To "British" RPers...

Started by Stan', April 16, 2010, 11:56:48 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Stan'

...this is what you get when you keep Labour in.  Those that don't want to work get rich with benefits, while those who want to work but can't get nothing.

The Davey family haven't worked in 9 years, because the bitch of a mother realised that by popping out more and more weans, she's better off than if she was working.

Thank Mr. Brown and Mr. Blair.

Rider of Wind

Hoe-ly CRAP. Now that bugs me. British or no.
Not currently taking new roleplays.
Rider's A/A's Update 10-20-14~ O/O's
Posting rate: On Hiatus until June 2nd.

Neroon

I've moved this from Bad and Ugly as this is a political thread.

I fail to see what this has to do with RPers especially, even though I do agree with the political sentiment expressed here.
Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes

My yeas and nays     Grovelling Apologies     Wiki
Often confused for some guy

Trieste

Somehow, I don't think that two people are responsible for something like this. First of all, the only date I can find in the article is 13 years - which is when the couple met. That happens to be just when Blair was coming into office. Somehow, I doubt that they saw the election and said "Oh! Mister Blair will take care of us! Let's get married and make the world's population pressure worse!". The kind of system that supports such a thing really tends to be years in the making, because in the first years people are on the lookout for faults. We are seeing it in the US with the health insurance reforms - the opponents of the current legislation tell us precisely what we should be worried about and they search out the gross examples.

Second of all, does your country not have a party system like the US? Did you not renounce monarchy in all but name? The centuries of blaming every governmental problem on a single person or a pair of people came to an end along with divine right. I found this particular quote especially damning:

"'It cost too much to carrying on working as we were actually better off unemployed,' said Mr Davey."

This speaks of more than just one person or one party's liberal spending spree. This speaks of a systematic problem, wherein you have workers who have lost hope. That means you need to work on the job structure, and make it more inconvenient to be on public assistance than to work one or two jobs. The trick is that you need to do this without humiliation, because for every Davey family and every Octomom, there are a hundred families that genuinely need the assistance. They don't deserve to be humiliated. It's humiliating enough to have to ask for help from the government.

Third of all, did you miss the part where unemployment is soaring throughout most of the developed world? It has little to do with Labour or Conservative or Republican or whatever (although I'm not saying they helped the situation) and more to do with a bunch of terrible circumstances descending on us all at once. Those who want to work in the US can't get much either, and we don't give a crap about Labour Party, BNP, or the Queen herself.

auroraChloe

Quote from: Stan' on April 16, 2010, 11:56:48 AM
...this is what you get when you keep Labour in.  Those that don't want to work get rich with benefits, while those who want to work but can't get nothing.

The Davey family haven't worked in 9 years, because the bitch of a mother realised that by popping out more and more weans, she's better off than if she was working.

Thank Mr. Brown and Mr. Blair. 


that crap has been going on in the states for ever. 

between these leeches and the grossly wealthy, those in the middle aint got a chance.

a/a 8/21/17

GeekFury

Happens alot around my bit, hell I know of people who get pregnant with 4 kids just to get a nice big house, yet I'm unepmployed but can't get benefits as I have enheritance in the bank yet the jb markets F'ed beyond repair, it's a sad state of affairs the UK's in.

Soran

If anyone believes changing the party in power changes anything, then think again... these are preened peacocks, selected by the ruling elite that we are ALLOWED to vote for....that does not constitute a democracy in the true sense of the word. (I won't mention that again... sorry!)

And yes, they are leeches who are dropping kids to stay on benefit... the ultimate scam.

Stan'

QuoteI fail to see what this has to do with RPers especially.

It doesn't.  But a Canadian RPer isn't exactly going to be voting in next month's General Election over here...

And Mr Gordon Brown and My Tony Blair are just two people in a long line of Ministers that are to blame.  Everyone is aware of the current state of the Benefits System, yet they are doing bugger all about it.  Instead, they'd rather be taking advantage of their own benefits and expenses instead.

Trieste

Quote from: Stan' on April 16, 2010, 08:11:49 PM
Everyone is aware of the current state of the Benefits System, yet they are doing bugger all about it.  Instead, they'd rather be taking advantage of their own benefits and expenses instead.

What would you like to see done, in specific and concrete terms?

September

Nobody should be able to claim £42k a year without contributing anything to the economy.  I suggest capping benefit payments per person so they never exceed what they'd earn if they were on the minimum wage (about £11k).
Some of my ons.

Trieste

Except that having kids while being a single parent and making minimum wage means that assistance is gotten at least for the kids, so you'd be basically screwing them there... especially if the person could prove they've been trying to find work but just could not.

Jude

#11
I agree their behavior is disgusting and the law should not allow for it, but as a reader of this article you need to be aware of the dangers of anecdotal evidence.  This article gives no statistics or facts about how widespread this problem is, so there's no context to put this abuse in.  It is possible (though exceedingly unlikely) that they are the only abusers of this system throughout the entire UK.  The question isn't "do welfare queens exist," it's "how prevalent are they," and "for every dollar that goes to people like this, how much is going to people who legitimately need help?"

No system is perfect, it's important to ascertain if the Daveys are the baby or the Bathwater so that you know what to toss out.

The emotional outpouring of reactionary outrage is understandable, but doesn't lead to cogent analysis.

I know in America there's a stereotype of lazy minorities receiving the majority of welfare assistance, and while minorities do receive disproportionate shares (as they also tend to be poorer), of any group the largest amount of money goes to rural white mothers.

Beguile's Mistress

Quote from: Jude on April 18, 2010, 11:34:46 AM
I know in America there's a stereotype of lazy minorities receiving the majority of welfare assistance, and while minorities do receive disproportionate shares (as they also tend to be poorer), of any group the largest amount of money goes to rural white mothers.

I volunteer at a hospital, helping with the children.  Through that I came into contact with a single-parent support group that has a roughly 4:1 ratio women to men.  Casual reference to this demographic showed me that at least 4 out of the 20 women in the group saw nothing wrong with continuing to have children by any man available in order to stay on welfare.  Of the other 16 women in the group about half were employed and had child-care assistance from a family member or friend.  The others who were unemployed were in situations where child-care (i.e., day care) was prohibitively expensive.  Also, any chance for benefits for health care would be adversely affected by even the smallest amount of income as was demonstrated among those who worked and had a relative/friend taking care of their child. 

Most benefits are structured to encourage people to work by not giving them enough aid to exist properly.  Child support enforcement is a joke for most of the women in the group and the men who joined payed child support and didn't receive benefits of any kind.

Weighing the options and discovering that you're better off staying home and raising your children yourself while the taxpayers support you is a sad state of affairs but one that many choose.

Jude

20 people in the same location is not a representative sample.  That statistic is meaningless.

Beguile's Mistress

#14
Quote from: Jude on April 18, 2010, 11:57:36 AM
20 people in the same location is not a representative sample.  That statistic is meaningless.

Please read carefully as I didn't cite it as a statistic, simply a casual reference to a demographic I have knowledge of.  My comments are anecdotal and not meant to imply I 'studied' the situation. 

There are reasons why things happen and that is all I was attempting to discuss.

EDIT:  Also, unless studied by a qualified and impartial analyst statistics tend to be misleading.

i.e.,  Mike and Joe ran a race.  Mike came in second and Joe finished next to last.  Now, unless you know it's a two-man race you have no idea where either man placed in relation to the other.

GeekFury

Quote from: Trieste on April 18, 2010, 11:33:20 AM
Except that having kids while being a single parent and making minimum wage means that assistance is gotten at least for the kids, so you'd be basically screwing them there... especially if the person could prove they've been trying to find work but just could not.

Thing is, she's not a single mother and her husband left his job because he'd make more on benefits.

Personally I think if you're on benefits and not actively looking for a job you should get a family of 4's benefits and if you want to squeeze out more kids they should be take  away and put in an orphanage or with a family that's not using them just to get more money. They again I have the extream idea people like that should be chemically castrated so they can't have more kids if they intend to do it to cheat the state, or some form of restriction on their spawning.

*Waits for off world minning colonies to put these people in.*

Trieste

Would you mind explaining the benefit of taking these children out of parental care and placing them in group care (orphanages, foster homes, etc) when both of them are going to be state-supported anyway in a case like this? Given that group care homes have been famous in the past and are currently famous for producing mal-adjusted children, and given that a large proportion of the homeless population (which remains a burden on either the church or the state or both through assistance programs) consists of the mentally ill and the mal-adjusted, it doesn't seem like a particularly expedient solution, Geekfury.

