decades about the catastrophic dangers of burning fossil fuels - they chose to kill our planet anyway!

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...te-lie-change-global-warming?CMP=share_btn_tw

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-investigation-exxonmobil-20151015-story.html


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Spellweaver said:


> It's great if you're a private business owner and can pretend that the hardship that those of us see every day in the public sector does not exist. But a lot of us don't. A hell of a lot of us work long hours for peanuts in the public sector instead of selling out to the private sector because _we care_ about the people who have fallen by the wayside due to the policies you Tories voted for just so that you can continue to run your private business with lower taxes.


Firstly I don't pretend hardship does not exist, I'm not a total moron much as you might like to think I am. However I don't accept that it is as widespread as you do and I believe people should be encouraged to work to support their families and not rely on the state unless they have absolutely no choice. So I have no problem with genuinely sick/disabled/mentally ill people being supported by the state nor unemployed people who are actively and genuinely looking for work but I do have a problem with people choosing to stay on benefits because actually its damn hard work to earn that much money in the real world. Yes a lot of people in the public sector work for low pay but a lot also earn decent salaries which I don't begrudge although I do not find this sort of practice remotely acceptable

http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/ne...breaks_his_silence_over_Basil_Fozard_scandal/

£152,000 salary and a £1.9 million pension pot. By the way I worked in the public sector from the age of 17 until my mid 40's so please don't assume to lecture me on care. Please do show me how the I'm getting to run my private business with lower taxes. This is exactly why a lot of people in business did not support nor trust Labour - because of this ridiculous old fashioned anti business and class rubbish. Without businesses bringing employment and wealth there would no money to fund the public sector.



Spellweaver said:


> What do you think happens to us when we can't work due to illness and we don't receive a pay rise or have to take a pay cut or less hours because of the recession that has been the longest recession in history due to the policies you Tories voted for? I too would like someone to offer to top up our income instead of my taxes going towards cuts in taxes for private businesses.
> 
> If you think it's so beautiful on this side of the fence, come and join us. Oh, wait a minute, you can't - there are no jobs in the public sector because of all the cuts you Tories voted for in order to enable you to continue to run your private businsses more cheaply.


I think you get decent sick pay and pensions and the recession happened under Labour in case you forgot. I don't need to come and join you as I've been there thanks and now work much longer hours with no sick pay or pension contributions. How again am I able to run my business more cheaply? What do you even know about my business and what my running costs are? Not aware I have shared that information with you or anyone else on the forum.



Spellweaver said:


> Neither do I, which is why I didn't vote for the party that said they were going to do it.


So when you voted Labour in the past (you remember those people you are all now disowning) and Mr Blair took us into a war with Iraq because of those made up weapons of mass destruction. Did you agree with him? Did you agree with every action of the Labour government. Surely you must or surely you wouldn't have voted for them again. Do I try to blame you all the time or hold you accountable for those actions? Of course I don't. As you voted Labour am I to assume you also agree with everything Mr Corbyn and Mr McDonnell say - like McDonnell's support for the IRA which he recently apologised for.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

noushka05 said:


> I do feel helpless & depressed- & funnily enough I have contemplated ending it all. How hilarious is that.


I'm sorry @noushka05, really sorry that you feel like that and don't find it hilarious, I find it worrying and sad and hope you can find a way to deal with those feelings.

I really don't want to make this personal, I like and respect you even if we don't always (often) agree.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Firstly I don't pretend hardship does not exist, I'm not a total moron much as you might like to think I am. However I don't accept that it is as widespread as you do and I believe people should be encouraged to work to support their families and not rely on the state unless they have absolutely no choice. So I have no problem with genuinely sick/disabled/mentally ill people being supported by the state nor unemployed people who are actively and genuinely looking for work but I do have a problem with people choosing to stay on benefits because actually its damn hard work to earn that much money in the real world. Yes a lot of people in the public sector work for low pay but a lot also earn decent salaries which I don't begrudge although I do not find this sort of practice remotely acceptable


The reality is that hardworking people on low wages are having their tax credits stopped. That dosn't seem to fit into anything you say above. [/QUOTE]




rottiepointerhouse said:


> http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/13779494.Tony_Spotswood_breaks_his_silence_over_Basil_Fozard_scandal/





rottiepointerhouse said:


> £152,000 salary and a £1.9 million pension pot. By the way I worked in the public sector from the age of 17 until my mid 40's so please don't assume to lecture me on care.


And yet you us an example of a chief executive as proof that public sector workers are not low paid



rottiepointerhouse said:


> Please do show me how the I'm getting to run my private business with lower taxes. This is exactly why a lot of people in business did not support nor trust Labour - because of this ridiculous old fashioned anti business and class rubbish.


You were the one who said you voted Tory because they represented you more than any other party. As your main fear seemed to be about your "crippling taxes" if you didn't vote Tory, the logical asumption from your words is that you expect the Tories to tax you less.



rottiepointerhouse said:


> Without businesses bringing employment and wealth there would no money to fund the public sector.


The biggest employer in England is the NHS. NHS workers pay taxes too.



rottiepointerhouse said:


> and the recession happened under Labour in case you forgot.


The recession started as a wrold-wide recession when Labour were in power. The fact that we have been in the longest recession in history is purely a a result of osborne's policies.



rottiepointerhouse said:


> How again am I able to run my business more cheaply? What do you even know about my business and what my running costs are? Not aware I have shared that information with you or anyone else on the forum.


No idea how you can run your business more cheaply - if you have to ask that question in a pet forum then perhaps you shouldn;t be in business at all?



rottiepointerhouse said:


> So when you voted Labour in the past (you remember those people you are all now disowning)


I think if you look at my posts before the election I was not supporting Labour; I was often bemoaning the fact that we did not have a sufficiently socialist party to vote for. You will find several posts on various theads on here from me saying that Labour was merely a weak version of Tory. So please don't try to pretend that I am now "disowning" the former, tory-type labour politicians - I never "owned" them in the first place.



rottiepointerhouse said:


> and Mr Blair took us into a war with Iraq because of those made up weapons of mass destruction. Did you agree with him? Did you agree with every action of the Labour government. Surely you must or surely you wouldn't have voted for them again. Do I try to blame you all the time or hold you accountable for those actions? Of course I don't. As you voted Labour am I to assume you also agree with everything Mr Corbyn and Mr McDonnell say - like McDonnell's support for the IRA which he recently apologised for.


I do understand your point about no-one agreeing with evry single policy of any one party, and that every one of us votes for the party whose policies are nearest to what we feel is best for us. But you're totally missing my point. It's not whether or not you agree with all of one party's policies - it's accepting the responsibility that if you voted for them, then you are putting into power someone who will fulfill all those policies you don't like. I never voted for Blair (too Tory for my taste), but if I had done, I wouldn't be on here bleating that, "Ooh, I didn't vote for X, Y and Z, policies, I only voted for A,B and C policies". I'd be on here bemoaning the fact that I'd voted for such a prannock and vowing to myself that I'd never do so again. The truth, no matter how unpalatable, is that unless they change the electoral system and allow us to vote on single policies rather than vote for parties, your X in the box means that you are, in fact, voting for every policy of that party whether you agree with each and every policy or not.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Spellweaver said:


> The reality is that hardworking people on low wages are having their tax credits stopped. That dosn't seem to fit into anything you say above.


Why doesn't it?



Spellweaver said:


> And yet you us an example of a chief executive as proof that public sector workers are not low paid


No I didn't. I used it as an example of a practice I do not find acceptable, after saying I do not begrudge those on a decent wage.



Spellweaver said:


> You were the one who said you voted Tory because they represented you more than any other party. As your main fear seemed to be about your "crippling taxes" if you didn't vote Tory, the logical asumption from your words is that you expect the Tories to tax you less.


