Originally posted by alienfromzog:
Yes, and having checked the facts the minister felt the need to apologise anyway because he would never doubt the honesty of an opposition member...
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:Discuss.
The Bish:
When you've fished enough people out of the river, it's time to take a walk upstream and see who's pushing them in.
quote:I think acting as though the CofE saving a bit of money here and there, has anything to do with the larger fiscal and economic crisis in this country, is grossly unfair.
Originally posted by L'organist:
I'd have more respect for the bishops if they acted within the CofE to cut waste:
quote:Very true providing there is an honest investigation in respect of 'who' or 'what' is pushing them in. I doubt the bishops are really up for this
When you've fished enough people out of the river, it's time to take a walk upstream and see who's pushing them in.
quote:It's their chums from the public schools. Even a simple thing like letting glebe land at a nominal rent for allotments would do something.
Originally posted by Solly:
quote:Very true providing there is an honest investigation in respect of 'who' or 'what' is pushing them in. I doubt the bishops are really up for this
When you've fished enough people out of the river, it's time to take a walk upstream and see who's pushing them in.
quote:Please explain the reasons for your doubt
quote:When you've fished enough people out of the river, it's time to take a walk upstream and see who's pushing them in.
Very true providing there is an honest investigation in respect of 'who' or 'what' is pushing them in. I doubt the bishops are really up for this
quote:I understand your point in theory, but the world we live in is such that:
Originally posted by L'organist:
seekingsister
Its called practising what you preach.
quote:That's fine if you've enough social workers to do that. We aren't all so lucky. Around here, Elderly social care, mental health are all failing. In a town of more than 200,000 people, the average time from referral to interview is 8 weeks. What, pray, do you do in the meantime if you have nothing?
Originally posted by L'organist:
A social-worker friend is very sceptical about her local foodbank - as she has observed it is putting back another prop when people like her are working to help chaotic families become better organised; foodbanks are seen by some of her clients as a reason to not budget or plan.
quote:Oops missed edit should be .... are NOT always right or in ....
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
[QUOTE]Social Workers are always right or in the right IME.
quote:1. Some denominations e.g. Baptists are experiencing growth. Pay/pensions there is rather less than the equivalent CofE parish.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
1. Independent churches, in which ministers are often paid much more than CofE clergy and have little to no public oversight, are growing
2. Either the church says something on this issue, or it says nothing. It will never be perfect enough to please everyone.
quote:Do food banks operate differently in different parts of the country? I ask because in our area you have to be referred to the food bank by a professional (doctor, health visitor, social worker, something like that). Once referred you get food for a maximum of three days per visit, and you can only be referred three times. As well as getting food, users are pointed towards agencies and projects where they can find longer-term help. The idea is that it provides emergency help in a crisis and works alongside people who are trying to help in the long term. People can't therefore normally become dependent on the food bank, so I find it hard to see how it would undermine what social workers are trying to do.
Originally posted by L'organist:
A social-worker friend is very sceptical about her local foodbank - as she has observed it is putting back another prop when people like her are working to help chaotic families become better organised; foodbanks are seen by some of her clients as a reason to not budget or plan.
quote:I need to find me one of those independent churches to be a minister of! Most of the independent churches I know the minister gets paid about the same as a C of E clergyperson but without the 4 bedroomed vicarage with study.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
- independent churches, in which ministers are often paid much more than CofE clergy and have little to no public oversight, are growing
quote:I said "independent churches" so as not to be confused with denominations like Baptist, Methodist, etc.
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
1. Some denominations e.g. Baptists are experiencing growth. Pay/pensions there is rather less than the equivalent CofE parish.
quote:I was part of a "non-denominational" church that ended up splintering into factions after the London congregation confronted leadership over six-figure pay packages. So yeah...it does happen.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I need to find me one of those independent churches to be a minister of! Most of the independent churches I know the minister gets paid about the same as a C of E clergyperson but without the 4 bedroomed vicarage with study.
quote:Mumsnet is really not upper middle-class at all. Lots of parents on benefits there, particularly parents of disabled children.
Originally posted by L'organist:
seekingsister
Its called practising what you preach.
The CofE has an administrative structure that is incredibly wasteful (as well as being over-complex and old-fashioned) which is, above all else, bad stewardship of time and resources.
Evening out pensions and cutting episopal salaries would (a) concentrate the minds of those responsible for money management within the church at national level, and (b) show that the church was serious about dealing with inequality.
Solly is absolutely right: the bishops aren't interested in finding out for themselves about this issue, instead they've decided to jump onto a passing bandwagon which is swathed in very politically one-sided colours.
Moreover, some of the numbers used to prop up the campaign (led jointly by the Trussel Trust (TT) & Unite) are simply wrong. Ten year-on figures, for example, can't possibly exist since the TT didn't even start trying to get people to form them until 2004. Numbers of people being fed by foodbanks can't be given because one person is handed the food without any record being made of how many are in the family.
A social-worker friend is very sceptical about her local foodbank - as she has observed it is putting back another prop when people like her are working to help chaotic families become better organised; foodbanks are seen by some of her clients as a reason to not budget or plan.
As for the Mumsnet 'research' that 20% of mothers have gone hungry to feed their children: since this is a largely upper-middle class network I'd take that with a pinch of salt: endless worrying about whether or not Hugo would be better off as a day-boy at MT's or boarding at Charterhouse are not, on the whole, the primary problems faced by the genuinely needy.
quote:Jesus would probably be a floating voter and not a member of a particular political party, probably. He wields a sword that cuts both ways. He might critique the pusher, the fool balancing on the parapet and those without the compassion to intervene in the event of disaster.
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
This is bishop David Walker, writing in
yesterday's Observer.
I particularly liked the Desmond Tutu quote:
quote:Discuss.
The Bish:
When you've fished enough people out of the river, it's time to take a walk upstream and see who's pushing them in.
AFZ
quote:Funny, there are a lot of people who argue exactly that when it's Bankers and CEOs taking the theoretical pay cut rather than Bishops.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Bishops taking a pay cut won't put money in people's pockets.
quote:Back in the days before Thatcher, when the school had an activity such as a field trip, when working out the cost, we would round up a little bit (a few pence) which would ensure that we were covered if anyone could not come, and that the poorest parents were not faced with that sort of choice. All done quietly and without embarrassment. Rather as professionals such as solicitors and doctors used to vary their charges to enable them to do work for the less well off. Then Mrs T. insisted that a) the cost should be exactly the cost for the particular child, and b) paying it should be voluntary. So there were parents who arrived outside the school in massive 4X4s making a public pronouncement about being entitled not to pay, while the poorer were faced with that sort of choice. And then the school had to abandon anythng that cost too much. Like running coaches to the swimming pool.
Again it's easy for a social worker on £25K+ to be sniffy about budgeting, but being on minimum wage isn't the same. What do you do when the school asks for money for something? Do you eat and turn down the school and risk your child being humiliated or do you pay the school and not eat?
quote:Same here - with the addition of church leaders as referrers - who are all approved by the food bank
Originally posted by Stumbling Pilgrim:
quote:Do food banks operate differently in different parts of the country? I ask because in our area you have to be referred to the food bank by a professional (doctor, health visitor, social worker, something like that). Once referred you get food for a maximum of three days per visit, and you can only be referred three times. As well as getting food, users are pointed towards agencies and projects where they can find longer-term help. The idea is that it provides emergency help in a crisis and works alongside people who are trying to help in the long term. People can't therefore normally become dependent on the food bank, so I find it hard to see how it would undermine what social workers are trying to do.
Originally posted by L'organist:
A social-worker friend is very sceptical about her local foodbank - as she has observed it is putting back another prop when people like her are working to help chaotic families become better organised; foodbanks are seen by some of her clients as a reason to not budget or plan.
quote:I don't think that's actually what people say, but rather that those who caused the recession are being rewarded whilst the most vulnerable (who played no part in it) are being punished. That's the scandal there. Nobody actually thinks that bankers being paid less will give poorer people money.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Funny, there are a lot of people who argue exactly that when it's Bankers and CEOs taking the theoretical pay cut rather than Bishops.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Bishops taking a pay cut won't put money in people's pockets.
quote:Christians Against Poverty is hardly 'unpartisan' - indeed, I specifically heard one of their speakers the other day saying that their course was a good way for the church to evangelise in our town.