GeekFury

It's not practicule, but I don't know,I just hate people that are doing this just to make more money, I mean while I'm looking for work, all my family works, they bust their asses to support their families yet this family think 'Fuck it I'll just breed and leech', and what makes it even more despicable, is she wants MORE kids, I ( Ok not me as I'm currently unemployed, but my family ) should not have to pay taxes to support people who give up their jobs to live on benefits then whine it's not enough, you know what? If you want money pull your thumb out your ass and work! If I want money I do odd jobs for family, imediate and exdended or even family friends. We don't have the luxaries of holidays abroad either yet they want more money so they can afford it? GET A JOB! Really gets my goat to think people like that who get fed with a silver spoon can turn around and ask for more.

Trieste

And that is somewhat the point of such articles: to make you react without thinking. It's also yellow journalism, which is irresponsible on the part of the publication.

Oniya

Quote from: Trieste on April 18, 2010, 11:33:20 AM
Except that having kids while being a single parent and making minimum wage means that assistance is gotten at least for the kids, so you'd be basically screwing them there... especially if the person could prove they've been trying to find work but just could not.

Except that the Daveys aren't a single-parent family, and have out and out said that they are choosing not to work.  There needs to be some incentive for the recipients to seek employment - and some kind of assistance to help them gain work skills if needed (possibly in the form of vouchers that replace a certain amount of the cash benefits.)
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Trieste

No, but if there is a cap placed on all benefits, that doesn't just affect the Daveys.

That said, I don't know why there is not a more developed voucher system in place.

Vekseid

Quote from: Jude on April 18, 2010, 11:57:36 AM
20 people in the same location is not a representative sample.  That statistic is meaningless.

Anecdotal evidence is a problem where 1) There is no other legitimate evidence to support the conclusion or 2) When you are trying to derive actual statistics from it.

There is other legitimate evidence, and she was making no real attempt to derive genuine statistics - just that four of the twenty that she personally dealt with had this issue. When you actually hear someone make the statement that they want another child for the welfare check - that exists as a piece of evidence. It's another incident and should at the very least be made note of.

The word of professionals in the field is actually quite important - it's a far more reliable gauge of when or why to do a study than political expediency.

I've personally experienced the "make any money at all and you don't get care" trap myself. It's easy to state that that sort of trap cannot lead to good things, it's easy to intuit the reasons for that, and at the same time, it's easy to point out that data gathering is important - but it exists as a reminder of the reality of the situation.

September

Quote from: Trieste on April 18, 2010, 12:15:28 PM
Would you mind explaining the benefit of taking these children out of parental care and placing them in group care (orphanages, foster homes, etc) when both of them are going to be state-supported anyway in a case like this?

Obviously it would be to discourage parents from irresponsibly creating children they can not afford to feed and care for.
Some of my ons.

Trieste

If it were obvious, I wouldn't have had to ask, would I? :)

Vekseid

Quote from: September on April 18, 2010, 04:45:49 PM
Obviously it would be to discourage parents from irresponsibly creating children they can not afford to feed and care for.

I think all of this is dancing around the unfortunately necessary topic of whether or not we should sterilize people.

Jude

#25
Quote from: Vekseid on April 18, 2010, 05:52:42 PM
I think all of this is dancing around the unfortunately necessary topic of whether or not we should sterilize people.
If they're on government benefits, I'd say it's within our right to demand they be sterilized if they want to keep receiving their paychecks.  They can always turn them down and put their children up for adoption (or if this rule is in place they'd probably not have them at all).

EDIT:  I'd say the cap should be 2-3 kids that we'll support you on before you have to get sterilized (plus there should be some sort of inquiry into your spending habits to make sure you're not treating your government handout as disposal income as these people obviously are).  Just require receipts for everything and accounting of where your funds go.

September

Or they could - shock horror - get jobs like the rest of us had to do.
Some of my ons.

Trieste

If Random Young Woman were living off of Random Boyfriend, and kept having kids so that he'd have to pay more money and so that he could not leave her out of moral obligation, he would not have the right to demand that she sterilize herself or allow him to sterilize her.

The government sure as hell doesn't have that right either. They have the right to change the laws, they have the right to withhold supplements, sure. They can giveth and taketh away all they like but forced sterilization is not acceptable.

Jude

Quote from: Trieste on April 18, 2010, 06:13:44 PM
If Random Young Woman were living off of Random Boyfriend, and kept having kids so that he'd have to pay more money and so that he could not leave her out of moral obligation, he would not have the right to demand that she sterilize herself or allow him to sterilize her.
Difference is, random boyfriend only has to continue to pay so long as he continues to get her pregnant and father these kids.  He can stop fucking her at any point and he's not liable.  What exactly can the government do?

Quote from: Trieste on April 18, 2010, 06:13:44 PM
The government sure as hell doesn't have that right either. They have the right to change the laws, they have the right to withhold supplements, sure. They can giveth and taketh away all they like but forced sterilization is not acceptable.
It's a false analogy, the two are completely different.  For one, you could argue if the Government has a moral responsibility to pay (and even if you agree yes, I'm sure you can agree the responsibility of the father is much stronger).

It's not forced sterilization, it's a choice; money & sterilization or nothing.  They can always choose nothing, an abortion, or to stop getting pregnant to begin with.

Trieste

Quote from: Jude on April 18, 2010, 06:20:21 PM
Difference is, random boyfriend only has to continue to pay so long as he continues to get her pregnant and father these kids.  He can stop fucking her at any point and he's not liable.  What exactly can the government do?
It's a false analogy, the two are completely different.  For one, you could argue if the Government has a moral responsibility to pay (and even if you agree yes, I'm sure you can agree the responsibility of the father is much stronger).

It's not forced sterilization, it's a choice; money & sterilization or nothing.  They can always choose nothing, an abortion, or to stop getting pregnant to begin with.

The point that continues to be lost - and one that you pointed out, Jude, and since seem to have forgotten - is that there is no evidence that this is widespread, and any legislation meant to curb the excesses of folks like the Daveys are going to hit families not cheating the system as well. They are painted with the same broad strokes, and whatever system is devised will be open to fraud. The non-cheaters are the majority of the system. What happened to figuring out which is the baby, again?

The boyfriend in my analogy will still have to pay child support by our current laws, and he still doesn't have the right to demand sterilization-or-I-walk.

Quote from: September on April 18, 2010, 06:12:08 PM
Or they could - shock horror - get jobs like the rest of us had to do.

Did you actually have a point, or were you just wanting to take a moment to gloat at your own ability to be smug and glib and all those things?

HairyHeretic

Ok folks, let's keep things civil, hmm?
Hairys Likes, Dislikes, Games n Stuff

Cattle die, kinsmen die
You too one day shall die
I know a thing that will never die
Fair fame of one who has earned it.

Trieste


Beguile's Mistress

Quote from: Jude on April 18, 2010, 06:20:21 PM
It's not forced sterilization, it's a choice; money & sterilization or nothing.  They can always choose nothing, an abortion, or to stop getting pregnant to begin with.

It seems like blackmail.

There are too many variables to settle this.  All we can do is argue the way we feel and what we believe and that's the reason the laws are the way they are.  Everyone who has a voice and depends on the votes of their constituents has a hand in forming the laws that govern these benefits. 

Jude

#33
Do you mean that he has to pay child support to the children he fathered, or all of them?  If it's all of them, I wasn't aware of that (could very well be the case--I think it varies state to state right?).  I meant he can keep his costs the same by no longer fathering any of her children (which is roughly analogous to forcing the mother to be sterilized if she goes over the limit of children in the government situation in my opinion).

I can understand where you're coming from though, some people are fundamentally not OK with removing someone's reproductive potential, even in the case of child molesters (not that I'm saying that's you).  I personally think that's a principled stand which can't be debated since... it's based on principles.  If that's the case in how you feel about it, then we'll just have to agree to disagree or discuss alternatives (I'm sure there are other ways of handling the situation which solve the problem without such drastic measures now that I think about it).

The rest of your point is well-taken though and you're absolutely right about my indiscretion there.  If this isn't a frequently occurring phenomenon then there's no need to worry about it, but if it is, I would support those rules (in lieu of a better idea).

