Marcus Rashford becomes MBE

[devexwarrior]

It's not that I disagree with them, you are clearly much more well educated and experienced in these extreme forms of government than I am, it's just that I think it's not relevant, we're talking about 'starving children in the UK', communism has no stake here that I can see?

Thankfully, cases of genuinely starving children are rare in this country (though rare is not as good as non-existent) my reference to communism seeks to show an extreme generated by zealots. This sort of politics is becoming more prevalent - just look at Cancel Culture where this week a sports coach may have lost his position over one alleged comment made 20 years ago.

 

[johncrobinson]

Yes Dave i do want you to stay.
Becouse Whilst i like to here all sides

I do not want to EVER see the starvation of kids OR ANYONE ELSE FOR THAT MATTER

 

[EsterBanana]

Thankfully, cases of genuinely starving children are rare in this country (though rare is not as good as non-existent) my reference to communism seeks to show an extreme generated by zealots. This sort of politics is becoming more prevalent - just look at Cancel Culture where this week a sports coach may have lost his position over one alleged comment made 20 years ago.

I think we are losing track here, here is a report from UCL, there are countless similar reports with a simple internet search, but this one is evidence based:

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2019/apr/children-growing-poverty-endure-hunger-and-shame
I think you are conflating active criminals with single parents struggling to feed their kids because of the difficulties associated with getting social support.

Forgive me if I am wrong, but putting everything together that you have said your thought process goes something like this:

1) there are bad criminals - I deal with them on a daily basis and see the worst of it (sure, no argument)​

​

2) parents drink and smoke instead of feeding their children and they are abusing the system​

​

3) All these people are criminals and helping them changes nothing.​

I have seen no evidence of any zealotry here in this thread, you introduced it as a way to add validity to your argument, but this didn't really work, now we are into cancel culture? This is why I think we are off track, I just don't see the relevance.

In response to your line of thinking I would say:

1) yes there are hard criminals, but they are not what we are discussing here​

​

2) If lots of people are abusing the system it's because they are trying to survive and they need help, not more punishment, interrogation, benefits stopped, etc. I think this is an excellent way to create more criminals... I think it might be the system that is broken and this in turn might be making the people more broken than they would otherwise be.​

​

3) The vast majority of people on benefits are not criminals, they are people who for whatever reason need some help.​

Look at these statistics:

https://www.gov.uk/government/stati...ry-2021/dwp-benefits-statistics-february-2021
I know many people who are in receipt of one or more of these benefits, as far as I know, none of them are criminals, many of them don't drink or smoke, all of them are struggling with one thing or another and without the help they receive they would be lost. They wouldn't miraculously recover from their problems and become a perfectly functioning member of society.

I am calling it a night now, but I hope this will at least give you some pause for thought and if I have one thing to say to you or ask of you, is try and remember that while your day to day working life is full of perhaps the worst examples of our society, the truth is because of the nature of your work, you don't get to see as many of the people who never get into any trouble and this has perhaps given you some bias that might be worth reconsidering perhaps?

Best wishes.

 

[devexwarrior]

You seem to think my reasoning in non-syllogistic. i.e. Arthur has whiskers, all cats have whiskers, Arthur is a cat. This is illogical. (Thank you Mr Spock.). Arthur might be a rat, mouse, dog etc. Correct syllogistic reasoning would be Arthur is a cat, all cats have whiskers, Arthur has whiskers.

I'll copy your text - my attempts at nested quoting nearly gave my laptop a seizure.

I think you are conflating active criminals with single parents struggling to feed their kids because of the difficulties associated with getting social support.

Forgive me if I am wrong, but putting everything together that you have said your thought process goes something like this:

1) there are bad criminals - I deal with them on a daily basis and see the worst of it (sure, no argument) - Yes indeed I do.

2) parents drink and smoke instead of feeding their children and they are abusing the system - Yes, some of them do and are. Some don't.

3) All these people are criminals and helping them changes nothing. - No, I do not believe that. There are many such as single parents, lone people with no family and the ill/disabled who struggle and need help. We have a system called MARF (Multi-Agency Referral Form) whereby we flag up to Social Services someone who is struggling. That my be mental/physical health, family pressures or anything that impinges on their life. This goes into a central board that gathers every day to send them to the appropriate agency. I do try to help where I can but I'm not an expert and I'm a scant resource. My final departing words to anyone is "If all else fails, dial 999 and ask for the police. We are not specialists, we can't solve every problem, but we will always come". This we do.

I have seen no evidence of any zealotry here in this thread, you introduced it as a way to add validity to your argument, but this didn't really work, now we are into cancel culture? This is why I think we are off track, I just don't see the relevance. - Sorry, the zealotry exists in main-stream media, academia, the arts...just about everywhere. Thankfully the Home Brew Forum is free of said zealotry (perhaps with the exception of water treatment, but I ignore that as I live in an area with beautiful, soft, clear water and just bung it in straight from the tap and let the beer ferment- it hasn't killed me yet).

 

[EsterBanana]

You seem to think my reasoning in non-syllogistic. i.e. Arthur has whiskers, all cats have whiskers, Arthur is a cat. This is illogical. (Thank you Mr Spock.). Arthur might be a rat, mouse, dog etc. Correct syllogistic reasoning would be Arthur is a cat, all cats have whiskers, Arthur has whiskers.

I'll copy your text - my attempts at nested quoting nearly gave my laptop a seizure.

I think you are conflating active criminals with single parents struggling to feed their kids because of the difficulties associated with getting social support.

Forgive me if I am wrong, but putting everything together that you have said your thought process goes something like this:

1) there are bad criminals - I deal with them on a daily basis and see the worst of it (sure, no argument) - Yes indeed I do.