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
As a school governor I've come across this more than once - most recently last week. I've also come across social workers and statutory agencies (including DWP) being reluctant to let churches step up to the plate and offer debt counselling and budgeting advice. In a couple of cases I've come across plain opposition, simply because it's a church offering the service. Never mind that its free, part of a national campaign and completely unpartisan as regards faith.
quote:Food banks generally are divided into those run as franchises of the Trussell Trust, which run as you describe above, and those run independently.
Originally posted by Stumbling Pilgrim:
Do food banks operate differently in different parts of the country? I ask because in our area you have to be referred to the food bank by a professional (doctor, health visitor, social worker, something like that). Once referred you get food for a maximum of three days per visit, and you can only be referred three times. As well as getting food, users are pointed towards agencies and projects where they can find longer-term help. The idea is that it provides emergency help in a crisis and works alongside people who are trying to help in the long term. People can't therefore normally become dependent on the food bank, so I find it hard to see how it would undermine what social workers are trying to do.
quote:The bishops make pronouncements, usually aimed at the government (particularly the Conservatives) about so-called poverty without investigating the complex and varied reasons for it such as marriage and family breakdown, personal debt, job loss as well as problems with welfare benefits and without any encouragement for individual personal responsibility. Then they move on, satisfied that they have done their Christian duty quite painlessly because, it seems, we are all the State's responsibility now.
quote:When you've fished enough people out of the river, it's time to take a walk upstream and see who's pushing them in.
Very true providing there is an honest investigation in respect of 'who' or 'what' is pushing them in. I doubt the bishops are really up for this
Please explain the reasons for your doubt
quote:As you rightly say ... you don't know anything about this local situation which is quite clearly - on the basis of evidence and fact - different from yours. I'm on the ground and I know perhaps a little more. I'm also aware of the increasing demands on my (and others) time, in undertaking advocacy of behalf of people in real need, in the face of seemingly unfeeling and certainly unhelpful bureaucracy. You can count the local authority, social services and police in that.
Originally posted by pydseybare:
quote:Christians Against Poverty is hardly 'unpartisan' - indeed, I specifically heard one of their speakers the other day saying that their course was a good way for the church to evangelise in our town.
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
As a school governor I've come across this more than once - most recently last week. I've also come across social workers and statutory agencies (including DWP) being reluctant to let churches step up to the plate and offer debt counselling and budgeting advice. In a couple of cases I've come across plain opposition, simply because it's a church offering the service. Never mind that its free, part of a national campaign and completely unpartisan as regards faith.
I think that is utterly disgusting.
Of course, I don't know whether the course you refer to is a Christians Against Poverty course, however I think there is every reason for all people working for local authorities to be concerned about evangelistic courses masquarading as service to vulnerable people.
I also accept that this may not be the way that this particular course is spoken of elsewhere. I remain skeptical about the whole set-up of CaP.
quote:Sorry I can't do chapter and verse, but it was some time ago, and I remember, very clearly, the changes being brought in and enforced. It was about the time that, resulting from some appeals made about Tiffin School's catchment area, it was made possible for children to cross authorities boundaries, eradicating catchment areas, so that in the area I lived, with grammars, on the borders of London, it became impossible for all the selectable children to go to the schools in our town because they filled up with children from Greater London. I think during Mrs T's PMship rather than her EdSec time.
Originally posted by L'organist:
Penny S states that Mrs Thatcher stopped schools adding a few pence to the cost of an outing (or whatever) so that the poorer children could still take part. Do tell, Mrs S, WHERE did Mrs T stop this? Was it when she was Education Secretary in the early 1970s? I think you'll search in vain for anything anywhere that says schools can't add something extra to the cost of a trip - I say this since my own children's state school used to add the cost of the accompanying STAFF to school trips, as well as something for 'social funds', and that was as recently as 2012.
quote:Well, yeah, they could but hand wringing and Tory hating is so much easier not to mention kind of fun.
Originally posted by L'organist:
I'd have more respect for the bishops if they acted within the CofE to cut waste:
- reducing the number of diocese
- not replacing suffragans - with few exceptions they're not needed
- apart from the Dean and Precentor making cathedral chapter clergy do more
- amalgamating groups of diocesan administrative functions into regional hubs
- cut salaries for bishops by 5%
- did something to properly remunerate NSMs for the work they do
- ensured that clergy pensions are flat rate - 40 years service for a vicar should get the same as 40 years retiring a bishop
They could then move to ensure that church schools, at least, had a longer working day so that parents didn't have to find so much for childcare. And the same schools should have lessons in life-skills such as proper cooking, budgeting, mending and sewing, basic DIY, etc.
And they should look at the goings-on in the Church Commissioners' Estates Department which means that farm rents have rocketed in the past 10 years, cottages have been sold-off to weekenders (our local dairy farm's cowman travels 17 miles from an urban council flat for a 5am start) and cease such nonsense as is going on with the Palace in Wells.
When they've made a genuine start on that then perhaps people would take their hand-wringing seriously.
Yes, there are people in genuine poverty and it is a scandal - but the CofE is in a glasshouse.
quote:The thing is, it's not about handouts or people wanting special treatment. It's about the most vulnerable not having the bare minimum. When people are pronounced fit for work by the scumbags at ATOS when they are in comas or committing suicide because of the bedroom tax, it seems a bit ridiculous to accuse people of just wanting to blame the government. People are literally dying because the government is failing them. Those who don't speak out are guilty by implication. It strikes me as being profoundly wrong to say that the bishops are as much to blame as the government here. Obviously, the streamlining of the government of the CoE would be a good thing in many ways, but it's not exactly relevant to discussions about people starving because of government policy.
Originally posted by L'organist:
Bravo Solly.
It is all very easy for the bishop and the signatories to the letter to The Daily Mirror to take pot-shots at the government - but just because they say something wearing a pectoral cross doesn't make it true.
EE : there are social workers who are employed by people other than the local Social Services - think MU, Children's Society, Barnados, etc - and they work with individual families long-term, usually as part of a multi-disciplinary team. Unlike an SS employed social worker, my friend makes herself on-call 24 hours a day.
Penny S states that Mrs Thatcher stopped schools adding a few pence to the cost of an outing (or whatever) so that the poorer children could still take part. Do tell, Mrs S, WHERE did Mrs T stop this? Was it when she was Education Secretary in the early 1970s? I think you'll search in vain for anything anywhere that says schools can't add something extra to the cost of a trip - I say this since my own children's state school used to add the cost of the accompanying STAFF to school trips, as well as something for 'social funds', and that was as recently as 2012.
Every special interest group keeps saying their own particular pet scheme can't be cut - elderly, mental health, disabled, special needs, ex-prisoners, etc, etc, etc. We all - bishops included - need to get our heads around the idea that there is no money tree, the resources available are finite so difficult choices have to be made.
If the bishops - and individual churches - want to see how they might help on the ground they could do worse than look at the example of Octavia Hill: she didn't just provide housing but sent one of her ladies along every week to check on the family, to give advice - perhaps to give sharp words about cleanliness or work ethic too - as well as collect the rent.
No, I'm not suggesting there are 'deserving' poor, but I think some of the poor manage a lot better with the little they have than others, and that it would be better to teach skills than just give another handout.
quote:I think Jesus would be fucking livid at foodbanks and with good reason. It is an absolute failing and a scandal that people are starving in a first-world country, and foodbanks exist because of that.
Originally posted by Solly:
quote:The bishops make pronouncements, usually aimed at the government (particularly the Conservatives) about so-called poverty without investigating the complex and varied reasons for it such as marriage and family breakdown, personal debt, job loss as well as problems with welfare benefits and without any encouragement for individual personal responsibility. Then they move on, satisfied that they have done their Christian duty quite painlessly because, it seems, we are all the State's responsibility now.
quote:When you've fished enough people out of the river, it's time to take a walk upstream and see who's pushing them in.
Very true providing there is an honest investigation in respect of 'who' or 'what' is pushing them in. I doubt the bishops are really up for this
Please explain the reasons for your doubt
May I suggest that what people in trouble often need is an advocate - an articulate friend who will help them deal with authority, writing letters, making phone calls for them, acting as supporter and providing encouragement. The State is a big, impersonal organisation that cannot get everything right but the people that fall into the river are not very good at dealing with authority. Of course it is more time-consuming than writing letters of protest to a newspaper - but I think it's what Jesus meant when he talked about the neighbour principle. I think Jesus would approve of foodbanks too.
quote:Was the feeding of the five thousand the first food bank?