EDIT:  Cleaned up some grammatical errors and strange word choices.

Vekseid

Quote from: September on April 18, 2010, 06:12:08 PM
Or they could - shock horror - get jobs like the rest of us had to do.

Right now, if they got any sort of decent job, they'd lose all of the benefits. That's the trap of the welfare system and part of the reason why I'm so vehemently opposed to 'Fairtax'. That sort of thing actively encourages a welfare class.

What I'd love to see is actually providing rewards for partial effort. The Earned Income Tax Credit and the Making Work Pay credits are absolutely brilliant in this regard. "We'll help you get started, but you need to take part" is miles ahead of "If you make a cent get bent."

Quote from: Trieste on April 18, 2010, 06:13:44 PM
The government sure as hell doesn't have that right either. They have the right to change the laws, they have the right to withhold supplements, sure. They can giveth and taketh away all they like but forced sterilization is not acceptable.

That's fine if the government can also absolve itself of responsibility for the children, which is even harder to politically tolerate. What is going to happen, revoke citizenship?

Oniya

I'd have to point out that there are people out there who are financially and emotionally able to care for the children that these people are using as meal tickets.  And if the children were removed from situations where they were being used as meal tickets, then the abusers of the system might catch a clue that repeated pregnancies weren't going to benefit them any.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Beguile's Mistress

Who decides this children should be taken away from their families?
Who decides where these children should go?
Where do the children go?  Are they adopted?  Are they put in foster care?
Where, in this world, is the foster care system better than the welfare system?
You would be exchanging one system of paying people that have children for another system of paying people that take care of children.
No matter what, it's still the children who are punished most.

Serephino

I think I'm with Veks right now.  The system as is fucking sucks!  People like this annoy me to no end because they use up funds so they aren't available for honest people that actually need it. 

I'm disabled.  I can't go look for a job that pays more.  I'm stuck.  Yet I can't afford health insurance, and I can't get Medical Assistance.  My benefits, which aren't enough to live off of, are too much.  I recently had my food stamp benefits reviewed, and even though my income hasn't changed, they lowered it!  I too could be better off if I stopped getting benefits and acquired a few kids.

One guy I dated in high school had a mom like that.  She didn't work, but rather lived off of child support, food stamps, and SSI that she got from one of the boys being autistic.  They didn't go on fancy vacations, but they lived pretty well.   

RubySlippers

Might I make a case here if children are important to a nations future and the parents overall are not breaking any laws here and no one made that case then what is wrong

I would say having children will make the future society stronger even if the girls turn out like the mother they have then more children and there is no proof they will turn out the same way.


GeekFury

Quote from: September on April 18, 2010, 06:12:08 PM
Or they could - shock horror - get jobs like the rest of us had to do.

While I admit that would be the best idea, I myself am struggling tof ind one ( Though I don't have a kid to feed let along half a dozen. ) but I agree with Vekseid, it might just be best then to sterlize them if they think poping out spawn entitles them to more money. Otherwise it's normalize all benefits to that of a 4 person family and if they want more they have to find away to subsadize it, if even via work based scheme like public service and what have you.

DarklingAlice

Quote from: Beguile's Mistress on April 18, 2010, 07:58:06 PM
Who decides this children should be taken away from their families?
Who decides where these children should go?
Where do the children go?  Are they adopted?  Are they put in foster care?
Where, in this world, is the foster care system better than the welfare system?
You would be exchanging one system of paying people that have children for another system of paying people that take care of children.
No matter what, it's still the children who are punished most.

This seems unduly cynical. In what way would the children be harmed by being adopted? Adoptive parents generally must meet certain economic standards and receive scrutiny from child welfare agencies for the first several years. The children would be in a more stable environment that actively desired them for purposes beyond a pay-check. Further, most foster parents do not rely on state money as their sole (or even majority) source of income, allowing the foster family to be less of a burden on the state than the welfare family.

Now, under what circumstances you can remove children is a contentious issue. I do not feel that I know the details of this case well enough to provide an opinion on whether it should be done in this particular instance. However, Oniya makes the very good point that there are plenty of stable adoptive and foster families worldwide, and to equate them with welfare families ignores the benefits (especially in the areas of health and education) that an adoptive family can give a child.

Quote from: RubySlippers on April 18, 2010, 08:27:28 PM
Might I make a case here if children are important to a nations future and the parents overall are not breaking any laws here and no one made that case then what is wrong

I would say having children will make the future society stronger even if the girls turn out like the mother they have then more children and there is no proof they will turn out the same way.

It is fallacy to think that societies are made stronger by increasing their population. This works up to a certain limiting factor at which point the population begins to struggle under the weight of its members. This can be seen all across nature and humans are no exception. Having children is beneficial to societies  when it stabilizes their population size and replenishes it after disasters and losses. Blind population increase leads to a peak catastrophe.

Quote from: GeekFury on April 19, 2010, 02:59:58 AM
While I admit that would be the best idea, I myself am struggling tof ind one ( Though I don't have a kid to feed let along half a dozen. ) but I agree with Vekseid, it might just be best then to sterlize them if they think poping out spawn entitles them to more money. Otherwise it's normalize all benefits to that of a 4 person family and if they want more they have to find away to subsadize it, if even via work based scheme like public service and what have you.

There is no basis for the government to sterilize anyone, nor do I really think you could find one. If you want to give economic incentives for people to have themselves sterilized, maybe that's okay. If you only want to extend economic benefits for having children to the first x children, maybe that's okay. If you want to put in a child cap, even that may be okay. But sterilizing someone crosses the line. It is less visually graphic but analogous to cutting of the hands of thieves. It is a disproportionate response that has permanent consequences.
For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, elegant, and wrong.


Jude

If someone abuses their ability to reproduce in order to make money in a damaging, ethically dubious way, I don't see the problem with taking away their ability to have children.

DarklingAlice

Quote from: Jude on April 19, 2010, 04:29:37 PM
If someone abuses their ability to reproduce in order to make money in a damaging, ethically dubious way, I don't see the problem with taking away their ability to have children.

You have mentioned that before. Do you actually have an argument? Or just a feeling?

I agree this should be criminal, but even if a law is made against it, why should it be punished differently than any other crime? Forced alteration of the body violates some very key rights to the control of your own flesh, it is a permanent solution for a crime that probably does not warrant life-long punishment, and it is cruel and unusual. What could possibly give any government body the right to forcibly sterilize someone?
For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, elegant, and wrong.


Beguile's Mistress

#43
Quote from: DarklingAlice on April 19, 2010, 08:21:48 AM
This seems unduly cynical. In what way would the children be harmed by being adopted? Adoptive parents generally must meet certain economic standards and receive scrutiny from child welfare agencies for the first several years. The children would be in a more stable environment that actively desired them for purposes beyond a pay-check.

I think it's naive to believe it right to take children away from their parents simply because you've decided they are abusing a benefit system and nothing else.

It's also naive to believe that foster homes are better for these children than parents who love and want them but feel it's better to take benefits from the government than subject their children to substandard housing and nutrition as well as leave them to the mercy of relatives, friends and strangers for care while both parents work to support the family and earn less that they get in benefits.

A system that provides parents with the ability to work it this way is what needs to be changed, not where the children live.


QuoteFurther, most foster parents do not rely on state money as their sole (or even majority) source of income, allowing the foster family to be less of a burden on the state than the welfare family.

Most families receiving benefits don't do it for that reason either.

However, I personally know of two foster families who take in children on a temporary basis until a more permanent position can be found.  The children are there from one week to thirty days yet the family receives a full 30-day benefit check for the stay.  No money is spent on these children other than to provide food and housing.  One family, in one month, housed more than 20 children and received a full month benefit for each of them.  The longest stay was 17 days, the shortest stay was less than 12 hours. 

And, yes, I was told by both that they do this because it's easier on them, they don't get attached to the kids, they don't have to worry about school, doctors and dentists and they don't have to by clothes.  They do it for the money.  Now, both have children of their own and neither adult works.  They live off the state subsidies. 

According to the thinking supported here, not only should the foster children be taken away from them but so should their own children.

QuoteNow, under what circumstances you can remove children is a contentious issue. I do not feel that I know the details of this case well enough to provide an opinion on whether it should be done in this particular instance. However, Oniya makes the very good point that there are plenty of stable adoptive and foster families worldwide, and to equate them with welfare families ignores the benefits (especially in the areas of health and education) that an adoptive family can give a child.

