Anything Political

[Brew 5,422]

34 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

That's a Cop Out  Jim.  It is disingenuous to compare only some UK citizens.. ( the poorest..) with those in the third world who are admittedly far worse off.

 

 

 I don't see the relevance of what you're saying?  Surely you were referring to 'only some' and not all the population? Perhaps I should compare the more affluent? Isn't it pointless comparing our poorest with our richest, what purpose would that serve?

My point it that even the poorest in the UK are still living at a level far above that which can be called 'suffering'. Forget the third world just stay in the UK but go back to the time I was a kid. Rations, ragged clothes, poor housing, no social security, no NHS... Try telling your grandfather of the hardship of a centrally heated house or the frustration of having to sit in your car in a queue of traffic on the way to the airport.

 

Perhaps you think it better to note the disparity between incomes and bank balances? I don't, it's been there since the year dot and will never be any different. Compared to the Big Issue seller I'm probably rich, compared to Murdoch I'm poor - what does that prove?

 

The state spends billions on benefits and social security, It's far from and never will be perfect. Sadly  there will always be those unfortunates who slip through the net regardless of how many more billions we spend.

It's not a cop out, it's a splash of cold reality and it's disingenuous to cry foul when real suffering is used as a comparison.

 

 

1 hour ago, DJ360 said:

I keep on saying that Politics is not just about parties and factions

 

It's just semantics really. You use the word to mean campaigning. persuading, etc. I use it in its more accepted sense of party politics, something the mega rich don't give a damn about. They will make deals with governments, despots, tosspots and even Donald Trump if means they turn a profit.

 

[DJ360 6,733]

On 8/2/2020 at 2:53 AM, Brew said:

My point it that even the poorest in the UK are still living at a level far above that which can be called 'suffering'. Forget the third world just stay in the UK but go back to the time I was a kid. Rations, ragged clothes, poor housing, no social security, no NHS...

 

I disagree.

 

There are still people in the UK who are suffering.  Of course it's sort of relative.. they aren't walking miles for dirty water or living in earth floored hovels with no food...  But they see themselves next to the wealthy and comfortable.  have you ever been homeless?  I have.  It really is the most depressing and debilitating thing.

Yet.. they are dying.. they are alienated.. they are homeless. It's pretty well established that the whole 'austerity' saga.. Cameron's unforgiveable scapegoating of 'Benefit Scroungers' etc ... was pure 'politicking' of the worst kind.

 

People have died of malnutrition in one of the richest countries in the World. Disabled people have ben forced back into work and died.. it goes on... We can have an 'Everybody In' policy on homelessness.during Covid.... but only for rough sleepers and only for a few months..meanwhile we still have families in bedsits with no money and no hope.  Being homeless is much more than just being a 'rough sleeper'.

This situation is unacceptable.  Nobody should be dying of malnutrition.... living in squalor, etc.. in 21st C Britain. and any Govt which does not act immediately to resolve such issues is not worthy.

[DJ360 6,733]

On 8/2/2020 at 2:53 AM, Brew said:

It's just semantics really. You use the word to mean campaigning. persuading, etc. I use it in its more accepted sense of party politics, something the mega rich don't give a damn about. They will make deals with governments, despots, tosspots and even Donald Trump if means they turn a profit.

 

No.. that's really not what I mean.  I agree that the 'mega rich' see themselves as above party politics..and of course they manipulate party politics and the democratic process just for the hell of it..  But that does not mean that what they do is not politics.

Of course it is politics... because it is about determining 'who gets what?'... which is the fundamental point of politics.

[Brew 5,422]

7 hours ago, DJ360 said:

But they see themselves next to the wealthy and comfortable.  have you ever been homeless?  I have.  It really is the most depressing and debilitating thing.

 

That rather proves my point. You had a setback, some temporary hardships and now you are by any standard living a comfortable life. How the poor see themselves next to the wealthy is is largely irrelevant.

 

The experience of being homeless gives you an insight, it also gives you knowledge of the remedy. The system allowed you the means to climb out of poverty and become a valued contributor to society. It allowed myself as a snotty nosed kid from Sneinton (whose mother and a brother were treated for malnourishment), to gain a half decent education and become one of the 'comfortable' - and all at a time when social services and the benefit system was nothing like the huge  organisation it is today.

 

There are those that are struggling  of course there are but you and I both know there is help available. It may be not be perfect, it may not be easy but it's there.

Can we do more? of course we can but it's a bottomless pit and we do not have a endless supply of money. I've said and still believe no matter how much we throw at it there will always be those who fail, it's a fact of life. Putting more effort into prevention would be better than continually sticking a plaster on the problem.

 

10 hours ago, DJ360 said:

People have died of malnutrition in one of the richest countries in the World

 

In a population of 60+ million people, 99 died of malnutrition (UK Gov figures). It's too many but the underlying cause was not availability of food and most died in hospital.