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I think Jesus would be fucking livid at foodbanks and with good reason. It is an absolute failing and a scandal that people are starving in a first-world country, and foodbanks exist because of that.
quote:No. Nobody had to be referred by a social worker, doctor etc and limited to three times a year. And, you know, we don't live in Roman-occupied first-century Judea but in a supposedly first-world country where the most vulnerable aren't supposed to starve.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:Was the feeding of the five thousand the first food bank?
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I think Jesus would be fucking livid at foodbanks and with good reason. It is an absolute failing and a scandal that people are starving in a first-world country, and foodbanks exist because of that.
quote:Possibly.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:Was the feeding of the five thousand the first food bank?
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I think Jesus would be fucking livid at foodbanks and with good reason. It is an absolute failing and a scandal that people are starving in a first-world country, and foodbanks exist because of that.
quote:It is certainly scandalous and people do complain about it, although not bishops as far as I know.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
As I understand it, under the last Labour government state offices (Job Centres, etc.) were forbidden from providing the public information about food banks in case their use embarrassed the government. That ban has now been lifted and this is probably one of the reasons why use of food banks has increased.
If this is correct, then that's surely scandalous? And yet I haven't heard any bishops complain about this. (Or, indeed, anyone on here.)
quote:20 years at Citizens Advice, Jade Constable, and I still haven't see any starving people. I see people in trouble and needing help - but starving - No. I don't see as many homeless people as there were in the early nineties either. I think food banks are great, and the people that donate food to them and the volunteers that help in them - and I am damned sure Jesus would too.
I think Jesus would be fucking livid at foodbanks and with good reason. It is an absolute failing and a scandal that people are starving in a first-world country, and foodbanks exist because of that.
quote:Amen and Amen.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
I would spend my energy on getting Tories out of office across the board, which would make more difference to the groups who are being attacked under the deceitful guise of "the deficit" management.
quote:except that it isn't fun for the people we minister to who are crippled by Tory cuts.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
hand wringing and Tory hating is so much easier not to mention kind of fun.
quote:Nice quote.
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
..
I particularly liked the Desmond Tutu quote:
quote:Discuss.
The Bish:
When you've fished enough people out of the river, it's time to take a walk upstream and see who's pushing them in.
AFZ
quote:And then what?
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Amen and Amen.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
I would spend my energy on getting Tories out of office across the board, which would make more difference to the groups who are being attacked under the deceitful guise of "the deficit" management.
quote:I believe the pay differential between investment bankers and cleaners is somewhat greater than the pay differential between bishops and curates.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Funny, there are a lot of people who argue exactly that when it's Bankers and CEOs taking the theoretical pay cut rather than Bishops.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Bishops taking a pay cut won't put money in people's pockets.
quote:I doubt if starving people would go to Citizens Advice. There are probably lots of other crisis situations where Citizens Advice wouldn't be much use.
Originally posted by Solly:
20 years at Citizens Advice, Jade Constable, and I still haven't see any starving people. I see people in trouble and needing help - but starving - No. ...
quote:But you're not sure are you because you have never seen any starving people? Where are they all? Actually we are often the first port of call for just about any crisis situation.
I doubt if starving people would go to Citizens Advice. There are probably lots of other crisis situations where Citizens Advice wouldn't be much use.
quote:Actually I frequently went without food totally when I was at my poorest, so yes I do know starving people - because I was one. Just because you've never met one doesn't mean they don't exist. Why do you feel that you can dismiss my own experiences as someone who has been poor and who has starved (in Sussex, incidentally)? Have you never heard of Jack Monroe, for example?
Originally posted by Solly:
quote:20 years at Citizens Advice, Jade Constable, and I still haven't see any starving people. I see people in trouble and needing help - but starving - No. I don't see as many homeless people as there were in the early nineties either. I think food banks are great, and the people that donate food to them and the volunteers that help in them - and I am damned sure Jesus would too.
I think Jesus would be fucking livid at foodbanks and with good reason. It is an absolute failing and a scandal that people are starving in a first-world country, and foodbanks exist because of that.
So what would you do? Do let us know.
The benefits/tax credits system in this country had got completely out of hand to the point that when I was doing legal aid work, some clients on benefits had too much money and weren't eligible. How ridiculous is that? And there was no incentive to work or increase hours even if you wanted to - which many people did.
Of course turning round the welfare system in this country is causing hardship - but it will eventually work and we are hopefully going to see more people standing on their own feet. In the meantime, shall we all do what we can to offer practical help to those in need?
quote:I have, via Richard Littlejohn. I don't usually care for what he says, but I found this portrait of her very amusing.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Have you never heard of Jack Monroe, for example?
quote:Amusing... hmmmm....
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:I have, via Richard Littlejohn. I don't usually care for what he says, but I found this portrait of her very amusing.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Have you never heard of Jack Monroe, for example?
quote:You've made this claim a lot on this thread. Do you have any evidence (ideally from a reputable news source) to support it?
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Unless of course you approve of people in comas being declared fit for work?
quote:So a chap with "obsessive compulsive disorder, Aspergers syndrome, phobias of food, pollution, paint fumes and social situations and cognitive behavioural problems" starved to death after having his benefits cut. But of course, if he'd been getting a few more pounds a week none of those factors would have been a problem at all?
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Here's one for you Solly.
shortened link for scroll lock purposes
Yep. Tory cuts and reforms are indeed killing people.
quote:Will this do you as a source?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:You've made this claim a lot on this thread. Do you have any evidence (ideally from a reputable news source) to support it?
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Unless of course you approve of people in comas being declared fit for work?
Or is it, in fact, one of the numerous urban myths about how absolutely evil the government/ATOS/etc. are that are being passed round by people who want to believe it's true because it suits their politics? It's starting to feel like if someone was hit by a car after leaving their ATOS interview the usual suspects would be saying ATOS had killed them.
quote:Or the minister's apology: BBC News
From Hansard 27th Feb 2014, Column 454-5:
I want to read out a letter that was recently received by one of my constituents:
“Dear Miss HOLT,
You are now approaching the end of the 1st Stage of your Intensive Job Focused Activity. We hope that all the activity or training intervention completed so far has not only supported you to achieve your aspirations but has moved you closer to the job market.
You will shortly enter the 2nd Stage of your Intensive Job Focused activity.
Sessions and Workshops may vary depending on the centre you attend.”
The letter was sent to my constituent Sheila Holt on 30 January. I am sad to have to inform the House that Sheila will not be able to attend the second stage of her intensive job-focused activity because she has been in a coma since December. Members of her family have repeatedly informed the DWP and Seetec that she is not well, but those organisations have continued to harass them.
[Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)]
quote:Yes, everybody knows that letters from constituents and comments by politicians in Parliament are invariably honest, true and unbiased.
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
Will this do you as a source?
quote:Yes, and having checked the facts the minister felt the need to apologise anyway because he would never doubt the honesty of an opposition member...
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Yes, everybody knows that letters from constituents and comments by politicians in Parliament are invariably honest, true and unbiased.
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
Will this do you as a source?
quote:You and I both know that ministers will apologise for almost anything whether they were to blame or not if it means averting a media shitstorm*. PR is far more important than the facts.
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
Yes, and having checked the facts the minister felt the need to apologise anyway because he would never doubt the honesty of an opposition member...
quote:Yes
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:You and I both know that ministers will apologise for almost anything whether they were to blame or not if it means averting a media shitstorm*. PR is far more important than the facts.
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
Yes, and having checked the facts the minister felt the need to apologise anyway because he would never doubt the honesty of an opposition member...
*= case in point: all those politicians apologising because it rained too much this winter.
quote:I haven't said a word about her, I've been talking about the many and various people using her situation as a club with which to beat the government.
Originally posted by Ethne Alba:
This is a real person who is being spoken about. She lives in a real place. And she has a real family. I would hate for them to read this. Jussayin'
quote:Yep. Stop declaring people fit for work when they aren't. Don't stop people's benefits leaving them with fuck all to live on. Stop demonising the unemployed and low paid. Increase taxes on people who can actually afford them instead of taking money away from people who can't. Have more people tackling the massive tax avoidance problem than the much smaller benefit fraud issue instead of the other way round.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:I haven't said a word about her, I've been talking about the many and various people using her situation as a club with which to beat the government.