I don't want to live in a country where someone can go into a home and remove children simply for a political reason.  I don't have to agree with parents who abuse the system this way.  They may be unethical but they aren't criminals, though.  I certainly don't want to be the one to tell a child "Your mommy and daddy aren't your mommy and daddy any longer because I don't like the way they get the money to feed and house and clothe you."




Jude

Quote from: DarklingAlice on April 19, 2010, 05:10:14 PM
You have mentioned that before. Do you actually have an argument? Or just a feeling?
I'm not seeing you put forth a logical argument either.  Claiming something is a right as a basis for your judgment is sort of... well... not an argument.  That's a statement of principle, and if you believe, on principle, that people should not be sterilized by the government under any circumstances, then that's your prerogative.  I can't argue with that.

As far as your analogy goes, cutting off someone's hand severely inhibits them in many ways.  Being sterilized just means you can't reproduce.  It's more akin to removing someone's ability to steal on a cognitive level than cutting off their hand; there's no collateral damage (well, there may be relatively minor collateral health effects I'm not aware of, but I'm fairly sure it's a negligible risk or else people would never voluntarily get their tubes tied).

There are also different degrees of sterilization, and perhaps my terminology is wrong, but I know having a vasectomy is a reversible process.  Whatever they do to prevent people from reproducing it doesn't have to be permanent.
Quote from: DarklingAlice on April 19, 2010, 05:10:14 PM
I agree this should be criminal, but even if a law is made against it, why should it be punished differently than any other crime? Forced alteration of the body violates some very key rights to the control of your own flesh
People's rights are removed all the time when they break laws.  You have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but that doesn't make the death penalty (the taking of your life) unconstitutional.  Granted, there are some rights which are universal and extended even to prisoners.
Quote from: DarklingAlice on April 19, 2010, 05:10:14 PM
it is a permanent solution for a crime that probably does not warrant life-long punishment, and it is cruel and unusual. What could possibly give any government body the right to forcibly sterilize someone?
It could be done in a cruel and unusual fashion, but I'm willing to bet there's a relatively surgical, clean way to remove someone's ability to reproduce with minimal invasiveness and a relative degree of civility.  You're using hyperbolic language to describe it as something other than a simple medical procedure someone would have to undergo if they want to continue to receive benefits.  They aren't deprived of choice completely; if they want to keep their ability to reproduce, all they have to do is stop taking the government benefits.

I just don't think that such a punishment is cruel or unusual; the terms are ambiguous enough that to some people it may be seen that way.  That doesn't, however, make you right, or me wrong.  The language is imprecise.

While I don't think this particular course of action is fundamentally wrong, it's probably not necessary.  An enforced "child cap" would be a fair alternative, but you're going to step on people's rights no matter how this goes.  However, I think you have the right to tell people what to do when they're receiving money from you.  If they don't want to, they can refuse it.  Sorta like when your parents told you, "my house, my rules."

RubySlippers

Didn't the UK support pretty much all the major human rights conventions and treaties and vote for the UN Declaration of Human Rights? If so wouldn't sterilizing anyone violate their fundamental rights to reproduction. And removing the child from generally fit parents would violate their rights under the same agreements and the treaties regarding childrens rights in the UN. I just don't see how any civilized nation can do what you propose and get away with it unless you want to go the way of China and piss on international law among civilized nations.

I will again not they are not breaking any laws are they and not doing anything the UK system is not allowing to happen under their guidelines, so why make such a big deal about it? These people are not being fraudulant in any way.


DarklingAlice

Beguile's Mistress:
I think we might be misunderstanding each other. As I said:

Quote from: DarklingAlice on April 19, 2010, 08:21:48 AM
I do not feel that I know the details of this case well enough to provide an opinion on whether it should be done in this particular instance.

I am clearly presuming no authority, power, or even giving an opinion on this particular issue. I was responding to your post as an opinion on the entire institution of foster care and adoption, as that is what I took it to be. To repeat, I do not have enough information to say what should be done in this particular instance, I objected to the perceived idea that it is never a good idea to employ the institutions of foster care and adoption.

Jude:
You hold the burden of proof making the ontologically positive statement that also runs against established convention, specifically the claim that governments have a right to sterilize their civilians. Your talk of principle seems to be an attempt to side-step that obligation. If you truly believe it an irreconcilable matter of principle, what was the point of asserting your indemonstrable principle multiple times? By your own admission it would have been impossible for you to have anything further to add to the conversation.

Since you insist on a logical argument I will oblige: Your premise fails because it lacks proportionality to the infraction and, more importantly because the underlying premise is non-universalizable. Your premise as derived from the statement:

Quote from: Jude on April 19, 2010, 04:29:37 PM
If someone abuses their ability to reproduce in order to make money in a damaging, ethically dubious way, I don't see the problem with taking away their ability to have children.

If someone abuses their ability to perform [action x] in order to make money in a damaging, ethically dubious way, [there is no] problem with taking away their ability to perform [action x].

For the sake of justice such statements need to be universal and do their best to share a common punishment. There is a reason we do not take an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Rather we punish disparate infractions similarly with (to characterize it with broad strokes) fine, imprisonment, and in the rarest most heinous cases death. This is done because it ensures proportionality in punishment. Without such a system justice is no longer blind nor balanced.

To take away the physical ability to perform X in one case via surgery, and in another via imprisonment for similar crimes is unjust. We do not lobotomise people who defraud governments in other ways in order to remove their ability to defraud a government, we imprison them. The burden is on you to show that this case of defrauding a government is substantially different to warrant different penalty.
For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, elegant, and wrong.


Trieste

Quote from: Vekseid on April 18, 2010, 07:16:36 PM
That's fine if the government can also absolve itself of responsibility for the children, which is even harder to politically tolerate. What is going to happen, revoke citizenship?

That's sort of the problem, isn't it? No politician worth his salary will offer up a solution that cuts off kids' care, which is part of the reason why 'repeal and replace' is being painted by opponents as 'removing health care from underprivileged children'. Kids drag up all sorts of emotional responses. If they didn't, we really wouldn't be human, though, would we? *has been watching too much V*

Quote from: Jude on April 19, 2010, 05:57:34 PM
You have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but that doesn't make the death penalty (the taking of your life) unconstitutional.

Actually, this can be (and has been vehemently) debated. Current law says that it is not unconstitutional, so legally it is not. Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is named by the founding fathers in the Declaration of Independence as 'unalienable rights' endowed by the Creator. It never made it into the US constitution BUT it made it into the Massachusetts constitution. Ergo, I could argue that the death penalty in my state is unconstitutional, and it has in fact been declared unconstitutional in MA. We have not murdered a criminal in nearly 50 years.

This is a side note, and I'm not going to get into the full debate in this thread, but I wanted to point out that your statement is either personal opinion or partial fact, but not absolutely true.

Quote from: Jude on April 18, 2010, 06:37:44 PM
I can understand where you're coming from though, some people are fundamentally not OK with removing someone's reproductive potential, even in the case of child molesters (not that I'm saying that's you).  I personally think that's a principled stand which can't be debated since... it's based on principles.  If that's the case in how you feel about it, then we'll just have to agree to disagree or discuss alternatives (I'm sure there are other ways of handling the situation which solve the problem without such drastic measures now that I think about it).

The rest of your point is well-taken though and you're absolutely right about my indiscretion there.  If this isn't a frequently occurring phenomenon then there's no need to worry about it, but if it is, I would support those rules (in lieu of a better idea).

Yes, it's a principle. It would be a barbaric law, in my opinion.

I actually was thinking about Oniya's mention of vouchers, and I think that would solve a good amount of the problems. If people were forced to spend the money they got on ONLY food instead of, say, $200 Air Jordans (hurr hurr showing my age) then they might not be so eager to have another mouth to feed. Also, I think that federal assistance money should be banned from being liquidated into cash (unless you get some sort of unrestricted stipend, which should only happen for those on full disability), and it should be absolutely banned from buying anything with an alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, or high sugar content. (e.g. it would have to be spent on juice, not kool-aid, or peanut butter instead of Fruit Roll-ups).

Cheka Man

Once unmarried mothers were treated like scum, and rightly, that needed to change, but it seems the volunteers have been put in with the conscripts.