2) parents drink and smoke instead of feeding their children and they are abusing the system - Yes, some of them do and are. Some don't.

3) All these people are criminals and helping them changes nothing. - No, I do not believe that. There are many such as single parents, lone people with no family and the ill/disabled who struggle and need help. We have a system called MARF (Multi-Agency Referral Form) whereby we flag up to Social Services someone who is struggling. That my be mental/physical health, family pressures or anything that impinges on their life. This goes into a central board that gathers every day to send them to the appropriate agency. I do try to help where I can but I'm not an expert and I'm a scant resource. My final departing words to anyone is "If all else fails, dial 999 and ask for the police. We are not specialists, we can't solve every problem, but we will always come". This we do.

I have seen no evidence of any zealotry here in this thread, you introduced it as a way to add validity to your argument, but this didn't really work, now we are into cancel culture? This is why I think we are off track, I just don't see the relevance. - Sorry, the zealotry exists in main-stream media, academia, the arts...just about everywhere. Thankfully the Home Brew Forum is free of said zealotry (perhaps with the exception of water treatment, but I ignore that as I live in an area with beautiful, soft, clear water and just bung it in straight from the tap and let the beer ferment- it hasn't killed me yet).

Then I am quite at a loss as to what we're discussing now...

What started this was:

The state can intervene when things get critical but like it or not if the feral underclass prefer to spend their money on **** and booze and give their children minimal basic food, there's not much the rest of us can do about it

That is what I have been challenging, this ubiquitous application of derisory punching down, but you seem to have just undone your own position quite well in your last post with:

There are many such as single parents, lone people with no family and the ill/disabled who struggle and need help. We have a system called MARF (Multi-Agency Referral Form) whereby we flag up to Social Services someone who is struggling. That my be mental/physical health, family pressures or anything that impinges on their life. This goes into a central board that gathers every day to send them to the appropriate agency.

Of course it's not your job to fix everyone's problems, I don't believe anyone said it was, that you have referrals in place to the relevant agencies is great. I had not heard of MARF before.

What myself, and I think everyone here is suggesting, is that these agencies need to be improved for the people that can be helped, just like the ones you mention, including the hungry kids!

This doesn't mean falling into extreme communism, it just means doing what we do now, but better!

QED.

p.s. re. some unemployed smoking, I actually found some statistics, far from being the majority of people on benefits, it's about 1 in 4. This is still high, but not enough, not even close, to make broad strokes like the one that started this discussion.

"economic activity: the proportion of current smokers is significantly higher among unemployed persons (26.8%) when compared with those who are employed (14.5%) and economically inactive (12.8%)"

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...lletins/adultsmokinghabitsingreatbritain/2019
Also, don't forget that it's not that long ago that smoking/cigarette advertisements were everywhere, it's only a couple of generations ago that it was promoted so it's hardly fair to criticise anyone older than say 50? or their immediate family members (kids tend to do what they see not what they are told) for smoking when it is extremely addictive and is often compared to being as difficult to quit as heroin.

https://www.heart.org/en/news/2018/10/17/why-its-so-hard-to-quit-smoking
Easy to see how someone could end up as a single parent, who has grown up in a family of smokers, they're addicted, they're struggling to make ends meet, the idea of quitting a highly addictive substance in an extremely stressful situation... is just too far out there! I think these people need a break and some more help! Not slagging off. In fact, I would even go as far to say anyone in this position should be given a cigarette allowance, so that they are not faced with the horrendous decision of buying food or a substance they are addicted too, that's awful. Take the pressure off, reduce the stress, then help them quit in the longer term.

p.p.s. thanks for your efforts and the laptop's efforts too, there is a quotation system on the forum, select some text and a 'quote/reply' option pops up, if you select 'quote' it gets added to a collection of quotes which can then be inserted into a new post by clicking the 'Insert Quotes' button. It's good, worth learning how to use, makes things a lot easier.

 

[johncrobinson]

Nailed it Ester Bannana.

 

[Binkei Huckaback]

I wish @devexwarrior Would make up his mind. Either ignore the thread like a petulant child, in which case, you don't need to tell us you you're ignoring it. What do you want? A "U OK hun?" From the rest of us. Or just don't reply, like a grown up. Or stay and debate the matter. I knew someone (there were several possibilities and you were one) who would shout "communism!!!" I didn't say communism was any better.

North Korea is nominally a communist country, but is a dictatorship led by cult of personality. Venezuela is hardly a communist country is it's communist party has only one seat and it's leader has denounced the president over his economic policies.

 

[EsterBanana]

I just came back to say that I think free tobacco for addicts is an excellent idea, so long as they commit to a sensible program and actually want to quit. It should be paid for by the government waiving duty and the tobacco company footing the bill seeing as they are the ones responsible in the first place for encouraging people to get addicted!

50's


60's


70's


80's


90's


00's
Cigarette commercial "Pine lights" early 2000s

So, you know, we're only talking about undoing 6 decades of relentless advertising!

 

[ChrisR73]

Fine, go live in a communist country that espouses the truly egalitarian approach. North Korea or Venezuela spring to mind.

I love it when people have to resort to logical fallacies to further their argument.
I never once mentioned communism or even socialism - I just pointed out that the tax system is rigged to favour the wealthy and they still spend money to twist it even further.
We should not have poverty and child hunger in Europe or America but yet we do.
We should also not have ex-forces personal living in squalor with untreated mental health problems but we do.
We should not have unfair taxation systems but yet we do.
As for people who lack empathy towards others, maybe you could tell us how we treat that.