Ship of Fools: Geoffery Clark, Formerly of UKIP you are a vile creature

Thread: Geoffery Clark, Formerly of UKIP you are a vile creature Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024352

Posted by Stoker (# 11939) on :

For so many reasons this has to be a contender for most hateful and ill informed manifesto of recent times, but midway he points out that he's on his local PCC - Well that must be a great parish to live in!
What a complete arse.

[ 19. December 2012, 09:25: Message edited by: Stoker ]

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Shooting fish in a barrel or what!

PCC needs to boot him off

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :

I'm impressed that he's managed to come up with a position that is offensive to pretty much everyone on every side of the abortion debate.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Never mind abortion, one of his other targets is the provision of medical care to the over-80s - with a side order of euthanasia for those who require expensive procedures. He doesn't actually say 'compulsory euthanasia' but it would only be a matter of time.

That's my mother-in-law you're talking about, you pathetic excuse for a human being. You think people should be forced to commit suicide for the good of the state? You first.

I don't care if UKIP have expelled him now - they are now level with the BNP on my list of 'Parties I Will Never Vote For'.

Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :

Swivel-eyed loon. Like all UKIP members I've heard of.

There's also Kim Gandy, UKIP candidate, EDL (and ex-BNP) supporter.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

It reads like a bad joke

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
I don't care if UKIP have expelled him now - they are now level with the BNP on my list of 'Parties I Will Never Vote For'.

If I was going to be fair to UKIP (though I'm not sure that I should be) this chap is only a local council candidate. I imagine local council candidates from the mainstream political parties hold a range of equally dotty views.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Except they aren't really 'views' are they? Just a spew of venom filled hatred dressed up as politics.

Posted by birdie (# 2173) on :

The full manifesto has been taken down. For those of you who didn't have the pleasure, it included a seven verse Poem What He Wrote and the delicious sentence "I am clearly not dotty".

Yes dear.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

So is it correct that UKIP are the largest political party to be officially against gay marriage? I think so.

Remember - keep it white, keep it tight, keep it straight. Britain that is.

Or if you like, no blacks, no fags, no eurotrash.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
I don't care if UKIP have expelled him now - they are now level with the BNP on my list of 'Parties I Will Never Vote For'.
If I was going to be fair to UKIP (though I'm not sure that I should be) this chap is only a local council candidate. I imagine local council candidates from the mainstream political parties hold a range of equally dotty views.

Only a local council candidate? Local councils provide social services, education, planning, libraries and waste & recycling services amongst others. I'd rather have loonies in the House of Commons where they are unlikely to have any effect amongst six hundred, than on a local council where they are a member of a body one-tenth that size.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

My acquaintances over at Mailwatch are able to furnish a link to the full version:

http://www.brucelawson.co.uk/2012/geoffrey-clarks-redacted-gravesham-council-election-manifesto/

Enjoy.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

He sounds closer to BNP than UKIP. Perhaps he will try to join them next?

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
He sounds closer to BNP than UKIP. Perhaps he will try to join them next?

Insert comment about fag paper here.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
The Greens are very much in favour of [same-sex marriage], as many of them live in Brighton.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Anyone else thinking of Poe's Law?

Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :

You start reading it and you go "Yes, but..."

And then you carry on and go "Ah, but... oh..."

And then you read even further and go "Er... erm... well..."

And then your brain gives up and escapes from your head in protest.

I actually think he manages to offend pretty much every class of people there, even his own natural constituency. In that regard, it's actually quite astonishing!

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

Who needs the full version? What is left is bad enough:

quote:
DEFENDING BRITISH CULTURE AND THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION: British culture is under attack as never before. This is mainly because Brits tend to be highly tolerant of other cultures,

Tolerance is the VeryBritishThing™ that needs defending. If you thing intolerance is a good thing, and somehow linked to the Christian religion then I will have to disagree most strongly.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

I finally stopped thinking even he was taking it seriously when I got to the bit about making all religions update their Holy Texts to reflect modern society and culture. How the hell he expects to be able to do that from a Town Hall in Kent is beyond me...

Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :

There does seem to be a theme among rants like this of praising British tolerance before going on to be exceedingly intolerant.

Oh, and then complaining about "intolerant liberals" when people suggest this isn't the most helpful way of speaking of these things...

ETA: x-posted with Marvin

[ 19. December 2012, 12:38: Message edited by: Stejjie ]

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I finally stopped thinking even he was taking it seriously when I got to the bit about making all religions update their Holy Texts to reflect modern society and culture. How the hell he expects to be able to do that from a Town Hall in Kent is beyond me...

And the way he compares the age of the Koran to that of the Bible (400 years, because he doesn't appear to know that that KJV is not the original).

Posted by Stoker (# 11939) on :

On reflection, I think our friend Geoff is possibly an unholy alliance between:

Hitler (Eugenics, Euthenasia and destruction of minorities)

Alf Garnett (Arm chair grand-standing Racism)

That bloke down the pub who claims something is true because he "reckons it" and all the socio-economic priblems in our country have an easy solution which every honest hard working British bloke can see.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

posted by Stejjie:

quote:

You start reading it and you go "Yes, but..."