I have never got anyone pregnant in my life, and don't really want children either, but I live off benifits. Why should I work, when the higher-paying jobs that would make it are all forever out of my reach? I will never be famous (nor do I want to be famous, it's frankly not worth it.) I will never own car parks or be a lawyer or a doctor or a politician or a published writer.Why give up my freedom and answer to a boss when I can be free,as long as I don't break the law?

Jude

#49
Quote from: DarklingAlice on April 19, 2010, 07:35:09 PM
You hold the burden of proof making the ontologically positive statement that also runs against established convention,
Established convention holds weight simply for being that now?  That's an is-ought fallacy.
Quote from: DarklingAlice on April 19, 2010, 07:35:09 PMspecifically the claim that governments have a right to sterilize their civilians. Your talk of principle seems to be an attempt to side-step that obligation. If you truly believe it an irreconcilable matter of principle, what was the point of asserting your indemonstrable principle multiple times? By your own admission it would have been impossible for you to have anything further to add to the conversation.
Which is why I tried to move into a different direction by my own admission several times.  I said there are probably less severe ways of dealing with the situation (but simply re-iterated that I don't that situation would be innately unjust).
Quote from: DarklingAlice on April 19, 2010, 07:35:09 PM
Since you insist on a logical argument I will oblige: Your premise fails because it lacks proportionality to the infraction and, more importantly because the underlying premise is non-universalizable. Your premise as derived from the statement:
Kantian ethics?  There are numerous problems with them, I won't bother to parrot at you what you can look up on Wikipedia.
Quote from: DarklingAlice on April 19, 2010, 07:35:09 PM
If someone abuses their ability to perform [action x] in order to make money in a damaging, ethically dubious way, [there is no] problem with taking away their ability to perform [action x].
You're universalizing what I said in a way that makes your argument, yet there are countless other ways of "zooming out."
Quote from: DarklingAlice on April 19, 2010, 07:35:09 PM
For the sake of justice such statements need to be universal and do their best to share a common punishment. There is a reason we do not take an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Rather we punish disparate infractions similarly with (to characterize it with broad strokes) fine, imprisonment, and in the rarest most heinous cases death. This is done because it ensures proportionality in punishment. Without such a system justice is no longer blind nor balanced.
Where exactly did you prove that this was even a disproportionate response?  You've merely assumed such.  Some people don't care about their ability to reproduce (and would gladly give it up) and to others it's a precious commodity.  We're wandered into the realm of personal preference, which is precisely where Kantian ethics begin to break down.
Quote from: DarklingAlice on April 19, 2010, 07:35:09 PM
To take away the physical ability to perform X in one case via surgery, and in another via imprisonment for similar crimes is unjust. We do not lobotomise people who defraud governments in other ways in order to remove their ability to defraud a government, we imprison them. The burden is on you to show that this case of defrauding a government is substantially different to warrant different penalty.
Well, yes, because lobotomizing people for defrauding governments hurts them in numerous ways.  It leaves them unable to perform a multitude of other tasks, crippling them mentally.

Sterilizing someone... just sterilizes them.  There may be residual effects which occur as a result of that, but the act itself doesn't impair their ability to think in a certain way, or act many others.  They just can't get someone pregnant.  You're disabling someone's ability to do one particular thing, whereas lobotomy disables a family of unrelated actions.  Isn't this that very proportionality you were discussing?  If the crime is excess reproduction, what better solution is there than stopping that reproduction?

The whole notion of reproductive rights is without merit in my view.  I've never seen a solid argument put forth backing it up, so I don't understand why I should accept it as a valid "fundamental truth."  At the same time however, I don't expect you to except anything I've but forth, because you're right.  I haven't offered proof.

Not that I'm unwilling to change my point of view on it.  If someone did present me with an argument that resonates with me that explains why reproductive rights are valid, I would change my point of view.  If someone presented me an argument showing how non-invasive, civil methods of sterilization are severely damaging to people outside of their ability to produce, I'd adjust my opinion.  Or you could simply put forth a viable alternative to my proposed solution which is less severe, and I would agree that option is the better choice.

Quote from: Cheka Man on April 19, 2010, 08:02:42 PM
I have never got anyone pregnant in my life, and don't really want children either, but I live off benifits. Why should I work, when the higher-paying jobs that would make it are all forever out of my reach? I will never be famous (nor do I want to be famous, it's frankly not worth it.) I will never own car parks or be a lawyer or a doctor or a politician or a published writer.Why give up my freedom and answer to a boss when I can be free,as long as I don't break the law?
Because you survive off of the hard work of others.  You're only allowed to live the life you do because other people are paying for it, by force, through the way our government is structured.  You're taking advantage of laws which take money from other people at gunpoint (essentially, if you refuse to pay taxes you go to jail) and giving it to you.  In my estimation that's clearly wrong, unless you are somehow incapable of working for a living.

Cheka Man

I have Asperger's Syndrome. And I give my benifits to my parents who look after me, I only see £50 a month of it in pocket money,although I'm 31 years old,so I certainly don't live like a proverbial prince. Still, I have my freedom.If I could be a paid writer I would, but I have nothing publishable.

RubySlippers

What again is wrong they are still not breaking any laws and the government in the UK is Allowing This, so maybe the government is the one being immoral they make the laws and regulations that are followed. This family is just taking advantage of the system and that is natural if a wolf has a choice of hunting or going after unprotected livestock they will generally go after the easy meal barring a gatekeeper such as a farmer with a gun and dog being in the way. The government can be seen as the farmer.

So if the government fails in its role is it really the fault of the family to have the majority of the blame or the ones that are supposed to be in the decision making char as to who gets these benefits.

Stan'

#52
QuoteSo if the government fails in its role is it really the fault of the family to have the majority of the blame or the ones that are supposed to be in the decision making char as to who gets these benefits.

This was the origin of my argument.  I wasn't only moaning about the fact they were spounging off of the Government.

It is titled "To "British" RPers..." because I'm warning people not to vote Labour in when the General Election is next month, otherwise we're going to keep seeing more and more of this happening.  Between paying benefits to able-bodied people like Mr Davey, and giving immigrants free things, it's only going to get worse under Labour.  Of course, there's no guarantee that things will be different under Tories or Lib Dems, but a change is what we need.

Beguile's Mistress

QuoteSo if the government fails in its role is it really the fault of the family to have the majority of the blame or the ones that are supposed to be in the decision making char as to who gets these benefi

Also...

The government that makes the laws is in place to do so because of those who vote for them as well as those who don't vote at all.

I have a friend here in the States who used to moan and groan about a particular political issue and when I got tired of listening I suggested he get up off his bum and do something.

He's gone from a whining layabout who never voted to a very active supporter for his issue and votes in every election. 

So if you see something you don't like get out there and campaign against it.  Write, email and/or phone your government representatives.  Join groups that support your point of view and give the time they need to get the message across.  It's as simple as "put up or shut up" and instead of sitting around complaining, work to change the law or keep your mouth shut.

HairyHeretic

Quote from: Stan' on April 20, 2010, 11:40:25 AM
This was the origin of my argument.  I wasn't only moaning about the fact they were spounging off of the Government.

It is titled "To "British" RPers..." because I'm warning people not to vote Labour in when the General Election is next month, otherwise we're going to keep seeing more and more of this happening.  Between paying benefits to able-bodied people like Mr Davey, and giving immigrants free things, it's only going to get worse under Labour.  Of course, there's no guarantee that things will be different under Tories or Lib Dems, but a change is what we need.

I'd be curious to see how the Lib Dems would do if they took charge. I wouldn't vote Tory if you paid me :) However, since I'm not in the UK anymore, my vote is a moot point anyway.
Hairys Likes, Dislikes, Games n Stuff

Cattle die, kinsmen die
You too one day shall die
I know a thing that will never die
Fair fame of one who has earned it.

Jude

#55
Quote from: Stan' on April 20, 2010, 11:40:25 AM
This was the origin of my argument.  I wasn't only moaning about the fact they were spounging off of the Government.

It is titled "To "British" RPers..." because I'm warning people not to vote Labour in when the General Election is next month, otherwise we're going to keep seeing more and more of this happening.  Between paying benefits to able-bodied people like Mr Davey, and giving immigrants free things, it's only going to get worse under Labour.  Of course, there's no guarantee that things will be different under Tories or Lib Dems, but a change is what we need.
I see your anecdote, and raise you this:  http://www.nowpublic.com/germany_unemployed_man_dies_from_starvation_as_welfare_cutback_reform_in_germany_shows_effect

VOTE LABOR IN UK UNLESS YOU WANT PEOPLE TO STARVE TO DEATH.