Originally posted by Ethne Alba:
This is a real person who is being spoken about. She lives in a real place. And she has a real family. I would hate for them to read this. Jussayin'
Perhaps this thread needs a new direction. Would those who are attacking the government like to propose an alternative set of policies for discussion?
quote:Am I right in thinking that ATOS was appointed under the last (Labour) government? Was there a hue and cry by the bishops then? (Or by posters on this site?) If there wasn't, are they guilty?
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
When people are pronounced fit for work by the scumbags at ATOS ... Those who don't speak out are guilty by implication.
quote:If I may quote Wikipedia:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:Am I right in thinking that ATOS was appointed under the last (Labour) government? Was there a hue and cry by the bishops then? (Or by posters on this site?) If there wasn't, are they guilty?
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
When people are pronounced fit for work by the scumbags at ATOS ... Those who don't speak out are guilty by implication.
quote:Put it another way, they didn't start telling people with terminal cancer, in comas, so disabled that according to Marvin they may have just starved because they were incapable of looking after themselves, etc. etc. that they were fit for work until the current administration saw it as an opportunity to cut benefits.
the WCA did not gather significant pace, nor widespread national news, until after it was aggressively pushed by the incoming Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government in 2010/11
quote:Yes, mocking someone in poverty who manages to inspire others, how hilarious. Given Littlejohn's vile personal views, I have to seriously question the morality of someone who finds him funny.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:I have, via Richard Littlejohn. I don't usually care for what he says, but I found this portrait of her very amusing.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Have you never heard of Jack Monroe, for example?
quote:Unfair working hours and childcare costs force many people into poverty, Jack Monroe is not alone in that. We don't know the circumstances of her son's conception and it really isn't any of our business.
Originally posted by L'organist:
There are bound to be a few cases of people being wrongly taken off benefits because of administrative foul-up because no system is perfect: that would hold good were 'the system' being run by ATOS, social services, or a Government of any hue, Tory or Labour. Administration is not the UK's finest art - there is evidence of that from every field.
But just because there are foul-ups doesn't take away from the fact that there are cases where once on benefits some people just stay there.
Its not just a case of them 'costing us money' - its bad for them because it reduces them to a life of dependency. Being dependent on benefits may have to be the reality for some but for those who are able to do some work, or for whom education or training in life skills jsut hasn't happened, a reassessment of their needs is essential.
I did some work with a project for children who'd either been thrown out of home or who'd left institutional care without the basic skills to live independently. It was frightening that some of these young people, aged 17-20, had fewer life skills than my own children had by the age of 10. One of the biggest problems we encountered with those thrown out of home was that many had no idea of how to look after themselves, or of the reality of adults getting up early and going to work. All these young people had had their own social worker yet none had ever been given practical lessons in the nuts-and-bolts of everyday life: shopping to a list, cooking, time management, laundry, etc, etc, etc.
As for Jack Monroe: she is not without qualifications, she left home (as she herself admits) at 18 thinking she knew everything, she had a good job with the Fire Service, she chose to become pregnant and carry on the pregnancy without exploring how having a baby would work with the job she had, etc,etc. If she were very young and not very bright that might all be reasonable-ish but she was in her 20s when she had her child, was more than capable of assessing what the situation was likely to be when she had the child, yet still went ahead. Whether or not it is fair for someone with a new baby to be expected to commute 30 miles to work is irrelevant, she should have properly thought things through.
Enough: there is only a certain amount of money to go around and the benefits system as it is means that those who need the most help don't get enough - yet there are some who don't need help but get it anyway. It needs reform (if that is possible) or else a radical re-think so that we target the precious resources we have to those most in need.
quote:The introduction of ATOS by Labour was indeed a scandal, but given that Labour were Conservatives in disguise by then it's not a huge surprise sadly.
Originally posted by L'organist:
You really can't go around calling an organisation, and by implication its entire workforce, 'scumbags'.
As for ATOS being a 'Tory tool' or friend: ATOS was first appointed to run health assessments for the DWP by the Labour government in 1998. Subsequently it has been given contracts by NHS Scotland and by the NHS in Wales.
Its IT services are spread throughout government - it was an ATOS subsidiary that was responsible for the mayhem caused when the UK Border Agencies computer system crashed a couple of years ago.
quote:'Lucid, humorous prose' that is actually full of lies? How about you actually listen to Jack herself and not the bigoted cunt?
Originally posted by Anglican't:
[In reply to Jade Constable's post at 12.07pm]
I don't, usually. I generally find him awful (and was cheering Will Self on when he took him down on radio). But he's very occasionally capable of lucid, humorous prose.
quote:Are you sure...?
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
What do you do about people who live in an area that has become a brownfield, so that the job opportunities simply don't exist? Tories NEVER go to such places; they can't handle the idea that their policies may have caused the poverty, and are making that poverty worse (read: Margaret Thatcher or Steven Harper).
quote:Beggars are not ALL the poor, if poor at all. They are, by most account, a very small minority of the poor in Canada and I would be surprised if they were anything but a small minority in the UK.
Originally posted by L'organist:
Horseman Bree
When its been near lunchtime and I've sees someone on the street with a sign saying 'hungry' (or whatever) I've gone to a sandwich shop and bought a sandwich, bottle of water and piece of fruit - but 9 times out of 10 its been refused and I got abused as well.
...
quote:That is absolutely true.
Originally posted by L'organist:
The amount of the pensions bill can't be seen properly in relation to the rest of the DEP budget because there is no pensions pot.
NI contributions are meant to provide for pensions so logic would be that a proportion was ring-fenced for pensions/pensioner benefits. But there is no fund - anymore than the true cost of the NHS and DEP benefits is actually known as a proportion of contributions through NI.
quote:This appears to be in opposition to your previous paragraph above. As you said, the amount you get is not related to how much you have, individually, put in.
In any case, many pensioners get a very raw deal when you consider how much they've paid into the system - and that any extra they may get is assumed by the DWP to grow at 10% per annum when they calculate how much or how little they get through SERPS, etc.
quote:Yes, and for that you've had an NHS that does whatever you need, you've had a safety-net that pays, you get a pension and so on and so forth.
And I've paid for SERPS - but it will be abolished before I get it. Likewise I'll have over 50 contribution years to my name - but will get the same basic pension as a person who has never worked or paid NI. And I'm told to 'make provision for my old age - I have, its just that the provider (the Government) is using them to pay for the feckless.
quote:Sadly this is the prevailing attitude in these hard times - It's not my job to help my neighbour - it's the government's - Not my jobsworth - Not me, guv, charity starts at home, mate
People don't need Lady Bountifuls to have hot meals with them, they need justice.
quote:It is not preposterous: when you consider that most of today's pensioners - certainly the males - have been paying since the beginning of the NI system. They were working at a time when there were precious few workplace pension schemes, and the notion of affordable private pensions for the lower paid didn't exist.
The idea that pensioners are getting a 'raw deal' is preposterous. Wait and see how much those of us in our 40s will get when we retire in comparison.
quote:Except it doesn't - unless the tenant agrees for the rent to go direct to the Landlord the tenant gets the LHA (no longer HB) and IME frequently it goes no further. Yes, you can go direct to Housing but be prepared for them not to speak to you - you have to prove that no rent has been paid for at least 3 months (often 6 or more) before they'll consider direct payments and local authorities won't tackle the arrears, nor will they prosecute to recover the benefit that has been pocketed by the tenant.
I didn't sneer at anyone. I merely pointed out where HB ends up.
quote:That makes no difference, as you said above. Pensions are paid out of current contribution of working people, not past ones.
Originally posted by L'organist:
It is not preposterous: when you consider that most of today's pensioners - certainly the males - have been paying since the beginning of the NI system. They were working at a time when there were precious few workplace pension schemes, and the notion of affordable private pensions for the lower paid didn't exist.
quote:Free university education
Child benefit as it is now didn't exist: Family Allowance was paid for the second (and subsequent) children. School finished at 15 (or younger), even with grants further education was beyond the means of many, and those born in 1939 or earlier did National Service.
quote:My parents live outside of London, but not in a rural area. They get 10 min buses in 3 different directions.