I said I voted Tory because they were the party that represented my views better than any of the others, I did not say crippling taxes were my main fear and I did not say nor imply that I expect the Tories to tax me less.



Spellweaver said:


> No idea how you can run your business more cheaply - if you have to ask that question in a pet forum then perhaps you shouldn;t be in business at all?


I didn't ask you to offer me business advice, nor anyone else on a pet forum and I think you are deliberately misunderstanding me. Tut tut. You said

"because of all the cuts you Tories voted for in order to enable you to continue to run your private businsses more cheaply".

so I asked you how? as in how did voting Tory help me run by private business more cheaply. If I wanted business advice I would ask my accountant, I wanted you to explain how you think that voting Tory made my business cheaper to run.

*"I do understand your point about no-one agreeing with evry single policy of any one party, and that every one of us votes for the party whose policies are nearest to what we feel is best for us" *Hallelujah.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> *"I do understand your point about no-one agreeing with evry single policy of any one party, and that every one of us votes for the party whose policies are nearest to what we feel is best for us" *
> 
> Hallelujah.


And this is typical Tory misrepresentation of what has been said - you have quoted something out of context to try to make it seem as if I've said something you want me to. If you quote what I said properly, instead of merely chopping out the bit you wanted, it becomes glaringly obvious that you have no cause for saying "Hallelujah" because I was, in fact, saying what I've said all along. My point has always been that *you have to take responsibility for all the policies of the party you voted for, not just the ones you like.* You obviously thought that all the bad things were worth it when balanced against the good you thought would come about. But while you may not like fox-hunting, or killing badgers, or taking money from those who desperately need it and are least able to afford it, *you voted for it if you voted Tory. You helped to put the party in place who you knew were going to execute those policies. *

And all the misquoting in the world won't alter that fact.

And can I just add, because I feel uncomfortable that all this conversation between us seems to be making very personal accusations, that my original post was generic and in answer to a post from Porps about someone else? This is the original:

_porps said: ↑_

_We live in a society where greed is considered to be a more valuable trait than empathy or compassion, and time and time again your posts epitomise that._
_
But at least you, unlike many other tory voters, are actual honest about what drives you (pursuit of wealth at any cost)._
_to which I replied_

 _I agree - it's much more refreshing for people to be up front and honest about their views rather than playing the "Well, I voted Tory but I didn't really vote for their X,Y and Z policies" card.
_
And from that you chose to make it about me and you._

_


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

So its OK for you to chop bits out of my posts and quote them but not OK for me to do the same? Why is that?

I don't think I've made it personal and about me and you at all. I think you are the one who has got personal with comments like this from post #134 above

No idea how you can run your business more cheaply - if you have to ask that question in a pet forum then perhaps you shouldn;t be in business at all?

I haven't made personal comments about you or your life or choices other than in relation to voting Labour in just the same way as you do about me voting Tory. How have I made the thread about me and you? I responded to a post you made, am I not allowed to do that? You chose to respond and we had a discussion. One we've had many times before but I've also been discussing things with @noushka05 and @silvi and @porps .


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

silvi said:


> On a different theme to the above, but needs mentioning if anyone hasn't seen it yet:
> Woman Tory Voter Breaks Down On BBC Question Time
> A powerful example of why the Tory government is not working for ordinary people - even those who voted for them.


Just wanted to post the follow up video to that

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34552721

I'm not really convinced that is what tax credits were intended for.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> So its OK for you to chop bits out of my posts and quote them but not OK for me to do the same? Why is that?
> 
> I don't think I've made it personal and about me and you at all. I think you are the one who has got personal with comments like this from post #134 above
> 
> ...


You misunderstood me - perhaps that's my fault for not making it clearer.. I was uncomfortable with the fact that because both of us were using examples from our own lives to support the points we were making, then it might have seemed that it had degenerated into a personal dig at each other. It started off in generic terms, but then because we both used examples from our personal lives to illustrate the points we were making, it began to seem as if we were having a go at each other rather than discussing the the issues. I just wanted to say that that thought made me uncomfortable and so I wanted to clear the air and point out that I was not having a go at you personally. I was certainly not intending to try to make it seem as if you were having a go at me personally - that's not my style at all. Believe me, if I thought anyone was having a go at me they would get it back in spades, as I'm sure a lot of people on here can testify!!

So sorry if my attempt at clearing the air made you think I wa accusing you of having a go at me - it was not intended in that way.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Spellweaver said:


> You misunderstood me - perhaps that's my fault for not making it clearer.. I was uncomfortable with the fact that because both of us were using examples from our own lives to support the points we were making, then it might have seemed that it had degenerated into a personal dig at each other. It started off in generic terms, but then because we both used examples from our personal lives to illustrate the points we were making, it began to seem as if we were having a go at each other rather than discussing the the issues. I just wanted to say that that thought made me uncomfortable and so I wanted to clear the air and point out that I was not having a go at you personally. I was certainly not intending to try to make it seem as if you were having a go at me personally - that's not my style at all. Believe me, if I thought anyone was having a go at me they would get it back in spades, as I'm sure a lot of people on here can testify!!
> 
> So sorry if my attempt at clearing the air made you think I wa accusing you of having a go at me - it was not intended in that way.


Thank you.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Just wanted to post the follow up video to that
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34552721
> 
> I'm not really convinced that is what tax credits were intended for.


Sorry, but I don't see the problem here.
Michelle Dorrell uses tax credit payments to help her and her family survive.
If taken away or even just cut, her ability to pay all her bills will be threatened and her family life, as it is now, will not survive.
I would be pretty upset too if that was me.

But in real terms, self-employed people with their own small businesses do rely on tax credits. It was one of the 'recommendations' made under the last Coalition Government, that many people could be taken off of JSA by helping them set up as small businesses. They would then have their net profits backed up with tax credits. A relative of mine is actually running a small business under this criteria and is very worried about what is going to happen now, as, although her business is growing, it will take at least a couple more years for her to make a decent enough profit to not need any help from tax credits.

And it's all very well for the Treasury Spokesperson to say:
"The reforms to welfare set out in the Summer Budget are fair and necessary, and will take tax credit spending back only to 2008 levels, with most working households better off once all welfare reforms have come into force by 2017."

But what happens to all of those families affected between December this year and some time in 2017?


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

So have googled her I came up with a few articles giving more information about her circumstances, this one (yes I know it the daily fail but it gives more detail than most)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tml?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490

But now, top economists have said that 35-year-old Ms Dorrell - who also accused the government of taking money she had worked 'bloody hard for' - is unlikely to be hit by the tax credit changes.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...y-affected-tax-credit-cuts.html#ixzz3ope8bOvQ
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

And even the salon owner herself has admitted she does not know if she will be affected.

Speaking to The Telegraph, Ms Dorrell explained how she does not make a profit from her salon business in her Folkestone home, and is sometimes forced to cope with no heating and little food.

She and her four children are entirely dependent on a combination of working tax credits and child benefits, which comes to £400 a week, she said.

David Phillips, an IFS senior research economist told The Telegraph: 'On what she has told us she wouldn't be affected by the cuts to the child tax credits or the change to the taper rate because she is not above the threshold.'

However, accountants said Ms Dorrell's salon business may now be looked at by HM Revenue & Custom because self-employed tax credit claimants should be working 'with a view to profit' - and she says she does not make one


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> However, accountants said Ms Dorrell's salon business may now be looked at by HM Revenue & Custom because self-employed tax credit claimants should be working 'with a view to profit' - and she says she does not make one


Bloody hell! It doesn't pay to speak out about this government on national TV does it? Next thing you know they are sending the tax man after you. Disgusting if true 

But as it happens, the 'working with a view to profit' part of the agreement acknowledges that it may be a long time before profits are made. That was the idea in the first place - that 'enterprising' people could set up small businesses and not have to worry about profits straight away, because it also acknowledged that these were difficult times to set up a business.