Being undernourished was mentioned in 446 deaths

 

8 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Disabled people have ben forced back into work and died.. it goes on.

 

I don't remember this.

I do remember the disgraceful outsourcing of benefit assessment and the scurrilous headlines about people dying after being denied. There was little  mention of the actual cause of death, just innuendo of a malicious state causing untimely deaths. None as far as I know actually started work before they died. I have some personal knowledge of this but it is not for here.

 

I suspect Cameron's 'scroungers' outnumbered those who died as a result of being 'forced' back into work.

 

 

[DJ360 6,733]

On 8/5/2020 at 11:53 AM, Brew said:

I suspect Cameron's 'scroungers' outnumbered those who died as a result of being 'forced' back into work.

 

Just this one issue..

 

I made a claim for benefits after I was made redundant in my 64th year. Although I wasn't desperate for cash. I believed I was entitled. so I claimed.  I don't recall the details on which I claimed.. but I think the 'Doctor' who 'assessed' me ..was totally sympathetic to the idea that I should not be forced into work due to my various health issues. Sadly.. the fact that I was already drawing a Pension ( which I paid for.) put (un)paid to that...

But what struck me most was that while I was in a horrible grey unwelcoming building in St Helens.. in which the 'Receptionist' had no doubt trained by receiving victims at Auswitch... I witnessed serious distress in some other 'customers.'  One woman, who looked 50 ish and was blind... accompanied by someone I assume to have been a relative/supporter and clearly having problems other than sight.. stood in the middle of the waiting room and howled pitifully.  This was no fake show.. the poor woman was clearly in deep distress.

Several others sat in chairs fretting about how they would cope if their benefits were cut.  None looked or sounded especially fit for any work I could think of... even assuming they could have acquired it.

This was a shameful period in our history and put many already disadvantaged people through unneccessary stress.. just to demonstrate to the typical 'Harrumphing' indignant  Brit.. that Cameron was doing something about the almost entirely mythical Benefit Scrounger which he had invented.

[DJ360 6,733]

I see that our esteemed P.M. sees it as a 'Moral Duty' for us to get our kids back into school.....

 

PMSL.....

 

Boris Johnson and 'Moral Duty' in the same sentence.........

 

Yeah.......

 

Right....

[Brew 5,422]

This is an example of your 'whataboutery'.

 

I don't doubt the tale or that the people were genuine but for every such example there will be those who are not. SWMBO lived in Aspley and was driven out (long story), by neighbours from hell who never worked a day in their useless lives.

 It's a little naïve to assume everyone was 100% genuine  though those you saw apparently had real hardship - however unless you followed those unfortunates up up don't know the outcome. 

 

I have no problem at all with people claiming benefit, it's just unfortunate that some are all too willing to take advantage.

 

Perhaps if you heard the receptionist's  side, the abuse and threats they have to put up with ( a friend worked in the office near Basford crossing), you'd understand why they didn't greet customers with tea and sympathy.

 

There are two sides to every story.

-----------------

I had to search for pmsl

 

Johnson can pontificate about morals just as Welby can preach about God, neither believes a word of what they're saying...     

[MargieH 7,607]

Brew, I'm shocked ... what makes you say that about 'Welby'?   Have I missed something that he's said?

[Brew 5,422]

Don't mean to upset you Margie but I'm not making it up:-

 

 "The religious leader has previously admitted having doubts about the existence of God "in lots of different ways".

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/archbishop-justin-welby-admits-doubt-over-gods-presence-after-paris-attacks-a6743846.html

 

Jenkins, Bishop of Durham also said he doubted the existence.

[philmayfield 6,144]

He has doubts about God but he believes in Jesus apparently. Maybe a bit weird?

[PeverilPeril 3,284]

I would be confident that Welby and Jenkins are absolutely sincere about their ethical teachings and leadership.

Wether there is a God or not is only important to the individual.

[philmayfield 6,144]

Sincere in the fact that he can't decide. At least I know the truth!

[MargieH 7,607]

I believe he was being completely honest when he said that doubts occasionally cloud his thinking, but deep down he knows that God is faithful and understands how we feel.  As he said back in 2014, faith isn't about how we FEEL at any particular  time.  Hope this video link works... I'm not very good at this

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29255318

 

[philmayfield 6,144]

He's the head of the C of E. If he hasn't got firm convictions he should make room for someone who has. 

[Brew 5,422]

I don't doubt for one moment he was being honest but unless he is absolutely convinced the best anyone can say is that he's an agnostic.

 

I don't supposed the degree of belief has any bearing on the validity of  his preaching or the content of his sermon. I questioned his sincerity when with all the atrocities in the world, many for religious reasons,  he only thought to question the existence of a higher power when his favourite holiday destination was affected.