As for the 'fringe benefits' received by some pensioners: while the over 60s in London and other big cities get a good deal with subsidised local transport, for those in rural areas a bus pass is meaningless if there is no bus.
quote:That depends on where you live. If you live in Birmingham, you'd have free museums, reduced cost swimming, etc and so on.
Outside the capital we don't have free museums and the like - our 'local' museum charges £6 for concessions, the art gallery is £9. The local swimming pool is £4.95. By comparison if I lived in London the museums and galleries would be free and the swim £3.50 (Queen Mother pool, Victoria).
quote:Where are they all?
Originally posted by Solly:
quote:But you're not sure are you because you have never seen any starving people? Where are they all? Actually we are often the first port of call for just about any crisis situation.
I doubt if starving people would go to Citizens Advice. There are probably lots of other crisis situations where Citizens Advice wouldn't be much use.
quote:'Was indeed a scandal' and yet I don't remember the bishops writing concerned articles in the Guardian. Or indeed when people are in the welfare trap and penalised by high marginal rates of tax if they go back to work.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
The introduction of ATOS by Labour was indeed a scandal, but given that Labour were Conservatives in disguise by then it's not a huge surprise sadly.
quote:Who gets to decide what constitutes "fit for work"?
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Yep. Stop declaring people fit for work when they aren't.
quote:I agree that there should be a bare minimum amount of benefit. I suspect we differ on how much that should buy.
Don't stop people's benefits leaving them with fuck all to live on.
quote:The problem there is that a lot of people resent the fact that an appreciable percentage of the work they are doing every day whether they like it or not is done for the benefit of people who don't even have to get out of bed if they don't want to. There's an element of "why should I slog my guts out when they don't have to".
Stop demonising the unemployed and low paid.
quote:Translation: make the people who are slogging their guts out pay even more so that the ones who stay home all day can have more at their expense.
Increase taxes on people who can actually afford them instead of taking money away from people who can't.
quote:We can - and should - do both.
Have more people tackling the massive tax avoidance problem than the much smaller benefit fraud issue instead of the other way round.
quote:Largely misleading and vindictive tripe. Oh, and kale used to be grown as cattle-feed - people (poor people) started to eat it during the last two world wars.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I have, via Richard Littlejohn. I don't usually care for what he says, but I found this portrait of her very amusing.
quote:Bailing out an entire sector from the public purse is also a form of welfare.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Bankers, CEOs and the like still have to go to work and earn their big salaries, and the ones who are rich enough to not have to work don't tend to take much out of the benefits pot to fund their lifestyles.
quote:Isn't Littlejohn's point that today kale is a largely middle-class (or, rather, a particular kind of middle class) person's food, regardless of who might have eaten it in the past?
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Oh, and kale used to be grown as cattle-feed - people (poor people) started to eat it during the last two world wars.
quote:In London, maybe. Elsewhere not so much. So I don't think he has much of a point, apart from catering to the nastier tendency of humanity - a kind of slightly more upmarket Katy Hopkins.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Isn't Littlejohn's point that today kale is a largely middle-class (or, rather, a particular kind of middle class) person's food, regardless of who might have eaten it in the past?
quote:Technically, pensioners don't have to get out of bed if they don't want to. As that is far and away the largest portion of the benefits pot, maybe it should be means-tested?
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You saw the charts Marvin; an "appreciable sum" doesn't go to people who "don't have to get out of bed" - the lion's share is actually in-work benefits and pensions.
quote:Good. If I can't do it I don't see why anyone else should.
Moreover, if you "don't get out of bed" these days your benefit would be sanctioned away from you;
quote:There are plenty of stories on both sides.
God alone knows how L'Organist's relative gets away with it given some of the stories that come my way. It's exactly this "I'm paying a fortune in tax to support feckless lazy unemployed people who can't be arsed" crap that needs addressing, and it's exactly what I mean by "demonisation".
quote:I already think I pay enough, thanks.
Maybe if we tackled tax avoidance we'd not need to increase anyone's taxes, but if we can't I'd sooner see the money coming from people who can afford it than from people who can't.
quote:Presumably you're therefore in favour of the abolition of the monarchy and the seizure of all inherited wealth then?
quote:Good. If I can't do it I don't see why anyone else should.
Moreover, if you "don't get out of bed" these days your benefit would be sanctioned away from you;
quote:Outside the south east? I grew up in a fairly working class area, and we used to eat lots of kale because it was easily available, seen as nutritious because it was green and cheaply available at the local market.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Where do you mean by 'elsewhere'? I hadn't even heard of kale until I moved to London.
quote:I'd be against them receiving benefits, for sure.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
And...
[cheeky point]
quote:Presumably you're therefore in favour of the abolition of the monarchy and the seizure of all inherited wealth then?
quote:Good. If I can't do it I don't see why anyone else should.
Moreover, if you "don't get out of bed" these days your benefit would be sanctioned away from you;
[/cheeky point]
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:The Civil List doesn't count?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I don't begrudge anybody a life of leisure so long as I'm not paying for it.
quote:I'd ask for evidence as to who these are.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I would counter your cheeky point by asking why you'd want to sack the hardest-working public sector workers...?
quote:Here.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:I'd ask for evidence as to who these are.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I would counter your cheeky point by asking why you'd want to sack the hardest-working public sector workers...?
quote:You need a lot more than a link with no comparisons to anyone else in the public service to prove your point.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:Here.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:I'd ask for evidence as to who these are.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I would counter your cheeky point by asking why you'd want to sack the hardest-working public sector workers...?
quote:Just a few cases? Really? Policy Exchange wrote (emphasis added):
Originally posted by L'organist:
There are bound to be a few cases of people being wrongly taken off benefits [...]
quote:I saw an interesting interview on the BBC last week with a woman who apparently was one of these people. She had a partner and a couple of children. She also had a house which was well furnished and her children were decently clothed. And she had a car. One of her complaints was that she worried that she couldn't find a free parking space for her car.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
In reality, this only happens in Daily Heil-land. In the real world, they have to decide whether it's theirs or their kids' turns to eat today, and whether to pay for heating or cooking. Fuck knows why you'd envy someone for that.
quote:No, for two reasons.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:The Civil List doesn't count?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I don't begrudge anybody a life of leisure so long as I'm not paying for it.
quote:Bish ops don't have the power to put money into people's pockets, or take it out of their pockets, at least to any more than a trivial degree. Not so bankers and CEOs. The bonus and remuneration packages of Bishops (as if) don't encourage them to behave recklessly with the nation's wealth. That's not to say that the CofE is immune from such temptations - we are all still paying for the folly of the Church Commissioners during the 'nineties, but it's pretty small beer compared with the global economic crash, the relationship between which and the bonus and remuneration packets was causal, rather than coincidental.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Funny, there are a lot of people who argue exactly that when it's Bankers and CEOs taking the theoretical pay cut rather than Bishops.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Bishops taking a pay cut won't put money in people's pockets.
quote:Having not seen the program: Do you think she was using the car stupidly? Was she either never using it or taking frivolous trips? Because I find it bizarre to simply assume that she didn't need her car. For instance, many people at my work use their cars to get to work. Some of them would have insane commutes if they did not drive. Others of them would have to otherwise hire someone to get their children to school so that they could get themselves to work in a timely manner. And of course hiring someone every day would probably cost as much as the car gas/upkeep etc. Now yes, others of my colleagues have cars because they want to and don't need them at all. Maybe this woman is a wastrel or a fool. But maybe she isn't. If you have evidence that she is a wastrel or a fool, it would be helpful to mention it. Otherwise I have to wonder whether her real sin isn't that she needed help.
Originally posted by Sleepwalker:
quote:I saw an interesting interview on the BBC last week with a woman who apparently was one of these people. She had a partner and a couple of children. She also had a house which was well furnished and her children were decently clothed. And she had a car. One of her complaints was that she worried that she couldn't find a free parking space for her car.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
In reality, this only happens in Daily Heil-land. In the real world, they have to decide whether it's theirs or their kids' turns to eat today, and whether to pay for heating or cooking. Fuck knows why you'd envy someone for that.
Maybe she could ditch the car for starters? They cost a fortune to run/maintain. She might then have enough food for everyone.
quote:1 - Yes, as such it's a kind of benefit plus expenses payment. 2 - Yes, but the quid pro quo was taking on the personal debt of the monarch at the time as well as that of his ancestors.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
1) because it's effectively the fee paid to the Queen in return for her work as Head of State, 70% of which goes directly to pay salaries to the staff she employs anyway.