It was one of the usual schemes to massage JSA figures, but it was working, and many small businesses are on their way to making a profit. If HM Revenue and Customs goes after all of them, there will be a lot of small business failures happening over the next few months.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

silvi said:


> Next thing you know they are sending the tax man after you. Disgusting if true





silvi said:


> It was one of the usual schemes to massage JSA figures, but it was working, and many small businesses are on their way to making a profit. If HM Revenue and Customs goes after all of them, there will be a lot of small business failures happening over the next few months


I see it as a way of making sure that someone doesn't just start up a business with no intention of working to increase workload while claiming various benefits.
In other words, cheating the system.

Seems sensible to me


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

rona said:


> I see it as a way of making sure that someone doesn't just start up a business with no intention of working to increase workload while claiming various benefits.
> In other words, cheating the system.
> 
> Seems sensible to me


Seems sensible to me too.
But the scheme had plenty of checks and balances. My relative has to produce (and verify) all her costs and sales and show how she is going about improving her business. Sorting out 'evidence' and the paperwork involved keeps her up many nights, because there is no provision made for hiring an accountant as part of the claims against profits.

The contract also actually states that it is only designed for small business owners who are new to business and who make no more than £20 a week in net profits. The balance is made up from working tax credits, housing benefit, etc, so it kind of shoots itself in the foot as there is a huge gap between making £20 a week and making a viable wage which doesn't require benefit top ups, and those using the scheme have to make sure they don't fall down that gap.

It was never thought through carefully and now all those small business owners are going to be put under another microscope and most will fail the test.

Blame those who set the scheme up, not those trying to work hard within it.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

silvi said:


> But the scheme had plenty of checks and balances


What particular scheme is this?

http://www.revenuebenefits.org.uk/t...elf-employed/#Self employment and tax credits


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

I was completely without any income at all for about 4 months due to being forced into attempting to start my own "business" under threat of incoming sanctions and promise of tax credits which never happened.... Ty avanta for that! The only thing that kept me and the cats alive was the kindness of friends and the fact that tescos is easy to shoplift from... 

They use it to doctor unemployment figures at the expense of peoples well being. 

Seen just how bad that is first hand.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

porps said:


> I was completely without any income at all for about 4 months due to being forced into attempting to start my own "business" under threat of incoming sanctions and promise of tax credits which never happened.... Ty avanta for that! The only thing that kept me and the cats alive was the kindness of friends and the fact that tescos is easy to shoplift from...
> 
> They use it to doctor unemployment figures at the expense of peoples well being.
> 
> Seen just how bad that is first hand.


I bow to your superior knowledge of the subject.

It's not something I have any experience of


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

rona said:


> What particular scheme is this?
> 
> http://www.revenuebenefits.org.uk/tax-credits/guidance/how-do-tax-credits-work/self-employed/#Self employment and tax credits


To be honest Rona, I don't know what the scheme is called without asking, just that it was offered to my relative as part of the 'back to work initiative'. She had gone for an interview hoping to be given help with funding for a professional IT course (she's a real 'nerd' with computers) and they said there were no courses in the area they would fund, but as she was technically-minded was she good at making things? 
And as she was desperate to get off JSA she said yes!

They gave her loads of booklets and a couple of phone numbers to HMRC and HB and sent her away to get on with it....

As @porps says, it was purely to doctor unemployment figures (and I suspect that the advisers got credits for the number they could sign up).

Things are changing next year though, she will have to report for re-assessment every month, rather than six-monthly. More stress....


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I'm sorry @noushka05, really sorry that you feel like that and don't find it hilarious, I find it worrying and sad and hope you can find a way to deal with those feelings.
> 
> I really don't want to make this personal, I like and respect you even if we don't always (often) agree.


I like & respect you too RPH. Though I have to say I don't really appreciate being ridiculed when my opinions reflect actual irrefutable evidence & overwhelming scientific consensus where climate science is concerned lol. It must be lovely to be oblivious to the catastrophic effects mans pillaging of earths natural resources is having. I cant be a denialist like you can though. I know for a fact that infinite growth on a finite planet is impossible. So of course I'm depressed that a self serving minority refuse to change course. I love life, all life - yet life is being destroyed on an unimaginable scale to feed our greedy, unsustainable economies. I am horrified that people can be so selfish or so apathetic they wont fight to save our living world. It is immoral, what will our progeny think?.

As it happens, I got a much needed lift just the day before your doom lol post. I received a private message via twitter asking if I would join a campaign (to get justice for Annie, a young rare hen harrier shot dead on a grouse moor!) Naturally I accepted. In the conversation they said this - _This is the first time that we have adopted this method of teamwork & we are very excited. If weekend goes well then we will establish __#*team4nature300*__ - a core of change-makers that are using their passion to drive nature's cause forward? )) _

I was choked up when I read that. It was like they had given me a glimmer of hope when I was feeling particularly low. They actually quoted my response to that message in their article lol - http://team4nature.blogspot.co.uk/p/the-wind-of-change-me.html?m=1

Its a great article, I hope people will check it out & maybe get involved in the march for nature.

I don't want to make this personal either RPH I may not always respect or agree with your opinions lol, but I have always respected you as a person.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

I don't know what our progency will think Noush as I don't have any, perhaps that does change how you look at things. I'm not sure.

When it comes down to it I probably do every bit as much as the average person, if not more I just don't look at the bigger picture in quite the same way as you do. I haven't flown in over 20 years, I don't drive anymore although obviously my OH does, our house is pretty energy efficient, our garden is a wildlife haven, OH spends a fortune of food for birds and has nesting boxes and hedgehog houses etc etc. We plant as much as possible to attract butterflies and bees and often get foxes in our back garden. We recycle as much as possible, including carrier bags which we never put in the general rubbish - always give back to the supermarket, and use an organic home delivery service for some of our fruit/veggies/meat. We have cut our meat consumption down to a minimum of chicken (organic never battery) and fish a couple of times per week and never eat takeaways/support the junk food industry. I'll support any campaign relating to the welfare of animals/wildlife. I am against pollution and deforestation and whilst I don't want to see any species become extinct I do think its inevitable and part of the natural cycle of life. Nothing can stay the same much as we might it want to.

If anyone is interested in the 6th phase of extinction a simple explanation - the 5th phase was 65 million years ago when dinosaurs were wiped out

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-33209548

I'm really pleased that the #team4nature has given you a lift, I've had a read and wish you well with the campaign for hen harriers. I will have another look to see if there is anything I can sign but remember we are not all on twitter.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

porps said:


> The only thing that kept me and the cats alive was the kindness of friends and the fact that tescos is easy to shoplift from...


?!
Quite a few of us short of money, won't be teaching the children how to steal though. Tesco will allow for theives, won't come out of their profits but be paid for by honest customers who pay the price added on to the shelf price. We pay extra to allow for theives paying nothing.


----------



## Guest (Oct 19, 2015)

Catharinem said:


> ?!
> Quite a few of us short of money, won't be teaching the children how to steal though. Tesco will allow for theives, won't come out of their profits but be paid for by honest customers who pay the price added on to the shelf price. We pay extra to allow for theives paying nothing.


Short on money =/= desperate enough to steal. 
There is also a huge difference between an entitled teen stealing a video game for shits and giggles, and a desperate parent stealing baby food so their child won't go hungry. I have no idea where @porps falls in that equation, nor is it any of my business, I just wanted to point out that stealing is not a black and white issue where stealing is always wrong.
I don't think anyone here could say they wouldn't steal if they saw a loved one going hungry. And if they wouldn't, I'd say there is something wrong with their morals.

But then, all this goes back to the video I posted about all of this being about this idea of "mine" instead of sharing what we have with anyone who needs it.