 

Jenkins calling the resurrection a 'conjuring trick with bones' might be a bit much for the faithful to accept though.

 

I'll go no further with this as it can upset people far more than politics ever could.

[philmayfield 6,144]

I preferred Roman Williams as archbishop. He could waffle incomprehensibly for hours. Quite entertaining.

[Jill Sparrow 10,307]

I thought HMQ was the head of the church of England.  Defender of the Faith ( a title given to Henry VIII by Il Papa, when England was a Roman Catholic nation).

 

These days, according to the son and heir, it's Defender of all Faiths and none.

 

Makes little difference. We're all going in the same direction. 

[philmayfield 6,144]

HMQ is too wealthy to be a true Christian. Perhaps if she sold a palace or two to help the poor she might find salvation. It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man/woman to enter into the Kingdom of God.

[Jill Sparrow 10,307]

During my time as a church organist, I met many who purported to be Christians. Rich, poor and intermediate. I can honestly say I have met more Christian principled people who have never been near a church than I ever met under a church roof.

 

Their treasure is of a very different kind.

[MargieH 7,607]

None of us is perfect and I’m sure that the Archbishop would agree with me on that point.  He is an imperfect human being -  no better in God’s sight than anyone else.  
Speaking for myself,  I am only too aware how much I fall short of  what God would have me be.... I don’t even come up to my own standards sometimes!

But I am  a work in progress....

I’d just like to add that being a Christian does not mean (contrary to popular opinion) following a set of ‘Christian principles’ to make ourselves good enough.  (Although a Christian will naturally want to love and care for other people and the world in general, trying to bring about fairness and justice in the world In whatever way they can)

I don’t know whether the Archbishop, the Queen or anyone else does this to the best of their ability and it’s  not my job to judge anyone’s motives or lifestyle.

A Christian just has faith that Jesus did all that is necessary to bring us close to God...

So from one imperfect human being’, thank you for giving me this opportunity to say what I believe.   I really appreciate it xx

 

 

[philmayfield 6,144]

I endeavour to do all those good things without being a Christian. That means that my Sundays are free!

[DJ360 6,733]

I'm not going to get into this stuff about religion. 

 

I have friends who purport to be Christian, Muslim, Jewish.etc.  I don't choose my friends by their religion.. but by their character .

 

Politics is pretty much able to be defined by logic and force of argument. It exists within the rational world, even though disagreements occur.

 

Religion actually starts from the abandonment of logic and rationality.. in favour of 'faith'. It is an edifice based on the acceptance of 'truths' which.. though usually well-intentioned.. have no basis in fact.

 

Numerous World Religions claim to be the 'only true religion;'

 

They can't all be right.

[mary1947 2,085]

!! Not sure if this Post should be in the Joke section if it was not so serious!!!

 

Well some young students have had there "A" level results, and guess what most of them have been downgraded.

  

So what's happened?

Students did not take any exams, so A-level results were base mostly on teachers predictions. but the exam board downgraded nearly 40%of marks in england, most downgrades came out one or two grades lower than forcast by teacher's. 

What is amazing  though, allthough , not really is students from poorer backgrounds had a greater downward adjustment. than  students who went to private schools the results were better than last year nealey all students had good grades WHY? How is it that you have to attend  private schools to get better results. 

Or do the goverment have no respecst for out teachers.

Personly I  don't agree that students should  be downgraded, come on  Boris put your trust in our teacher's

[DJ360 6,733]

They just can't help being Tories and doing what Tories do.. which is to favour the better off.

 

Education Secretary Gavin Williamson is a Bona Fide Idiot who was a staggeringly unsuccessful as Foreign Secretary and is now trying to out do Gove in the 'buggering up Education' stakes.

 

He has actually taken stances on some things which I would agree with.. but he seems terminally politically inept.

 

 

[Brew 5,422]

And quite how do those doing the downgrading know the financial status of the students? Would anyone be calling the system into question if they were upgraded?

Some  may not  like it but it is an unescapable fact that those fortunate  few who go to 'private' schools do, on average, better than those who don't. My two went and in my son's class only one did not go to uni, in my daughter's case it was 100%.

 

I'm not privy to the ins and outs, the whys and wherefores but presumably the decisions were made against some form of yardstick by people with no personal knowledge of the student or any particular axe to grind. It really isn't a case of 'dads a doctor - pass. dads a plumber - fail'. Note also only those with lower marks are squealing

 

It is also not true that the government has anything to do with it, the results (private v state), are consistent no matter who rules in Westminster. Whoever it is they really can't win. This year under exceptional circumstances the results are criticised for being lower than expected. Last year and for several years previously the exams were criticised for being too easy because the results were higher than the year before...

 

Are you sure Williamson was Foreign Secretary?