2) because it was set up in return for the transfer of all profit from the Crown Estates to the Treasury, and thus isn't "something for nothing" even if the Queen's was living a work-free life of leisure.
quote:If she can afford to run a car plus a house with two children then she isn't poor. I wasn't commenting upon the nature of her car ownership. I'm not interested in it. But nobody who runs a car is poor.
Originally posted by Gwai:
quote:Having not seen the program: Do you think she was using the car stupidly? Was she either never using it or taking frivolous trips? Because I find it bizarre to simply assume that she didn't need her car. For instance, many people at my work use their cars to get to work. Some of them would have insane commutes if they did not drive. Others of them would have to otherwise hire someone to get their children to school so that they could get themselves to work in a timely manner. And of course hiring someone every day would probably cost as much as the car gas/upkeep etc. Now yes, others of my colleagues have cars because they want to and don't need them at all. Maybe this woman is a wastrel or a fool. But maybe she isn't. If you have evidence that she is a wastrel or a fool, it would be helpful to mention it. Otherwise I have to wonder whether her real sin isn't that she needed help.
Originally posted by Sleepwalker:
quote:I saw an interesting interview on the BBC last week with a woman who apparently was one of these people. She had a partner and a couple of children. She also had a house which was well furnished and her children were decently clothed. And she had a car. One of her complaints was that she worried that she couldn't find a free parking space for her car.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
In reality, this only happens in Daily Heil-land. In the real world, they have to decide whether it's theirs or their kids' turns to eat today, and whether to pay for heating or cooking. Fuck knows why you'd envy someone for that.
Maybe she could ditch the car for starters? They cost a fortune to run/maintain. She might then have enough food for everyone.
quote:I disagree. Aside from rural areas I have yet to visit or live in a town or city where there is no public transport.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
In most of the country, unfortunately, not having a car cuts you off from a high proportion of possible sources of employment. I wish it weren't so myself, but that's how it is. If I found myself unemployed, one of the last things I'd get rid of would be the car, for that very reason.
quote:I live in a city with excellent public transportation, as does my sister. I have had to not apply to jobs because there was just no way to get there by public transit plus my bike without a three hour commute. My sister recently had to quit a job because she was finding it took literally five and a half hours to get home by train.
Originally posted by Sleepwalker:
quote:I disagree. Aside from rural areas I have yet to visit or live in a town or city where there is no public transport.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
In most of the country, unfortunately, not having a car cuts you off from a high proportion of possible sources of employment. I wish it weren't so myself, but that's how it is. If I found myself unemployed, one of the last things I'd get rid of would be the car, for that very reason.
quote:And if her house was a mess, and her furniture was trashed, and her kids were in filthy rags, and her car was on blocks in the front yard, would that be equally "interesting"? How, exactly, should poor people dress their kids and maintain their homes? Badly or well? Because it sure looks like whatever they do, they will still be criticized by the privileged.
Originally posted by Sleepwalker:
.... I saw an interesting interview on the BBC last week with a woman who apparently was one of these people. She had a partner and a couple of children. She also had a house which was well furnished and her children were decently clothed. And she had a car. ...
quote:Here in L.A. a large percentage of our homeless live in their cars-- especially those with children. It's much safer and warmer than on the streets and far, far cheaper than rent.
Originally posted by Sleepwalker:
If she can afford to run a car plus a house with two children then she isn't poor. I wasn't commenting upon the nature of her car ownership. I'm not interested in it. But nobody who runs a car is poor.
quote:Welcome to Los Angeles!
Originally posted by Sleepwalker:
quote:I disagree. Aside from rural areas I have yet to visit or live in a town or city where there is no public transport.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
In most of the country, unfortunately, not having a car cuts you off from a high proportion of possible sources of employment. I wish it weren't so myself, but that's how it is. If I found myself unemployed, one of the last things I'd get rid of would be the car, for that very reason.
quote:How dare you. You have no idea of the anti-poverty work I do. Being opposed to injustice does not equal being a jobsworth. As a person who has actually been poor and knows what it is like, I get to talk about my lived experiences. You do not.
Originally posted by Solly:
quote:Sadly this is the prevailing attitude in these hard times - It's not my job to help my neighbour - it's the government's - Not my jobsworth - Not me, guv, charity starts at home, mate
People don't need Lady Bountifuls to have hot meals with them, they need justice.
Perhaps some of us should take out the plank in our own eye before taking a swipe at others' shortcomings.
quote:But it's crap. Kale is a cheap vegetable, no more expensive or middle-class than spring greens.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:Isn't Littlejohn's point that today kale is a largely middle-class (or, rather, a particular kind of middle class) person's food, regardless of who might have eaten it in the past?
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Oh, and kale used to be grown as cattle-feed - people (poor people) started to eat it during the last two world wars.
quote:Depends on where you live, at least in the US. If you live in an inner-city "food desert" it is very much a middle class foodie thing.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:But it's crap. Kale is a cheap vegetable, no more expensive or middle-class than spring greens.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:Isn't Littlejohn's point that today kale is a largely middle-class (or, rather, a particular kind of middle class) person's food, regardless of who might have eaten it in the past?
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Oh, and kale used to be grown as cattle-feed - people (poor people) started to eat it during the last two world wars.
quote:This is a bit weird. I have makeup (look away, health inspectors) that is twenty-five years old at this point, because I rarely wear it, and it is the dry powdery stuff. But you can bet I'd dig it out if I knew I were going to be on TV.
Originally posted by Sleepwalker:
She could probably do with spending less on her make up as well.
quote:Quite. Reading this thread has been bad for my blood pressure. It seems to me that this article is sadly correct.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:And if her house was a mess, and her furniture was trashed, and her kids were in filthy rags, and her car was on blocks in the front yard, would that be equally "interesting"? How, exactly, should poor people dress their kids and maintain their homes? Badly or well? Because it sure looks like whatever they do, they will still be criticized by the privileged.
Originally posted by Sleepwalker:
.... I saw an interesting interview on the BBC last week with a woman who apparently was one of these people. She had a partner and a couple of children. She also had a house which was well furnished and her children were decently clothed. And she had a car. ...
quote:Yes, but it isn't really in the UK. Firstly most supermarkets will sell it - and even at the prices they charge it's one of the cheaper vegetables. You'll get it sold in markets alongside spring greens - and plenty of people use it as a cabbage substitute.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Depends on where you live, at least in the US. If you live in an inner-city "food desert" it is very much a middle class foodie thing.
quote:Having first tried it about four months ago, I actually quite like it.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:But it's crap.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:Isn't Littlejohn's point that today kale is a largely middle-class (or, rather, a particular kind of middle class) person's food, regardless of who might have eaten it in the past?
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Oh, and kale used to be grown as cattle-feed - people (poor people) started to eat it during the last two world wars.
quote:
Originally posted by Solly:
But you're not sure are you because you have never seen any starving people? Where are they all? Actually we are often the first port of call for just about any crisis situation.
quote:What exaggeration? There are plenty of people without enough money to pay their bills and feed themselves. Unemployed people under 25 for example are expected to live on £53 a week. This is to cover heating, water rates, telephone, transport, laundry costs, clothes, toiletries, haircuts, and of course, food. If anyone is to stand a chance of getting a job they need to look presentable and to be accessible by phone. They also need to be able to travel to interviews or just to the job centre. Food prices have risen. What do you think it costs for a single person to feed themselves adequately?
All this exaggeration masks the fact that there are many people who are not starving but still in real needive theg. If Christians stopped running round like headless chickens and asked local charities what they can do to help, the world would be a better place.
quote:Really?
Originally posted by Sleepwalker:
I disagree. Aside from rural areas I have yet to visit or live in a town or city where there is no public transport.
quote:I'm glad you know the local bus timetable here better than I do.
Originally posted by Sleepwalker:
quote:I disagree. Aside from rural areas I have yet to visit or live in a town or city where there is no public transport.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
In most of the country, unfortunately, not having a car cuts you off from a high proportion of possible sources of employment. I wish it weren't so myself, but that's how it is. If I found myself unemployed, one of the last things I'd get rid of would be the car, for that very reason.
quote:Indeed. I'd like to know why conversations about poverty seems so much like conversations about smoking in the 1980s. 'Doesn't the risk of cancer worry you?' someone would ask. 'What about my granny who smoked like a chimney and lived to 95?' someone would reply. Most people now wouldn't argue that anecdotes trump evidence of the health risks of smoking. Yet, when we talk about poverty, people still talk as if anecdotes trump other kinds of evidence.