I don't teach my children to steal, but I do teach them to notice who is in need and that if you are in a position to help, you help. 
Attachments to material things is one of the huge issues in society IMHO, and teaching children to be attached to things, including money ("we pay extra to allow for thieves paying nothing") is far more detrimental than someone "stealing" from a big corporation.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

I wasn't taught to steal either... I was taught to think for myself though. I feel no guilt about stealing food and cat food at that time. I didnt like doing it but it wasn't a difficult decision to make considering the alternatives.

Plus i think teaching your kids to steal is still more justified than teaching them to believe in horrific fairy tales and blindly accept those fairy takes as reality. Judge not less you be judged yourself carthariniem


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Catharinem said:


> Quite a few of us short of money, won't be teaching the children how to steal though


My parents taught me right from wrong and I have never stolen anything in my life, but two things stand out in my memory that doesn't put my father down in my eyes. One was when I discovered at about 17 that he wasn't earning any more than I, and had been bringing up 6 children on half the national average wage. He worked 6 days a week sometimes 7 and also kept a huge garden growing vegetables to make sure we had a good diet.

The other really shocked me at the time, my honest parents who had bought me up with principles and manners. I found my father one day changing the price labels on joints of meat, so that we could have a larger joint for the money he had.

As I say, at the time I was shocked but now I know why he did it..........................................


----------



## Vanessa131 (Nov 16, 2014)

porps said:


> I wasn't taught to steal either... I was taught to think for myself though. I feel no guilt about stealing food and cat food at that time. I didnt like doing it but it wasn't a difficult decision to make considering the alternatives.
> 
> Plus i think teaching your kids to steal is still more justified than teaching them to believe in horrific fairy tales and blindly accept those fairy takes as reality. Judge not less you be judged yourself carthariniem


People like you used to led to deductions in my wages when people stole on my shift. There are plenty of alternatives, I guess for some breaking the law and putting others in financial hardship is an attractive and lazy option.

I lived on nothing but JSA for quite a long time (£54 a week), I wasn't financially irresponsible therefore I didn't need to use foodbanks, I certainly wouldn't use it as an excuse to break the law like a common criminal.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Vanessa131 said:


> People like you used to led to deductions in my wages when people stole on my shift. There are plenty of alternatives, I guess for some breaking the law and putting others in financial hardship is an attractive and lazy option.
> 
> I lived on nothing but JSA for quite a long time (£54 a week), I wasn't financially irresponsible therefore I didn't need to use foodbanks, I certainly wouldn't use it as an excuse to break the law like a common criminal.


But what would have happened if you'd had a sanction?


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

I agree there is a difference between stealing food if you or your family are starving but that does run its own risks, for instance if you are caught and sent to prison who will take care of your family then? However I'm not going to judge because how do I know what I would do if I was actually starving and couldn't afford to feed my dogs (sorry for using them as an example but as I don't have dependants other than them they will have to do). I think I would sell possessions but when I didn't have any possessions left to sell then I don't know. Plus where to you draw the line? if its OK to steal from big shops is it OK to steal from small shops and if that is OK what about stealing from the wealthy and if that becomes OK what about stealing from your neighbours? Much as I like the sentiment of not owning things how many of us would let a stranger walk into our home and take things? I certainly wouldn't although if a stranger knocked my door and told me they were starving hungry I would without doubt give them food and drink and a tenner to buy something for the next day.


----------



## Vanessa131 (Nov 16, 2014)

rona said:


> But what would have happened if you'd had a sanction?


I wouldn't as I'm not willing to put myself in a situation where they would happen, remember sanctions occur when you choose to break your JSA agreement. If you want the money you don't break the agreement. If people do choose to get themselves sanctioned it isn't acceptable to steal from others.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Vanessa131 said:


> People like you used to led to deductions in my wages when people stole on my shift. There are plenty of alternatives, I guess for some breaking the law and putting others in financial hardship is an attractive and lazy option.
> 
> I lived on nothing but JSA for quite a long time (£54 a week), I wasn't financially irresponsible therefore I didn't need to use foodbanks, I certainly wouldn't use it as an excuse to break the law like a common criminal.


Im not talking about living off £53 a week. Im talking about living off 0 for 4 months.

"people like you" are the reason the government thinks it can get away with attacking the poor. Cos you're naive and blind and easily united against the people who have nothing while the real theives sit Westminster or run our banks.

Do i care about the judgements of "people like you"? - no, not even the tiniest little bit. I kept myself alive and i kept my cats alive in spite of the government's best efforts.

Had all these arguments on this forum last year with naive "people like you", i don't care to have them again, i have better things to do than argue with clueless "im alright jack" types. I merely posted my experience when the discussion got onto the subject.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

http://www.scriptonitedaily.com/201...ess-left-out-of-uk-govt-unemployment-figures/

Interesting read.

Rph your post deserves a more considered approach with multi quotes, which i don't have the time or energy for right now (its a pain in the arse from my phone).. I will get round to it but i think the question shouldn't be "where does it end?", it should be "where does it start"


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Vanessa131 said:


> I wouldn't as I'm not willing to put myself in a situation where they would happen, remember sanctions occur when you choose to break your JSA agreement. If you want the money you don't break the agreement. If people do choose to get themselves sanctioned it isn't acceptable to steal from others.


How long ago were you on JSA. I think it's been a very different scene the last couple of years. When two of my sisters were on it temporarily a few years back it was a doddle.


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

can we encompass the whole OAP population of the UK with the same "they will die this winter" brush? 

I think not, not all are on the breadline are they, but thats fact not Labour party fiction and not popular amongst the **** stirrers


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Ah that's ok then. I thought the government cuts were going to kill every single oap... So long as it's only killing some of them that's ok!


----------



## Vanessa131 (Nov 16, 2014)

rona said:


> How long ago were you on JSA. I think it's been a very different scene the last couple of years. When two of my sisters were on it temporarily a few years back it was a doddle.


Seven months ago.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

Would be interesting to know if the food stolen from Tescos was the value pasta, value pot noodles, pitta bread down to 5p for pack of 4 pitta breads at the end of the day, eggs down to 20p for box at end of day, mince for 15p/500g pack at end of day, or more expensive, better branded stuff. Living on the cheap tastes like living on the cheap, but it keeps you alive. There was thread a while back about making ends meet, buying cheap, buying at end of day or end of season and freezing ( reduced sweetened brandy cream for 10p /pot first week of Jan freezes well and makes a sort of rum raisin ice cream. Cheap veg make soup or get frozen to add direct to casserole at end of cooking time. Reduced bread and milk make bread and butter pudding. Plenty of good suggestions, nobody as far as I recall suggested theft. Tired of people who think stealing from a shop or bank rather than person's house is victimless and justified. Maybe those who see it as just "tiding them over" should keep a running tally of what they owe society, and pay it back in food bank donations, or volunteering a certain number of hours at the equivalent of minimum wage to a charity they feel they can support in their work.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

@Catharinem I doubt very much a person living on no income who needs to resort to stealing food to survive would be remotely interested in brandy cream or bread and butter pudding and it also assumes they have a freezer and the money/ingredients to make a casserole with. I'm not condoning theft but I do remember @porps telling us how he pretty much lived on dried pasta and tinned tomatoes (or something similar), he wasn't stealing steak or the best joint of lamb or ice cream. I think its sad there wasn't anyone/organisation to turn to for help and sad that we waste so much food in this country, particularly supermarkets/restaurants. Like I said before I've never been without an income (never been unemployed) or food, I suppose its a bit like a modern day version of poaching but in the city.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Vanessa131 said:


> I lived on nothing but JSA for quite a long time (£54 a week), I wasn't financially irresponsible therefore I didn't need to use foodbanks, I certainly wouldn't use it as an excuse to break the law like a common criminal.