Disclaimer:  the preceding post isn't intended to be taken as a serious, literal argument.  It is only intended to point out the absurdity of endorsing voting out an entire political party based on an example cited by one news story without statistics to look at the broader picture.  Product not safe for children under the age of seven.  Please use in a well ventilated room.  Side effects may include:  prosticular fortitude, intestinal-spontaneous-invitro-exposion, and anal warts.

Cheka Man

Vote Lib Dem if you want PR to freeze the Tories out for good.

Stan'

Quote from: Jude on April 20, 2010, 03:17:49 PM
It is only intended to point out the absurdity of endorsing voting out an entire political party based on an example cited by one news story without statistics to look at the broader picture.

You clearly don't live in the United Kingdom, and thus do not know how bad the Labour Government actually is.

Trieste

You clearly don't live in the US, and thus do not know how bad the other side of the governmental coin can get.

Perspective from outside the country, especially on alarmist views like what you've prevented, are not a bad thing. :P

Jude

I'm gonna guess your countrymen don't know how bad things can get either if you feel the need to post this here in an attempt to influence people by blind irrational knee-jerk journalism.

Stan'

We know how bad it can get.

Of course it's interesting to hear people's perspective from other countries, but I think it's safe to say I know more about what's happening in my own country than someone living in North America or mainland Europe, just like I can't give thorough opinions on minor stories in other countries.

Trieste

Ok.

How has the Labour party specifically brought this about? How will another party fix it? What potential problems will that bring up? How will they be solved?

You forget that we already went through our elections more recently, and we have plenty of hot-button topics of our own. I'm sure the US is not the only country to do so, and I'm sure the UK is not the only country that has had a welfare debate. "You don't know! You just don't know!" is not a valid argument. It's perfectly easy to point something out that you don't like, but the real rub is fixing it.

So.

How would you fix it, and why should people vote the way you're saying they should?

Neroon

Looking at it, my cynical answer is that the Labour Party has brought this state of affairs about simply by being in power for the last thirteen-odd years. The fact is, that when one party becomes so dominant, the other side- in this case the Tories- will become increasingly vehement in its condemnations and stories like this will find their way into the news.  The fact that the benefits should have been cut when the husband dropped his job seems to have passed most people by.  Either the story isn't giving all the facts or the family is guilty of benefit fraud.  In either case, it is not the system that is to blame but the individuals making and assessing the benefit claims.  Of course, it is easier to make a party-political point by ignoring these inconvenient facts.

It was exactly like this in '97 when Labour ousted the Tories.  Their campaign was essentially negative, focusing on party sleaze, the unequal society and a damaged economy produced by the previous 18 years of the Conservative government.  The fact that the economy wasn't in that bad a shape (for the first four years of the Labour government, the Tory fiscal plans were strictly adhered to by the then Chanceller, Mr Gordon Brown) passed the electorate by.  Quite simply they were tired of the Conservatives and they wanted the change that Labour, under Tony Blair, promised and as a result, they were willing to swallow the extravagant claims of New Labour about what they would do and about how incompetent and corrupt the Tories were.

The situation today is essentially similar. Gordon Brown is a deeply unpopular figure with the majority of electorate and as a result they are willing to overlook David Cameron's and Nick Clegg's lack of substance if it will get rid of Brown.  Personally, I find this a deeply unfortunate situation as it shows that the campaigns are focusing more on the personalities- and the perceived personalities more than the real personalities, to boot- of the party leaders than on the policies that the parties stand for.  In a sense, this is nothing new: Margaret Thatcher's Conservative win against Michael Foot's Labour Party in the '83 election was essentially a matter of personality.  People were prepared to vote for "that bloody woman" if only because the public's perception of Michael Foot was so poor.  Despite and Oxford degree and a distinguished career in journalism and in parliament, he was portrayed by the press as a bumbling, senile eccentric and as such he- and by extension his party- became unelectable.  It was then, that the Labour party re-evaluated its methods and, to a great extent, its core beliefs to become the powerful publicity machine that won the election in '97.

The trouble with the effectiveness of the New Labour election machine is that it has been copied by the Tories and Liberal Democrats.  Thus we have the Blair-like figures of Cameron and Clegg leading their parties and the emphasis is all on how the country needs a change from Labour and not on the actual policies these two parties represent.  The introduction of the party leader's debates- and Clegg's impressive performance in the first of these- has skewed attention even more to the personalities of the leaders, which is something that I find deeply distasteful.  In Britain, we elect a party to form a government and not a president to rule.

Tony Blair's approach was essentially presidential and it worked in elections against such personality vacua as John Major, William Hague and Iain Duncan Smith.  However, its result has been a weakening of parliamentary democracy to such an extent that the government has been able to introduce most of what it wanted pretty much impeded.  As a result, the Labour party has been able to backtrack on the significant promises that it made in '97.  In education, they removed Grant Maintained Schools only to replace them with Academies, which are essentially the same thing, just with fewer checks on their power.  They promised to widen participation in Higher Education and yet one of their first acts was to impose tuition fees, when even Thatcher's Tories shrank from abolishing free university education.  And they promised to reform the Welfare and Benefit system, the better to close the gap between the rich and the poor.

The trouble is, the reforms that were brought in, with tinkering in the tax system and abolishing the 10% income tax band to replace it with a 20% tax band meant that suddenly, people who were working were faced with such a tax bill that it proved better to be on benefits than to work.  A system of Tax Credits was introduced to prevent this.  However, the claiming of these has proved to be such a complex process that billions in such credits are unclaimed each year, predominantly by those who need them most.  So rather than face such a complex system, people choose not to take low paid jobs, because it's easier and more lucrative to claim Job Seekers' Allowance than it is to take a low paid job and claim Tax Credits.

So to reform the system I would do the following:

1) Abolish tax credits and instead alter the income tax allowances, raising the threshold before income tax is due and reintroducing that 10% tax band

2) Cut a great deal of the bureaucracy out of claiming Job Seekers' Allowance.  Having been in the position of claiming this in January, I have to say that it was a system designed not so much as to help me find work but instead to generate figures for the Office of National Statistics.  The claims advisors wanted me to predominantly reach for unskilled office work rather than teaching work as a) they had no expertise in how to find such jobs and b) teaching counts as professional work and they were facing pressure to downplay the number of professionals unemployed as a result of the economic situation.  As a result I had to run through hoops that had no impact on my finding a job and actually hampered my attempts to find work.

3) Remove the culture of league tables that distort activity.  Benefits offices are judged on how many claims are processed not on how the accuracy of how each claim is dealt with.  People talk with horror about means testing but, in the end, it exists already.  It should be formalised to prevent anomalies of either excessive stinginess or excessive leniency.

I think, that pretty much covers it after my somewhat historical digression.
Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes

My yeas and nays     Grovelling Apologies     Wiki
Often confused for some guy

Stan'

Excellent answer.  Thank you.

Not to mention the fact that Gordon Brown, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, sold HALF of our gold reserves between 1999 and 2002, when the market was at it's lowest for 20 years.  Thanks to his incompetence, we lost BILLIONS of pounds1.  And the Labour Government let it happen.  Tony Blair led us in to an illegal war, and his sheer ignorance to keep refusing to admit he was wrong, is pathetic.  They've already turned us in to a police state, with the millions of CCTV cameras watching everything we do2, and trying desperately to implement biometric ID cards to be carried by everyone, in order to prevent terrorism.  Neither the Tories or Lib Dems want this, nor does the majority of British public.  That's what sums up New Labour.

The majority of Britain does not agree with their policies, nor anything they actually want to do.

Jude

If what you say is true, it sounds like they should not be elected, but you see, this is the difference between cogent debate and perspectiveless journalism.

Neroon

Quote from: Stan' on April 22, 2010, 07:37:26 AM
The majority of Britain does not agree with their policies, nor anything they actually want to do.

Given the average turnout in elections, the majority of Britain don't give a toss and, consequently, get the government they deserve unfortunately for the rest of us.

Looking at things clearly, Stan, do you honestly believe that any of the parties offers a realistic hope of being able to give Britain what it needs?  Frankly, I don't: they are all style over substance and necessarily so to survive the media circus long enough to stand a chance of being elected.
Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes

My yeas and nays     Grovelling Apologies     Wiki
Often confused for some guy

Cheka Man

Personally I think the big parties are the same, and the small parties are nutty.