Originally posted by Amika:
... I would like to know why Christians see the people at the bottom of our society as so 'other' that it's OK to demonise them, patronise them or indeed ridicule them ...
quote:They appear to be right.
Originally posted by Alwyn:
Maybe these parts of the media think that we won't notice their attempts to manipulate us?
quote:Looks like a trick question, but quite possible to get there for 8.20am.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Here's a challenge for you. A person in Brimington, Derbyshire, (near me and with a better bus service) is offered a job, potentially, in South Anston, Rotherham. It's 15 miles. Show me how they'd get there without a car. Show me how long it'd take. And find out how much the fares would cost. By the way, it's retail work and they have to be there at 8am when the place opens. Minimum wage, so figure out how much is left after paying the fares.
quote:So the person gets fired for being late. Working in retail is not like working in an office, you cannot be late or there is nobody to set up or serve customers.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:Looks like a trick question, but quite possible to get there for 8.20am.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Here's a challenge for you. A person in Brimington, Derbyshire, (near me and with a better bus service) is offered a job, potentially, in South Anston, Rotherham. It's 15 miles. Show me how they'd get there without a car. Show me how long it'd take. And find out how much the fares would cost. By the way, it's retail work and they have to be there at 8am when the place opens. Minimum wage, so figure out how much is left after paying the fares.
quote:I know how retail works - I've done it.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:So the person gets fired for being late. Working in retail is not like working in an office, you cannot be late or there is nobody to set up or serve customers.
Looks like a trick question, but quite possible to get there for 8.20am.
quote:Exactly. One wouldn't apply for a job one cannot do - i.e. relying on public transport will restrict your choice of jobs - QED. Negotiating hours is generally difficult or impossible from a position of weakness - i.e. currently unemployed.
Originally posted by Anglican't:quote:I know how retail works - I've done it.
quote:So the person gets fired for being late. Working in retail is not like working in an office, you cannot be late or there is nobody to set up or serve customers.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Looks like a trick question, but quite possible to get there for 8.20am.
Presumably, though, one wouldn't apply for a job one knows one cannot do (or would at least negotiate one's hours with one's manager)?
quote:1. You don't have much choice - you have to apply for jobs, even unsuitable ones, to keep your benefits. Imagine how that must annoy those recruiting to get hundreds of job apps from people not qualified for the role.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Presumably, though, one wouldn't apply for a job one knows one cannot do (or would at least negotiate one's hours with one's manager)?
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:1. You don't have much choice - you have to apply for jobs, even unsuitable ones, to keep your benefits. Imagine how that must annoy those recruiting to get hundreds of job apps from people not qualified for the role.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Presumably, though, one wouldn't apply for a job one knows one cannot do (or would at least negotiate one's hours with one's manager)?
A mate of mine was on jobseekers - as there are so few jobs where he is he MUST apply for nationally advertised ones. He's a great guy, caring, kind, honest, resourceful and very reliable but has only one O level. He was told to apply for senior sales manager jobs -- he's never done it, he doesn't drive because he's partially sighted. I know because he was doing that when he stayed with me.
quote:It's not been like that for quite a while now - you don't get a choice as to choosing travel times.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:1. You don't have much choice - you have to apply for jobs, even unsuitable ones, to keep your benefits. Imagine how that must annoy those recruiting to get hundreds of job apps from people not qualified for the role.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Presumably, though, one wouldn't apply for a job one knows one cannot do (or would at least negotiate one's hours with one's manager)?
A mate of mine was on jobseekers - as there are so few jobs where he is he MUST apply for nationally advertised ones. He's a great guy, caring, kind, honest, resourceful and very reliable but has only one O level. He was told to apply for senior sales manager jobs -- he's never done it, he doesn't drive because he's partially sighted. I know because he was doing that when he stayed with me.
My own experience of signing on is that when you start claiming you sit down with your adviser and decide on the parameters of your job search. This includes the travel time (which in my experience has been 60 - 90 minutes).
quote:That was my experience within the last six months. Ok, the adviser may have just said 'sixty minutes' and I may have said 'sure', but that's hardly an onerous commuting time.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:It's not been like that for quite a while now - you don't get a choice as to choosing travel times.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:1. You don't have much choice - you have to apply for jobs, even unsuitable ones, to keep your benefits. Imagine how that must annoy those recruiting to get hundreds of job apps from people not qualified for the role.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Presumably, though, one wouldn't apply for a job one knows one cannot do (or would at least negotiate one's hours with one's manager)?
A mate of mine was on jobseekers - as there are so few jobs where he is he MUST apply for nationally advertised ones. He's a great guy, caring, kind, honest, resourceful and very reliable but has only one O level. He was told to apply for senior sales manager jobs -- he's never done it, he doesn't drive because he's partially sighted. I know because he was doing that when he stayed with me.
My own experience of signing on is that when you start claiming you sit down with your adviser and decide on the parameters of your job search. This includes the travel time (which in my experience has been 60 - 90 minutes).
quote:If a commute is literally impossible then it isn't a one-hour commute, surely?
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
And saying that an hour's commute isn't a big deal isn't the point when it's literally impossible for someone to commute to that job because of transport issues.
quote:I think we're circling back to the point that a car is not necessarily a luxury item.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:If a commute is literally impossible then it isn't a one-hour commute, surely?
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
And saying that an hour's commute isn't a big deal isn't the point when it's literally impossible for someone to commute to that job because of transport issues.
Or are you talking about a specific event that causes a commutable distance to be impossible? If that's the case, then almost any commuter is affected by this. Heavy snow, wind, rain, strikes, can all make the easiest of commutes difficult. Thankfully, they tend to be short-lived.
quote:Yeah. That it takes an hour and a half.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
If you could negotiate the hour it would be straight-forward catching the bus to South Anston, wouldn't it? (Or have I missed something?)
quote:What's wrong with that?
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:Yeah. That it takes an hour and a half.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
If you could negotiate the hour it would be straight-forward catching the bus to South Anston, wouldn't it? (Or have I missed something?)
quote:The fact that you'd negotiated an hour's commute as being reasonable. Point is, it takes longer, and generally costs more, to do any given commute by public transport than by car. There comes a point, whether it be half an hour, two hours, four hours; £10 in fares, £50 in fares, £100 in fares, whatever, where a commute will be too long or too expensive to be reasonable. That point will come sooner by public transport. Therefore not having a car restricts the number of jobs you can apply for, because there will be some jobs that are commutable by car but not by public transport.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:What's wrong with that?
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:Yeah. That it takes an hour and a half.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
If you could negotiate the hour it would be straight-forward catching the bus to South Anston, wouldn't it? (Or have I missed something?)
quote:Again.
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
I think we're circling back to the point that a car is not necessarily a luxury item.
quote:Indeed, but let's not forget these either:
The judgementalism that goes on in this area is quite spectacular but let's just follow this through:
1) YOU are poor
2) YOU must get a job
3) Oh and SELL YOUR CAR - as you shouldn't be running a car on the benefits I PAY FOR
4) YOU MUST TAKE THIS JOB on offer
5) YOU CAN'T get to it on time without a car
6) WELL THEN, you made a bad choice in selling your car...
quote:Off-topic, but you were shopping in the wrong places if you had to spend £50 on a basic makeup look! I am a self-confessed makeup addict and my current favourite lipstick costs £1.99 in Superdrug and has a lovely texture. You can get good makeup cheaply quite easily now. Mascara, blusher, powder and a my-lips-but-better lipstick is more than enough for the office and you can get all of that for well under £20, probably under £10 depending on what brands you have available. Boots Natural Collection has a permanent 3 for £5 offer on and I love their blusher.
Originally posted by Jane R:
alienfromzog:quote:Indeed, but let's not forget these either:
The judgementalism that goes on in this area is quite spectacular but let's just follow this through:
1) YOU are poor
2) YOU must get a job
3) Oh and SELL YOUR CAR - as you shouldn't be running a car on the benefits I PAY FOR
4) YOU MUST TAKE THIS JOB on offer
5) YOU CAN'T get to it on time without a car
6) WELL THEN, you made a bad choice in selling your car...