Vanessa131 said:


> I wouldn't as I'm not willing to put myself in a situation where they would happen, remember sanctions occur when you choose to break your JSA agreement. If you want the money you don't break the agreement. If people do choose to get themselves sanctioned it isn't acceptable to steal from others.





Vanessa131 said:


> Seven months ago.


Very interesting as all I have heard recently is about how awful things are if you need to claim anything. Out of interest, how long did you claim for?
One of my sisters was only claiming for a few months, but the other couldn't find work due to her being near retirement age and she was on benefits for about 2 years, the latter lived ok and just about covered her bills but it wasn't a comfortable existence
The only other people I know well on benefits have been on disability. One cheating the system and living very nicely thankyou , the others genuinely disabled and still rather well looked after by the system

I've never claimed anything myself but live on a fairly equivalent income


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> @Catharinem I doubt very much a person living on no income who needs to resort to stealing food to survive would be remotely interested in brandy cream or bread and butter pudding and it also assumes they have a freezer and the money/ingredients to make a casserole with. I'm not condoning theft but I do remember @porps telling us how he pretty much lived on dried pasta and tinned tomatoes (or something similar), he wasn't stealing steak or the best joint of lamb or ice cream. I think its sad there wasn't anyone/organisation to turn to for help and sad that we waste so much food in this country, particularly supermarkets/restaurants. Like I said before I've never been without an income (never been unemployed) or food, I suppose its a bit like a modern day version of poaching but in the city.


I disagree. Been times I've had nothing at all, needed money for bills and literally nothing left over, never resorted to taking food. Poaching is taking wild game animals that are usually themselves considered vermin and eat farmers crops. Taking a rabbit or pigeon for the pot, fine, taking a pheasant post release and ready to be shot for sport, fine, taking a pheasant from a pen is no different from stealing a chicken or a lamb.
If some people feel stealing food isn't really stealing then I guess we'll have to disagree, we each have our own boundaries. However, when a particular person continously boasts about disregard for the law, drug taking, and getting what they want at other people's expense, one would hope they would find it in themselves to pay back the society they are damaging when good times roll round again. If they have personal experience of being so desperate they "have" to steal food, one would hope that they would in future times put aside their drug money to pay for soup kitchen ingredients for a shelter, or buy blankets for the salvation army. It's the hypocrisy I find worse than the stealing- all this nonsense about the big society and how politicians are ruining the country, as a smokescreen for their own less than altruistic actions.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Catharinem said:


> one would hope they would find it in themselves to pay back the society they are damaging when good times roll round again. If they have personal experience of being so desperate they "have" to steal food, one would hope that they would in future times put aside their drug money to pay for soup kitchen ingredients for a shelter, or buy blankets for the salvation army


How do you know they haven't?


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

rona said:


> How do you know they haven't?


You mean the boasting about going to continue to break drug laws even in his new country is so much cowpat? Just swagger, but a law-abiding citizen at heart? I do hope you're right.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Catharinem said:


> You mean the boasting about going to continue to break drug laws even in his new country is so much cowpat? Just swagger, but a law-abiding citizen at heart? I do hope you're right.


Just because you buck the system doesn't mean you don't care or even help others less fortunate


----------



## Vanessa131 (Nov 16, 2014)

rona said:


> Very interesting as all I have heard recently is about how awful things are if you need to claim anything. Out of interest, how long did you claim for?
> One of my sisters was only claiming for a few months, but the other couldn't find work due to her being near retirement age and she was on benefits for about 2 years, the latter lived ok and just about covered her bills but it wasn't a comfortable existence
> The only other people I know well on benefits have been on disability. One cheating the system and living very nicely thankyou , the others genuinely disabled and still rather well looked after by the system
> 
> I've never claimed anything myself but live on a fairly equivalent income


It was for just shy of nine months.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

rona said:


> Just because you buck the system doesn't mean you don't care or even help others less fortunate


I think the difference between lawbreaking and bucking the system comes from study of the consequences of everyone behaving the same way. So to use an example of a law which needed challenging ( if I can nick one of Ousie's examples), if everyone, black and white, was treated in the same way, no segregation, society not only doesn't suffer, but actually moves on. On the other hand, if everyone stole, society would be a much worse one. That's the difference between being a criminal and "bucking the trend".


----------



## Guest (Oct 20, 2015)

Catharinem said:


> On the other hand, if everyone stole, society would be a much worse one.


Did you watch the video I posted earlier in the thread?
If the privileged few would quit claiming that they own planetary resources that they don't, then it wouldn't be stealing to begin with. 
We have this idea that certain resources belong to certain people, when they don't. If everyone only took what they needed, and didn't claim to own things that are not owned by anyone, then a lot of this "stealing" wouldn't even be stealing.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

ouesi said:


> Did you watch the video I posted earlier in the thread?
> If the privileged few would quit claiming that they own planetary resources that they don't, then it wouldn't be stealing to begin with.
> We have this idea that certain resources belong to certain people, when they don't. If everyone only took what they needed, and didn't claim to own things that are not owned by anyone, then a lot of this "stealing" wouldn't even be stealing.


No I haven't gone through the whole thread. Dare say you make a valid point about planetary resources. However, talking specifically about stealing food from supermarket here. I sell my meat direct to consumer, but my costs are similar to larger farmers: I buy the stock, fence it in, erect shelters, feed it, medicate only where necessary, transport to slaughter (diesel isn't free, and "homekill" meat can't be sold to public), collect from slaughter, freeze some for family and sell the rest. It may be food, but it costs money to produce, and any small profit pays towards electric so my children can have a warm bath. If someone were to steal my meat, my family would suffer. Larger scale farmers are already being squeezed by the supermarkets as they have a bulk problem - I can slaughter 2 cows and sell the meat from 1 1/2 to freinds/acquaintances, a larger farmer can't shift 50 bodies of beef privately, so needs the supermarket to pay a fair price. If the supermarket suffers from a lot of theft, they will either put the price up and squeeze honest families alreadystruggling to pay, or drop the price paid to farmers who are already running at 1 bad year's weather, or one disease outbreak from disaster.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

I understand what you are saying @Catharinem but wonder what you would do if you were out of work nowadays surviving on benefits and missed an appointment for some reason (sick child or car broken down) and faced sanctions which left you with absolutely no income for a couple of weeks. Much as I support a crack down on benefit cheats etc and voted Tory I absolutely do not support using financial sanctions against people who have so little in the first place. If you had no family to turn to for help, nothing left to sell and needed to feed your children or even just yourself, how do you know you wouldn't steal a tin of bins and a loaf of bread from Tesco? I hope I would find a way not to do that but I don't "know" I would. Wouldn't it be lovely if the big supermarkets and restaurants offered people in need the chance to have any food going to be thrown away at the end of each day. I think its very important not to jump to conclusions about what people do for others in their lives. Someone who admits to taking drugs and stealing food may well still contribute to society, how do we know what they do in better times or even during bad times whether they check up on elderly neighbours or another vulnerable adult? Its no different to those on here who judge me for being a Tory voter and think that means I am selfish/greedy/heartless etc. Its possible to be both at both ends of the spectrum surely?


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I understand what you are saying @Catharinem but wonder what you would do if you were out of work nowadays surviving on benefits and missed an appointment for some reason (sick child or car broken down) and faced sanctions which left you with absolutely no income for a couple of weeks. Much as I support a crack down on benefit cheats etc and voted Tory I absolutely do not support using financial sanctions against people who have so little in the first place. If you had no family to turn to for help, nothing left to sell and needed to feed your children or even just yourself, how do you know you wouldn't steal a tin of bins and a loaf of bread from Tesco? I hope I would find a way not to do that but I don't "know" I would. Wouldn't it be lovely if the big supermarkets and restaurants offered people in need the chance to have any food going to be thrown away at the end of each day. I think its very important not to jump to conclusions about what people do for others in their lives. Someone who admits to taking drugs and stealing food may well still contribute to society, how do we know what they do in better times or even during bad times whether they check up on elderly neighbours or another vulnerable adult? Its no different to those on here who judge me for being a Tory voter and think that means I am selfish/greedy/heartless etc. Its possible to be both at both ends of the spectrum surely?