RubySlippers

Then I suggest try NUTTY for a change and see if they are any better. Seriously.

GeekFury

Quote from: Neroon on April 22, 2010, 02:54:40 PM
Given the average turnout in elections, the majority of Britain don't give a toss and, consequently, get the government they deserve unfortunately for the rest of us.

Looking at things clearly, Stan, do you honestly believe that any of the parties offers a realistic hope of being able to give Britain what it needs?  Frankly, I don't: they are all style over substance and necessarily so to survive the media circus long enough to stand a chance of being elected.

Give us a 'None of the Above' option I say.

Cheka Man

But that might ruin the whole election (is only semi-joking) "And the next Government, is "None of the Above," having secured an amazing 52% of the seats."

Trieste

Heh. "Oh, crap, what do we do now?"

"Well, sir, the nearest runner up is this 'tea party' from the US... they seem to have gotten themselves on the ballot by accusing the legislation of racism..."

HairyHeretic

Just as long as you keep the British Nazi Party out, its ok.
Hairys Likes, Dislikes, Games n Stuff

Cattle die, kinsmen die
You too one day shall die
I know a thing that will never die
Fair fame of one who has earned it.

Cheka Man

To get in  the BNP need two things as well as PR, the ecomony to totally eff up even worse then now, and a Hitler figure with charisama, and the leader of the BNP is no Hitler figure.

GeekFury

If the BNP got in, I'd leave the country, I'm scottish and I don't even support the SNP, fully. *Has to be slightly patriotic.* I say get the Monster Raving Looney party in!

HairyHeretic

They are at least entertaining.
Hairys Likes, Dislikes, Games n Stuff

Cattle die, kinsmen die
You too one day shall die
I know a thing that will never die
Fair fame of one who has earned it.

GeekFury

And madder than a bag of ferrets.

Jude


HairyHeretic

Worse

Up til recently only 'native anglo saxon british' (or something similar) could join their membership. They were forced to change that under EU Law (not that anyone else likely would want to join them).

One of their more interesting ideas is the repatriation of non anglo saxons back to whatever country they ethnically originated from. Doesn't matter if you were born in the UK, or indeed if your parents and grandparents were, if you're not their kind of British, back to the ancestral homeland with you, you immigrant scum!

I believe membership in their little clubhouse is illegal for police, army, and probably a bunch of other professions.
Hairys Likes, Dislikes, Games n Stuff

Cattle die, kinsmen die
You too one day shall die
I know a thing that will never die
Fair fame of one who has earned it.

auroraChloe

Quote from: HairyHeretic on April 23, 2010, 02:37:37 PM
Worse

Up til recently only 'native anglo saxon british' (or something similar) could join their membership. They were forced to change that under EU Law (not that anyone else likely would want to join them).

One of their more interesting ideas is the repatriation of non anglo saxons back to whatever country they ethnically originated from. Doesn't matter if you were born in the UK, or indeed if your parents and grandparents were, if you're not their kind of British, back to the ancestral homeland with you, you immigrant scum!

I believe membership in their little clubhouse is illegal for police, army, and probably a bunch of other professions.

are they often bald and tattooed with swastikas ?

a/a 8/21/17

Oniya

Never mind that both the Angles and the Saxons were immigrants.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

HairyHeretic

Quote from: auroraChloe on April 23, 2010, 02:40:11 PM
are they often bald and tattooed with swastikas ?

I expect some are. It's the smarmy ones in suits you want to watch out for though.

Quote from: Oniya on April 23, 2010, 02:42:59 PM
Never mind that both the Angles and the Saxons were immigrants.

Now, don't go confusing the poor things with facts.

BBC News - BNP call for end to immigration from Muslim nations

Here, see for yourself
Hairys Likes, Dislikes, Games n Stuff

Cattle die, kinsmen die
You too one day shall die
I know a thing that will never die
Fair fame of one who has earned it.

Senti

Quote from: GeekFury on April 22, 2010, 04:05:51 PM
Give us a 'None of the Above' option I say.

My partner always makes his own box just for that, and many folks are doing that as a vote of no confidence so I am lead to believe. Yes it is a spoiled paper but it still must be counted.

I always vote as women have died for me to have that right.

And really dont get me started on the immigrants issue. I am not sure there are any 'pure bred ' Britons' anymore.

(My appologies if I missed points or jumped in.)

Neroon

I must admit, I miss the days when George Harrison bankrolled the Natural Law Party.  Those Party Political broadcasts of Yogic Flying were hilarious.
Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes

My yeas and nays     Grovelling Apologies     Wiki
Often confused for some guy

Oniya

Quote from: Senti on April 23, 2010, 03:09:28 PM
I am not sure there are any 'pure bred ' Britons' anymore.

There aren't really pure-bred anythings any more, unless you're dealing with an extremely insular community.  It's what makes these ethnocentric groups really kind of pathetic.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Stan'

#84
The amazing thing is that the BNP won a handful of seats a little while ago.  It was mainly a protest vote, I'm guessing.

The thing is, some of their immigration policies actually are good ( many immigrants have been cheating the system for years under Labour, applying for child tax credits for kids that aren't even in this country being just one of them ), but it's spoiled by the racism and bigotry that they've piled on top of it.

It's came to the point in the United Kingdom, that any one can come over for a two week holiday, and start calling themselves "British".  The "British" nationality itself doesn't exist any more.

Cheka Man

If the BNP were not grossly racist Nazis/Facists, I'd seriously consider voting for them.However, I can't vote for a party with a lot of basicly evil ideas. Their evil ruins it for me.

Neroon

Quote from: Stan' on April 24, 2010, 07:07:12 AM
The amazing thing is that the BNP won a handful of seats a little while ago.  It was mainly a protest vote, I'm guessing.

The thing is, some of their immigration policies actually are good ( many immigrants have been cheating the system for years under Labour, applying for child tax credits for kids that aren't even in this country being just one of them ), but it's spoiled by the racism and bigotry that they've piled on top of it.

It's came to the point in the United Kingdom, that any one can come over for a two week holiday, and start calling themselves "British".  The "British" nationality itself doesn't exist any more.

Can I have your statistics for the emboldened assertion, please. Frankly, I don't believe it.  I'll agree that there are some immigrants who cheat the system, but without hard data that isn't tainted by party political interest, I'm going to treat this as I do the BNP lie about asylum seekers going to the top of housing waiting lists (look up the 1999 Immigration and Asylum Act) as an assertion that is made so often that when you try to find where it started all you get are various repeats but no real evidence.

I would assert that no party which has xenophobia and racism as its foundation and lies as the basis for its policies can produce anything worthwhile.
Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes

My yeas and nays     Grovelling Apologies     Wiki
Often confused for some guy

Stan'

It's not a BNP lie.

It's a well-known fact.  Glasgow is immigrant central in Scotland, and there's tons of them exploiting the system.  And just go to Sighthill.  It's a shit-hole, for one reason.  They come over here, get free houses by giving their sob stories ( "Oh, I'm in danger in my own country!" ) then wreck the place.  The buildings are trashed, then they moan until they get moved somewhere else.  Polish people were coming in their waves after the country was brought in to the EU.  They'd leave their kids at home, and then start claiming £1000's every year for them.  This was all in the news years ago.  The best papers to read are the Daily Record ( Scottish paper ), the Daily Star and the Sun, because the write-in pages and columns are where you find the REAL story of "Britain".

I used to take the bus passed Sighthill, and you'd see them all coming on with free bus passes.  Here I am, the idiot having to pay full price every week and these [inappropriate word(s)] are getting them for nothing!  Unfortunately, the only party that seems to really want to tackle this issue is the BNP.  Labour wanted a multi-cultured "Britain", and it's came at a price.  In 100 years, we're going to be the minority in their country.1

Jude

A lot of "well known facts" are not actually facts.  There's a large number of misconceptions and mistruths that have become rooted in cultures throughout the world and accepted as truth.  If they are actually true, it shouldn't be hard for you to find the numbers that back it up, if you can't find those numbers, you've probably been clinging to a baseless belief.