7) SELL YOUR CLOTHES - because poor people have no business having better clothes than Hard-Working Taxpayers, even if selling a sackful of clothes (if you can find anybody willing to buy them) only gets you about £5 which is barely enough for a day's food and won't help very much... and when you finally get a job you'll have to pay considerably more than £5 to replace them.
8) Oh wait - you can't get a job because you don't have any suitable clothes for a job interview? WELL THEN, maybe you shouldn't have got rid of your office clothes. Or your makeup, if female, because it's a well-known fact that women attending job interviews are more likely to get the job if they are wearing makeup.
I don't usually wear makeup, so last time I had a job interview I had to buy it specially. It cost about £50 for a basic going-to-the-office look. Just as well I wasn't on unemployment benefit at the time, isn't it, or I wouldn't have been able to eat that week.
I did get the job, though.
quote:It wasn't meant as criticism at all by the way, but there are some good budget beauty blogs out there (though make sure they are British based as US drugstore makeup brands are different). Pound shops often have (perfectly good) end of line stock in.
Originally posted by Jane R:
<cost of makeup tangent> Yes, I probably could have got it cheaper, but as I don't buy it regularly I have no real incentive to search out the best bargains. I'll bear your suggestions in mind if I have to buy any more, though.
I think I still have some blusher that I bought ten years ago...
quote:Well, it does touch on a topic that is germane to this thread. After all, being a savvy consumer is also made much easier if you have access to websites, blogs etc. and that's far easier if you have access to a computer and broadband - which is in turn is much easier if you own a computer yourself.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
-ends tangent-
quote:Yes. Unemployed applicants aren't exactly in a strong negotiating position.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
If you could negotiate the hour it would be straight-forward catching the bus to South Anston, wouldn't it? (Or have I missed something?)
quote:Indeed - for four years I commuted from the north of Leeds to the Pennines by bus/train/another bus And back again every day.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:What's wrong with that?
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:Yeah. That it takes an hour and a half.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
If you could negotiate the hour it would be straight-forward catching the bus to South Anston, wouldn't it? (Or have I missed something?)
quote:Obviously it was stated long ago in this thread that it is not actually possibile to get to this job by public transport in time to start work.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:Yes. Unemployed applicants aren't exactly in a strong negotiating position.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
If you could negotiate the hour it would be straight-forward catching the bus to South Anston, wouldn't it? (Or have I missed something?)
quote:Well, the so called advisor set my daughter up to commute across the whole of Scotland as the parameter of her travel time.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:1. You don't have much choice - you have to apply for jobs, even unsuitable ones, to keep your benefits. Imagine how that must annoy those recruiting to get hundreds of job apps from people not qualified for the role.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Presumably, though, one wouldn't apply for a job one knows one cannot do (or would at least negotiate one's hours with one's manager)?
A mate of mine was on jobseekers - as there are so few jobs where he is he MUST apply for nationally advertised ones. He's a great guy, caring, kind, honest, resourceful and very reliable but has only one O level. He was told to apply for senior sales manager jobs -- he's never done it, he doesn't drive because he's partially sighted. I know because he was doing that when he stayed with me.
My own experience of signing on is that when you start claiming you sit down with your adviser and decide on the parameters of your job search. This includes the travel time (which in my experience has been 60 - 90 minutes).
quote:Free computer access in public libraries. That's what I used.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:Well, it does touch on a topic that is germane to this thread. After all, being a savvy consumer is also made much easier if you have access to websites, blogs etc. and that's far easier if you have access to a computer and broadband - which is in turn is much easier if you own a computer yourself.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
-ends tangent-
Not to mention the ability to edit your CV/cover letter etc - all of which make it easier to find and apply for jobs. Presumably the computer is something you should sell off once unemployed though.
quote:Yes but only for an hour and obviously if you don't live near enough and have no car the cost of getting there is also an issue
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:Free computer access in public libraries. That's what I used.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:Well, it does touch on a topic that is germane to this thread. After all, being a savvy consumer is also made much easier if you have access to websites, blogs etc. and that's far easier if you have access to a computer and broadband - which is in turn is much easier if you own a computer yourself.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
-ends tangent-
Not to mention the ability to edit your CV/cover letter etc - all of which make it easier to find and apply for jobs. Presumably the computer is something you should sell off once unemployed though.
quote:It really depends where you are - where my parents live, you get unlimited free internet at the local libraries and just pay for printing.
Originally posted by claret10:
quote:Yes but only for an hour and obviously if you don't live near enough and have no car the cost of getting there is also an issue
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:Free computer access in public libraries. That's what I used.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:Well, it does touch on a topic that is germane to this thread. After all, being a savvy consumer is also made much easier if you have access to websites, blogs etc. and that's far easier if you have access to a computer and broadband - which is in turn is much easier if you own a computer yourself.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
-ends tangent-
Not to mention the ability to edit your CV/cover letter etc - all of which make it easier to find and apply for jobs. Presumably the computer is something you should sell off once unemployed though.
quote:Heck, these days in the US just finding an open public library, much less one with free internet and printer hook-ups is a daunting task. Municipal budgets have been slashed so deeply that in many communities the libraries have been closed or hours are severely limited. You'd probably have better luck walking around a wealthy suburb trying to find someone with an open wifi hub.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:quote:It really depends where you are - where my parents live, you get unlimited free internet at the local libraries and just pay for printing.
Originally posted by claret10:quote:Yes but only for an hour and obviously if you don't live near enough and have no car the cost of getting there is also an issue
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:Free computer access in public libraries. That's what I used.
Originally posted by Chris Stiles:
Not to mention the ability to edit your CV/cover letter etc - all of which make it easier to find and apply for jobs. Presumably the computer is something you should sell off once unemployed though.
Obviously there is a big problem with library internet use varying so much across the country. I have never lived in a rural area so don't know about those issues, which I'm sure are big - I was very fortunate and computer access was never an issue for me (when I was under 21 and in homeless young persons' hostels I could use college internet and the communal computers in the hostel).
quote:Yes, I realise some people are able to do that. Around here - in a reasonably large university town - the public access computers are only available by the hour and have to be pre-booked, they are also broken quite often.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:Free computer access in public libraries. That's what I used.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Not to mention the ability to edit your CV/cover letter etc - all of which make it easier to find and apply for jobs. Presumably the computer is something you should sell off once unemployed though.
quote:
But hope dies hard. Memories of one's former life die hard. It's hard not to believe that it will all turn around tomorrow. And until we've been there I don't know that any of us would do any different.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
quote:Yes, people really do not understand the extent to which computers, internet access, phone access, a car etc are necessities and not luxuries. People can live without those things if they CHOOSE to do so but it's very difficult to live if you are forced not to have those things.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:Yes, I realise some people are able to do that. Around here - in a reasonably large university town - the public access computers are only available by the hour and have to be pre-booked, they are also broken quite often.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:Free computer access in public libraries. That's what I used.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Not to mention the ability to edit your CV/cover letter etc - all of which make it easier to find and apply for jobs. Presumably the computer is something you should sell off once unemployed though.
I was just anticipating the argument I sometimes see in these sort of discussions, that if someone is able to access the discussion then they must have a .. *shock* COMPUTER .. and are therefore living in the lap of luxury.
I wonder what standard of living for the unemployed - short of being in a poorhouse - would actually be acceptable to some of these people.
quote:Privileged? You think I'm privileged? I'm unemployed myself - for the second time in 12 months. I work really, really hard to get work and keep getting it but none of it is permanent. So now my car (17 years old) is back off the road because to keep and run a car in my country - the UK - is expensive (unlike, perhaps, elsewhere in the world). I make a SORN (for off the road vehicles) and cancel my car insurance, because I cannot afford to run a car and claim benefits. Not unless I want to go without food, and unlike the woman in the news item I watched which was the original basis for my first post, I prefer not to starve.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:And if her house was a mess, and her furniture was trashed, and her kids were in filthy rags, and her car was on blocks in the front yard, would that be equally "interesting"? How, exactly, should poor people dress their kids and maintain their homes? Badly or well? Because it sure looks like whatever they do, they will still be criticized by the privileged.
Originally posted by Sleepwalker:
.... I saw an interesting interview on the BBC last week with a woman who apparently was one of these people. She had a partner and a couple of children. She also had a house which was well furnished and her children were decently clothed. And she had a car. ...