You're a very understanding person, you have my respect if not my agreement. The way to tackle this has to be better organisation of food waste rather than individuals taking the law into their own hands. I beleive that Tescos are rolling out a scheme in 12 sites whereby food that would otherwise be wasted is given to charities to feed those that need it. The charities have to be chosen to be ones that have the organisation in place to collect, store, freeze or cook the food, and distribute to those in need. There was a piece on it recently on radio ( about 2 weeks ago I think), and making bread and butter pudding from the bread was exactly one of the things being done by the charity who collected that batch of food. Admittedly, this is recent and Porps talking about his situation a while back, but maybe if instead of stealing he'd arranged a meeting with the Tesco store manager, or even regional manager, and explained the difficulties facing himself and others, this scheme might have come into being a lot sooner and helped a lot more people. I understand that the idea is to get the scheme infrastructure and liason with charities working efficiently in these first 12 stores, then roll out across the country. Porps could have had a part to play in this if he had approached the matter in the right way.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Vanessa131 said:


> It was for just shy of nine months.


Am I right in thinking that you live at home with your parents?


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Catharinem said:


> You're a very understanding person, you have my respect if not my agreement. The way to tackle this has to be better organisation of food waste rather than individuals taking the law into their own hands. I beleive that Tescos are rolling out a scheme in 12 sites whereby food that would otherwise be wasted is given to charities to feed those that need it. The charities have to be chosen to be ones that have the organisation in place to collect, store, freeze or cook the food, and distribute to those in need. There was a piece on it recently on radio ( about 2 weeks ago I think), and making bread and butter pudding from the bread was exactly one of the things being done by the charity who collected that batch of food. Admittedly, this is recent and Porps talking about his situation a while back, but maybe if instead of stealing he'd arranged a meeting with the Tesco store manager, or even regional manager, and explained the difficulties facing himself and others, this scheme might have come into being a lot sooner and helped a lot more people. I understand that the idea is to get the scheme infrastructure and liason with charities working efficiently in these first 12 stores, then roll out across the country. Porps could have had a part to play in this if he had approached the matter in the right way.


I think you live in a life surrounded by fluffy clouds and lambs 

What do these people do while tesco and the like are getting organized?

Food banks are all well and good (infact they are brilliant) but haven't been around very long as a nationwide concern and then there's the distribution problem.................how do many that need food get to where they can pick it up, and even more so, how do they carry it home?

Country people can always get food, it's all around them free. If you live in a concrete world it's a very different place


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Also you can't just walk into a food bank, you need a referral and I assume they are only open set hours.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

rona said:


> I think you live in a life surrounded by fluffy clouds and lambs


Absolutely right I do! Fluffy clouds, rain clouds, thunderstorms, baking heat to make me pass out, snow a foot deep to push a wheelbarrow through. Fluffy lambs, stuck lambs, stillborn lambs, rejected lambs, weak lambs. Rams charging, sheep with maggots, sheep stuck on their backs, sheep that go "down" and get attacked by rooks whilst still alive. Farming isn't for the weak,the fainthearted or the lazy, but it can be incredibly rewarding. Like life, you get back what you put in. You don't like something, you work hard, you change things.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Catharinem said:


> Absolutely right I do! Fluffy clouds, rain clouds, thunderstorms, baking heat to make me pass out, snow a foot deep to push a wheelbarrow through. Fluffy lambs, stuck lambs, stillborn lambs, rejected lambs, weak lambs. Rams charging, sheep with maggots, sheep stuck on their backs, sheep that go "down" and get attacked by rooks whilst still alive. Farming isn't for the weak,the fainthearted or the lazy, but it can be incredibly rewarding. Like life, you get back what you put in. You don't like something, you work hard, you change things.


I do know.

Funnily enough I used to be a farmer too, though pigs and crops mainly. Great life but also a little cocooned and out of touch with other ways of living,


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Also you can't just walk into a food bank, you need a referral and I assume they are only open set hours.[/QUOT
> [QUOTE="rona, post: 1064345403, member: 1291961"
> 
> Country people can always get food, it's all around them free. If you live in a concrete world it's a very different place


Food for free! Now there's an idea. Well the blackberries are just about over, still hawberries to suck off the pips, rosehip to scrape off the outer layer with your teeth or cook into a pulp and strain ( no, sorry, cooking requires fuel). Quite a good year for hazelnuts. Gardens can be productive, but if you don't have livestock in rotation you have no manure, so spend money on composts/fertilisers. The thing about livestock is, you need to feed the beasts, pay for fencing, treat when poorly. You can't kill and eat a poorly beast, you have to treat it, then wait for the withdrawal period to end before it enters the food chain. Killing has to be legal, with transport costs, or equipment costs for homekill. Animal waste needs disposing through correct channels, the days of putting a dead sheep under your rhubarb patch are gone. You can supplement your diet with hedgerow gifts, get well produced veg, meat and eggs ( but often more expensive to produce than you can buy a value brand of, see recent protest about milk prices), but it certainly isn't "free" to live in the country. And if you can't afford to heat your house you have to pay diesel to drive, or walk a long way before you find a warm supermarket or pub or shop or library to hang out in to warm up again. I'd never live in a city, or even town, but country life is no easy life.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

rona said:


> I do know.
> 
> Funnily enough I used to be a farmer too, though pigs and crops mainly. Great life but also a little cocooned and out of touch with other ways of living,


I knew you were a gamekeeper, didn't know also pigs. I wouldn't call theft a way of life. Surprisingly, I've always considered "townies" the cocooned ones, no idea of the value of their food, or what is needed to produce it. A sense of entitlement without responsibility. Farming on the other hand is about as real as it gets.


----------



## Vanessa131 (Nov 16, 2014)

rona said:


> Am I right in thinking that you live at home with your parents?


Yes, but I didn't at the time.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Catharinem said:


> I knew you were a gamekeeper, didn't know also pigs. I wouldn't call theft a way of life. Surprisingly, I've always considered "townies" the cocooned ones, no idea of the value of their food, or what is needed to produce it. A sense of entitlement without responsibility. Farming on the other hand is about as real as it gets.


Was either in or around the farming community for more years than most on here have been alive. Did the dawn til dusk of harvest for about 20 years, stayed up many a night with a farrowing sow and a few cold nights in a shed just before Xmas plucking Turkeys, 
The Gamekeeper bit was more a hobby over and above my job because I believed the birds would be better looked after by me and stoat, fox and other predators would be safe unless they became a problem.
I think you misunderstood my use of cocooned. I meant you have no idea how others have to live. I know I didn't, it's as if you are in a different world in farming. Treasure it, it's special


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Too many things to answer.. 

If i was too give back what i owe to society i would end up blowing up Westminster. I do owe them something and hopefully one day i will get the chance for payback. But it will have nothing to do with money. F the system, i have my own system. 

I still continue to break laws which i see as infringements of human/animal rights. Law does not equal right. That's why laws change. Denying people medicines they need is not something i will ever agree with. fortunately much of the world is finally waking up and im confident that it won't be long before what you now see as law breaking becomes legal and acceptable medicine. Apart from the many other benefits, this will save thousands of lives in the south American nations which are ravaged by the effects of crime networks which are only possible thanks to the futile and failed "war on drugs". 

I had neither a fridge nor a freezer. The fact that you didn't even consider that possibility proves to be you really have no idea what its like to have nothing. What i took and lived off was 20p packets of dried spaghetti or noodles. 