Neroon

Stan, you have not answered my question.  I did not ask about how many people are being admitted to Britain or are being given citizenship but your assertion about many immigrants applying for child credits for children not in this country.  I fail to see anything in your answer or in the source you cited to justify the assertion, so I'll still treat it as being inflammatory propaganda at the best.  Oh and I asked for a source untainted by party political interest; I'm not certain that the Torygraph fills the bill.

And yes, you're right about the large number of Poles coming to the UK.  The only thing was, they were coming to work.  The fact that, as the work dried up, they returned to Poland shows this.  I would hardly count the Sun, Star or Record as credible sources, given the standard of journalism in these papers and their editorial standards.  As Jude says, we are looking at a case of an assertion being repeated so often that it's accepted regardless of the truth of the matter.
Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes

My yeas and nays     Grovelling Apologies     Wiki
Often confused for some guy

Soran

I'm pretty sure that if individual votes were used to elect the prime minister instead of party controlled regions...then Micky mouse would have been running the UK for the last twenty years.  :P

HairyHeretic

I wouldn't believe the Sun and Star on anything more than the comics and star signs pages  :P
Hairys Likes, Dislikes, Games n Stuff

Cattle die, kinsmen die
You too one day shall die
I know a thing that will never die
Fair fame of one who has earned it.

Nadir

Why is it the British people's fault who the English elect to power? The English aren't to blame who Ireland or Scotland vote for, why is vice versa applicable?

And Gordon Brown never was elected by the English public. He was too cowardly to allow the public to have a say on whether he had a right to the power handed to him.

desert ashes

Quote from: Cheka Man on April 19, 2010, 08:02:42 PM
never got anyone pregnant in my life, and don't really want children either, but I live off benifits. Why should I work, when the higher-paying jobs that would make it are all forever out of my reach? I will never be famous (nor do I want to be famous, it's frankly not worth it.) I will never own car parks or be a lawyer or a doctor or a politician or a published writer.Why give up my freedom and answer to a boss when I can be free,as long as I don't break the law?

Why should you work?  As a tax payer, because I shouldn't have to support anyone too lazy to get a job and support themselves.  Why should those who are working -- who are earning their way -- have to support you because you've made the choice to be lazy?  Average Joe didn't go to college and get a job, and Average Jane didn't land the gas store job, just to support Person C because Person C doesn't want to earn their living. 

If you don't want to work, I think it's grossly wrong and highly immoral for you to feel it's "Just dandy!" to live off everyone else's hard work and to "steal" what they're making for your own selfish ends.   No one can make you work, but no one should be expected to feed, clothe and shelter you with their money, either.




Personally, that's what I think the biggest problem is for the welfare systems.  No one wants to earn their way anymore -- it's become too easy to feed off the government.  "Oh, I don't want to work. I'd rather stay home all day, or go fishing, or [insert here]" instead of taking control of their lives, doing something with it, and making a go at it.  No one thinks working is fun (unless you're a bit sick, or have a really awesome job or one you just simply like), but it's always been a mandatory part of life.

You worked to eat.
You worked to survive.
You worked to build shelter.
You worked to live.

It shouldn't be the government's, or your society's, responsibility to support you when you are perfectly capable of finding work.  There's a job for anyone -- even if it's stuffing envelopes for eight hours a day, it's a paying job.  Maybe you aren't making what you'd like to make at the time, or it's even less than your standard living.  Lower your standard of living until you can get there.  Too many people are expecting the world to drop at their feet and feeling it's expected just because... why?  They're alive?  Please show me any government document that says, "We'll support you for living just because you're here." 

The Daveys in this situation?  I wholeheartedly agree with sterilization in cases like this.  They cannot afford to have children, to keep having children, and yet they are, without assistance.  If a family, or a person, cannot financially afford to have a child then they shouldn't.  If the family or parent is on government assistance I fully support the government stepping in and doing a temporary sterilization.  Frankly, they are living off the government's money, and under the current laws, having more children means getting more money from the government.  Yeah, you can opt not to get sterilized by not going onto the government system. 

(On a side note, I'm really curious how long The Daveys have been on government assistance, or around which child they got on the money train.)

Am I saying it's not a flawed idea?  Not in the least.  For me, though, it comes down to that if you're expecting for your fellow citizens to support you and your children, which is impending on their rights, salary, lifestyle, and family, then your fellow citizens should have a right to say, "No more!"  Or even if the government stopped giving out additional benefits after the first or second child, not giving an increase for more children.  (Sterilization is rather dramatic, but the way the systems are out of control and being abused is even more dramatic for everyone else.)
make me forget
how to breathe

leave me with the
taste of your sin
they will lie about you, insult you, hurt you,
betray you, injure  you, set you aflame and
watch you burn. but they will not, shall not,
c a n n o t, destroy  you. because  you, like
R o m e, were built  on ashes, and you, like
a phoenix, know how to rise and resurrect.
· accepting new stories ·
 ·· · ideas & cravings ·· ons & offs ·· poetry ·· a/a ·· stories · ··

let there be beauty born from ashes

Cheka Man

I believe in predestination. Not 100%, but about 90%.So if I take a crap job, I am chaining myself to the bottom rung.Would you marry someone you did not love and did not find attractive/sexy? That's the way I feel about jobs.If the right job comes,I'll take it, but the right jobs would most likely want not to have anything to do with me.

desert ashes

#95
So, now you're saying God is the reason why you don't have the job you want?  (Predestination, as I know it, is that your life has been predetermined by God.) 

Getting a crap job doesn't mean you're chained to it.  It's a starting point.  Bill Gates, for example, did not just wake up one morning a billionaire.  He started in his garage and built his way up, step by step by step -- not one giant leap.  The Beatles didn't form a handful of hours before releasing their first album.  No one who is at the top of their game, or was, can tell you it happened with the snap of their fingers since it just doesn't happen that way. 

Everyone who is somewhere had to work to get there.  Why should you or anyone else be the exception?

EDIT: Corrected "who is somehow" to "who is somewhere."
make me forget
how to breathe

leave me with the
taste of your sin
they will lie about you, insult you, hurt you,
betray you, injure  you, set you aflame and
watch you burn. but they will not, shall not,
c a n n o t, destroy  you. because  you, like
R o m e, were built  on ashes, and you, like
a phoenix, know how to rise and resurrect.
· accepting new stories ·
 ·· · ideas & cravings ·· ons & offs ·· poetry ·· a/a ·· stories · ··

let there be beauty born from ashes

Cheka Man

I see jobs like others see marridge partners;get fired and it's like a divorce, leave with no trouble and it's like a good breakup. I did make  one attempt off my own bat to get a job;I put my old e-mail address on the Internet where everyone could see it. I did get job offers, but they were scammers trying to get me to money launder for them. If I'd worked for them,I'd have ended up with a crminal record.

Jude

No one is going to hire you for a good job if you have no work experience.  Everyone starts out somewhere crappy (with very few exceptions), that's just how your career is going to begin.  If you don't take the first step, you'll never get where you're going.

By the way that's true of marriage too.  If you only date people who you feel like you can marry, you won't date anyone.  It's impossible to say whether or not someone is marriage material when you first meet them.  Also the chances of marrying the first person you ever date and having a happy marriage as astronomically low.

Oftentimes you have to date people to figure out what you do and don't want based on how things go.

Cheka Man

To Moirae...

Either, A) The atheists are right and there is nothing up there (if my computer gets struck by lightning tonight I know why) or B) There is a God or Goddess and He/She/It is royally pissed at me, causing death to end my 1st relationship, making the 2nd person to fall in love with me live too far away, and grinding my story ideas to dust.

To Jude...it's not personal/directed at you at all , but if I wanted to be at the bottom and be hassled by everyone I'd join the army or navy. I am poor, but I have my freedom and most of my self respect. I did have a job for a bit, the first few weeks were great, but then my boss started being a prick. What I'd like to do is fake my work experience but that is seriously ilegal and I want very much to keep out of prison. Anyway, noone would want me as I have Asperger's Syndrome

Jude

I've known people with Aspergers that were functioning members of society; hell, quite good at their jobs and getting things done.  I'll admit I don't know the severity of your case, but you shouldn't let that one thing define who you are.  You're more than that.  I bet you're fully capable of getting a job and working, you don't seem to be deficient in anything to me, have a little confidence and faith in yourself.

Trieste

It's not that I disagree or disapprove of the topic, but this has moved significantly away from the thread topic.

You're welcome to make another thread. I might also suggest PMs. :)