I care not one bit about what some judgemental clueless idiot thinks of me on a forum. You know nothing of what i do for others. And you won't know cos anything i do i do because i want to not to impress some insulated obedient brainwashed robot on a forum. Blind obedience is not a virtue. My conscience is clear with or without your judgements. 

It does my head in that i cant post a short past about my personal experience with working tax credits and the skewing of unemployment figures without this god bothering stalker derailling the thread and bringing up all my previous posts. "your opinion is invalid because we disagree in this unrelated subject which by the way i haven't actually ever thought through properly (im incapable of that, i just go off whatever authority tells me i should think)". 

Learn to think for yourself.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Catharinem said:


> You mean the boasting about going to continue to break drug laws even in his new country is so much cowpat? Just swagger, but a law-abiding citizen at heart? I do hope you're right.


I will continue to use medicine which works for me with or without the approval of the swedish government, and will continue to campaign for the abolishment of unjust laws which infringe on human rights and cause so much damage to people all over the world. How can one consist themselves free if they dont even have the freedom to explore thier own mind? Its a basic human right which i beleive in strongly. Prohibition is extremely damaging to humankind.
But this thread hasn't been about drugs and prohibition until you brought it up to attempt to defame my character, as you always do. If you wish to discuss drugs and prohibition, rather than following me around and basically claiming in every thread on any subject that my opinion is invalid because i use compounds which the state has decided to criminalise, make a new thread and i will gladly rip you a new one on the subject there.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

porps said:


> I will continue to use medicine which works for me with or without the approval of the swedish government, and will continue to campaign for the abolishment of unjust laws which infringe on human rights and cause so much damage to people all over the world. How can one consist themselves free if they dont even have the freedom to explore thier own mind? Its a basic human right which i beleive in strongly. Prohibition is extremely damaging to humankind.
> But this thread hasn't been about drugs and prohibition until you brought it up to attempt to defame my character, as you always do. If you wish to discuss drugs and prohibition, rather than following me around and basically claiming in every thread on any subject that my opinion is invalid because i use compounds which the state has decided to criminalise, make a new thread and i will gladly rip you a new one on the subject there.


Blimey, ego much? I have better things to do than "stalk" someone on the internet. If you make a point I disagree with I will say so. I think stealing is wrong, but my main objection was not your admission of being desperate enough to take food, which would have elicited sympathy, but the way you reported it not with guilt but by kind of point scoring about how easy it was to achieve. It came across very much as point scoring, Porps 1, big corporation nil. I was comparing the attitudes of "stuff society" to both theft and drug taking, rather than saying your opinion was worthless because you took drugs. If I read your post wrongly I apologise. I do indeed usually disagree with you, not sure where you got "God botherer" from as I've never claimed a deep religious belief, indeed I've expressed my doubts. But I'll take it as a compliment that you could make that assumption. If you remember, a week or 2 ago I actually said "Can't beleive I'm saying this, but I agree with Porps" - the one thread I've read where you've not had a sod the system approach but offered support to someone needing it and we agreed. If you continue your sod the system type of post I'll continue to explain how that approach causes harm to innocents, but if you do actually campaign for something you beleive in I'll support you where I feel able. Properly researched and peer reviewed medicinal use of cannabis included!


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

I don't need or want your support nor your judgements. while the system remains unjust and favors the rich at the expense of the poor i will continue to try to break it down.
The only good system is a sound system.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I don't know what our progency will think Noush as I don't have any, perhaps that does change how you look at things. I'm not sure.
> 
> When it comes down to it I probably do every bit as much as the average person, if not more I just don't look at the bigger picture in quite the same way as you do. I haven't flown in over 20 years, I don't drive anymore although obviously my OH does, our house is pretty energy efficient, our garden is a wildlife haven, OH spends a fortune of food for birds and has nesting boxes and hedgehog houses etc etc. We plant as much as possible to attract butterflies and bees and often get foxes in our back garden. We recycle as much as possible, including carrier bags which we never put in the general rubbish - always give back to the supermarket, and use an organic home delivery service for some of our fruit/veggies/meat. We have cut our meat consumption down to a minimum of chicken (organic never battery) and fish a couple of times per week and never eat takeaways/support the junk food industry. I'll support any campaign relating to the welfare of animals/wildlife. I am against pollution and deforestation and whilst I don't want to see any species become extinct I do think its inevitable and part of the natural cycle of life. Nothing can stay the same much as we might it want to.
> 
> ...


Sorry it would have been better to say what will future generations think. I know even if I didn't have children I would still care with the exact same passion about the natural world & still feel the same desperation to save it as I do now - for the sake of the life forms we are destroying as much as anything. Of course extinctions have always occurred. But surely you can see the difference between extinctions triggered by a freak of nature or due to a creature hitting an evolutionary cul-de-sac and dying out naturally & extinctions caused by mans insatiable greed for resources?

Prince William has just appealed to the Chinese to save the Elephant & Rhino from extinction. What if the Chinese used your logic to carry on regardless? Neither the 6th mass extinction or the poaching a species to extinction are natural phenomenon. They are man induced & (at the moment) can be averted. I just don't understand why some don't think its worth doing everything possible to ensure that 'we as a species' don't drive 'any' living creature to extinction 

. Your own link supports the points I have been making. Let me just highlight a few.

They found that the current extinction rate was more than 100 times higher than in periods when Earth was not going through a mass extinction event.

Such a loss would normally be seen over a period of up to 10,000 years, the scientists say.

The study - published in the Science Advances journal - cites causes such as climate change, pollution and deforestation

Stanford University professor Paul Ehrlich said: "There are examples of species all over the world that are essentially the walking dead.

"We are sawing off the limb that we are sitting on."

But Mr Pimm's report said the current rate of extinction was more than 1,000 times faster than in the past, not 114, as the new report claims.

The new report's authors said it was still possible to avoid a "dramatic decay of biodiversity" through intensive conservation, but that rapid action was needed.

(and more in depth from Ehrlichs research)
http://mic.com/articles/121209/scie...cymicTWTR&utm_medium=main&utm_campaign=social

Ehrlich -

Here's what those numbers look like charted, with the graph on the left showing a "highly conservative" estimate and one on the right showing a "conservative" estimate. Either way, the results are beyond troubling - humans are driving a massive genocide of pretty much every other type of vertebrate on the planet

*Why you should care:* The last time Earth's biodiversity dropped so rapidly, it was the kind of bad news that makes historical catastrophes like World War II or the Black Death look like picnics.

Without finding some way to reverse our unsustainable use of the world's resources, humanity could soon be living on a planet stripped of much of its biodiversity - and that's not even considering the potentially devastating * effects of global climate change, which has only recently started to really kick into gear

(*This is the link highlighted by the asterisk. If you get chance please have a read RPH. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/opinion/game-over-for-the-climate.html?_r=0 )

http://zumfeed.com/news/182-humanit...mass-extinction-has-begun-say-scientists.html

They also warned that 75% of the species on Earth could be lost in just two generations. They said "We emphasize that our calculations very likely underestimate the severity of the extinction crisis, because our aim was to place a realistic lower bound on humanity's impact on biodiversity

In spite of the desolate outlook, there is an important way forward, according to Ehrlich and his associates. *They said "Avoiding a true sixth mass extinction will require rapid, greatly intensified efforts to conserve already threatened species, and to alleviate pressures on their populations - notably habitat loss, over-exploitation for economic gain and climate change."*

Experts such as Ehrlich couldn't spell it out anymore clearly what we must do.

Its great you're doing your bit but on an individualistic level, we all should. But this alone will not stop the mass extinctions & save our biosphere. To do that we MUST change this reckless industrialist capitalist system. We are not only responsible for destroying entire ecosystems we are destroying the very things WE as a species need to survive. And the insane thing is we know we're committing genocide & ecocide (& eventually suicide!) & we have sustainable, ecofriendly alternatives!. How mad is that? If that's not sociopathic I don't know what is. ! Do you not think its our moral duty to address our destructive (self destructive) economic model? I feel like the Native Americans - nature is my religion. What right have the vulture capitalists to destroy Mother Earth for their own selfish gain?

Hey & thank you so much for taking an interest in the plight of the hen harrier. Raptor Persecution blog https://raptorpersecutionscotland.w...aits-these-two-satellite-tagged-hen-harriers/ and Mark Avery's blog are always excellent for updates and campaigns for hen harrier & persecuted raptors in general - http://markavery.info/2015/10/20/shifting-baselines-2/ 
.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

People should listen to Mark before judging anyone driven to stealing to survive.

"Tesco benefiting from slave labour workforce". Fining the homeless & the hungry for stealing - "its pre-Dickens"


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

porps said:


> The only good system is a sound system.


In amongst the belligerence of your post, that's a sentiment we agree on. So have a plan of action in place to build something strong and fair to all. No good destroying something less than ideal if you have no workable alternative. Operative word being workable. I don't always agree with everything Noushka says, but have an enormous amount of respect for her because she puts heart and soul into building a better future not just for herself but for all.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

noushka05 said:


> Sorry it would have been better to say what will future generations think. I know even if I didn't have children I would still care with the exact same passion about the natural world & still feel the same desperation to save it as I do now - for the sake of the life forms we are destroying as much as anything. Of course extinctions have always occurred. But surely you can see the difference between extinctions triggered by a freak of nature or due to a creature hitting an evolutionary cul-de-sac and dying out naturally & extinctions caused by mans insatiable greed for resources?
> 
> Prince William has just appealed to the Chinese to save the Elephant & Rhino from extinction. What if the Chinese used your logic to carry on regardless? Neither the 6th mass extinction or the poaching a species to extinction are natural phenomenon. They are man induced & (at the moment) can be averted. I just don't understand why some don't think its worth doing everything possible to ensure that 'we as a species' don't drive 'any' living creature to extinction
> 
> ...


All the best wishes and luck in the world for your hen harrier work. What a compliment to be approached for help.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

noushka05 said:


> Sorry it would have been better to say what will future generations think. I know even if I didn't have children I would still care with the exact same passion about the natural world & still feel the same desperation to save it as I do now - for the sake of the life forms we are destroying as much as anything. Of course extinctions have always occurred. But surely you can see the difference between extinctions triggered by a freak of nature or due to a creature hitting an evolutionary cul-de-sac and dying out naturally & extinctions caused by mans insatiable greed for resources?
> 
> Prince William has just appealed to the Chinese to save the Elephant & Rhino from extinction. What if the Chinese used your logic to carry on regardless? Neither the 6th mass extinction or the poaching a species to extinction are natural phenomenon. They are man induced & (at the moment) can be averted. I just don't understand why some don't think its worth doing everything possible to ensure that 'we as a species' don't drive 'any' living creature to extinction
> 
> ...


I already said in the post you quoted that I am against pollution and deforestation and I hope you know me well enough by now to also know I am most definitely against poaching. Of course if there is something in our power to do to prevent a species becoming extinct then we should do it although as I said earlier and you took exception too I am first and foremost a welfarist so I don't agree with culling one species or wiping out the habitat of one species so that another can survive and would never condone poaching/the Ivory trade. Like I said its the bigger picture we disagree on

By the way I did't link to the BBC article about the 6th phase of extinction to back up any of my opinions but just to give a simple explanation of what they are talking about and that the 5th phase was 65 million years ago when dinosaurs were wiped out. Did you look at any of the comments at the end of the article - I haven't researched Ehrlich but found this comment interesting

Paul Ehrlich (one of the scientists) has been wrong before, and when I say wrong, I mean way way way off the mark. Here are some examples:

"The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death"
"Four billion people will die of starvation"
"England will not exist in the year 2000"

Of course, the BBC won't mention his past errors 

I don't think the doom and gloom, end of the planet approach is the right one to get people on side to make any changes that may help, that is where we will always differ.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Just seen Cameron again talking out of his arse were tax credits are concerned 

So out of touch and ignorant it's unbelievable 

Hopefully, most of his party can see what rubbish he's spouting


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Catharinem said:


> All the best wishes and luck in the world for your hen harrier work. What a compliment to be approached for help.


Thank you so much Catherine. I'm not really that much use tbh, but collectively, who knows?  If enough of us make enough noise maybe we will one day get justice for Annie & her kind?. Sadly time is fast running out for the species in this country though. And its nothing special to be approached on twitter really lol Its a common way for people passionate about a cause to unite and take action - I'm perhaps even more gobby on there than I am on here, so I guess they noticed & why they contacted me. I never realised how great twitter could be, both as a source of information & for connecting with like minded people. I cant recommend it enough 



rottiepointerhouse said:


> I already said in the post you quoted that I am against pollution and deforestation and I hope you know me well enough by now to also know I am most definitely against poaching. Of course if there is something in our power to do to prevent a species becoming extinct then we should do it although as I said earlier and you took exception too I am first and foremost a welfarist so I don't agree with culling one species or wiping out the habitat of one species so that another can survive and would never condone poaching/the Ivory trade. Like I said its the bigger picture we disagree on
> 
> By the way I did't link to the BBC article about the 6th phase of extinction to back up any of my opinions but just to give a simple explanation of what they are talking about and that the 5th phase was 65 million years ago when dinosaurs were wiped out. Did you look at any of the comments at the end of the article - I haven't researched Ehrlich but found this comment interesting
> 
> ...


But by subscribing to neoliberal ideology you are in fact supporting deforestation & pollution. Free market capitalism sees the natural world only as a means of making profit. Nothing more. And the fossil fuel industry is the biggest polluter in this market, surely you cant argue with that? . I used the poaching of elephants as comparison to highlight that their destruction & the 6th mass extinction are not acts of nature - their fate lies in the hand of mankind.

The dinosaurs were wiped out by an asteroid in the 5th mass extinction, WE are the asteroid in this 6th mass extinction. Do you agree human activity is driving it this time?

I only mentioned Ehrlich because he was on your link lol If we are talking about anthropogenic global warming we are talking about the consensual position of the worlds leading scientists - some 97%, not an individual lol. The consensus on climate change is as strong as the link is between HIV & aids. Are we so arrogant to dispute the worlds best experts on the subject? & if we do & they are indeed right all along, at what cost?

And I don't even need scientists to prove to me what our destructive, plundering capitalist system is doing to the earth - that is blatantly evident!. I would be lying to myself if I tried to dispute it. What about the welfare of lord knows how many people suffering under a greedy capitalist system? Native peoples forced to give up their sacred lands they have cherished for generations for the benefit of capitalism - how is that just? Take this for example. http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...fight-take-back-sacred-land-mining-companies/

What a absolute tragedy for the Earth(for every living thing) that most cultures don't share the Native Americans & the Pagans connection with nature. If we did we would protect & defend our earth at all cost from these capitalist monsters.

I hope you wont mind me sharing these memes of a remarkably wise people with a very special spiritual culture. (and one quote from a very socially & environmentally savvy Pope! lol) I know there are loads but they are beautiful quotes on some lovely artwork & photographs.






























.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rona said:


> Just seen Cameron again talking out of his arse were tax credits are concerned
> 
> So out of touch and ignorant it's unbelievable
> 
> Hopefully, most of his party can see what rubbish he's spouting


His party must all agree with him. Not one of them had the decency to vote against tax credits cuts. Not one!


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Some of our County councilors may have learnt something this month 

https://www.westsussex.gov.uk/news/...home-shift-as-part-of-west-sussex-care-month/

"A number of councillors and senior staff will be going 'back to the floor' to experience life as a care worker."

Respect to them


----------