And then you carry on and go "Ah, but... oh..."

And then you read even further and go "Er... erm... well..."

And then your brain gives up and escapes from your head in protest.

I started reading it and thought, 'Oh, I think I've read this before somewhere', and then I remembered. I've read the same vile shite in Mein Kampf.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Who the fuck voted for such a 'manifesto', though?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I finally stopped thinking even he was taking it seriously when I got to the bit about making all religions update their Holy Texts to reflect modern society and culture. How the hell he expects to be able to do that from a Town Hall in Kent is beyond me...
And the way he compares the age of the Koran to that of the Bible (400 years, because he doesn't appear to know that that KJV is not the original).

Presumably he's claiming the KJV was the same sort of revision to modern standards that he's calling for now...

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

quote:
Originally posted by birdie:
The full manifesto has been taken down. For those of you who didn't have the pleasure, it included a seven verse Poem What He Wrote and the delicious sentence "I am clearly not dotty".

Yes dear.

"I'm not crazy. My mother had me tested."

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Nothing wrong with Clark's manifesto, other than it is a bit long. Amongst the rambling is the stark truth. I've taken the liberty to edit it to concisely contain only the relevant information.

quote:
I am a...bad...person

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Only a local council candidate? Local councils provide social services, education, planning, libraries and waste & recycling services amongst others. I'd rather have loonies in the House of Commons where they are unlikely to have any effect amongst six hundred, than on a local council where they are a member of a body one-tenth that size.

I wasn't trying to say that local councils are unimportant, rather he's not an important figure in terms of UKIP's national operations and that the calibre of candidates in mainstream parties for local councils can be very low.

That said, I wrote that before I had the chance to read his manifesto and I accept that he is on the wackier end of the council candidate spectrum, if not in a class of his own.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

I rather like his profound analysis that

quote:
Iran is generally shifty

. I'm sure that this issue comes up a lot at PCC...

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
If I was going to be fair to UKIP (though I'm not sure that I should be) this chap is only a local council candidate. I imagine local council candidates from the mainstream political parties hold a range of equally dotty views.

We had a Parliamentary by-election where I live last month. During the campaign, the UKIP candidate made it on to the national news saying that allowing gays to adopt children was a form of child abuse. UKIP were quick to point out that what he said wasn't "official UKIP policy". They seem to trot that line out a lot, yet still seem to allow these nutters to stand for public office, whether local or notional.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I finally stopped thinking even he was taking it seriously when I got to the bit about making all religions update their Holy Texts to reflect modern society and culture. How the hell he expects to be able to do that from a Town Hall in Kent is beyond me...
And the way he compares the age of the Koran to that of the Bible (400 years, because he doesn't appear to know that that KJV is not the original).
Presumably he's claiming the KJV was the same sort of revision to modern standards that he's calling for now...

Personally I think that's very new-fangled; we lost the plot when we committed the Scriptures to writing and got away from oral tradition...

Posted by Yam-pk (# 12791) on :

Suspending Iran AND Israel from the UN would get my vote tho' [Biased]

Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Who the fuck voted for such a 'manifesto', though?

My mother voted for a "Christian Party" which was all pro-bible and anti-mainstream political parties and that, for those reasons, I presume. That they were also anti-immigrant (with her own son being an immigrant) didn't come on her radar. Some vague sense of solidarity was the key. I believe that what that gobshite wrote will chime with many in GB (having less immigrants, being anti-Muslim, for example).

Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I started reading it and thought, 'Oh, I think I've read this before somewhere', and then I remembered. I've read the same vile shite in Mein Kampf.

True enough, though it was the sheer weird, illogical, contradictory strangeness of the "manifesto" that got me. Not much of it even makes sense and it contradicts itself about a million times at least.

If you're going to write vile shite, then at least write logical vile shite.

(I never got very far with Mein Kampf so can't comment on its logicality or otherwise - though one of my politics lecturers thought it as strange as it was repulsive.)

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

Next borough to me. I wonder what he thinks about the gurdwara, and the food bank run by the Methodists.

Just catching up on the dark charisma of Hitler. It will be interesting to see what the vote for UKIP is tomorrow.

Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Personally I think that's very new-fangled; we lost the plot when we committed the Scriptures to writing and got away from oral tradition...

Oral tradition? Luxury! We couldn't afford words when I were a bairn. We had to get up at midnight, half an hour before we went to bed, memorise entire Bible as liturgical dance, lick 'honoured place' clean wit' tongue, eat handful of incense grains and pay vicar for t' privilege.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

I note from the manifesto that he is making a point, possibly unrecognised by people out of county or country, that he is not from that flighty East Kent where the Men of Kent hang out, but the west, where the proper Kentishmen are found.

Haven't read all of it yet. The will to live gives up after a while. His poem what he wrote, with apologies to Byron, curiously identifies the Anglo-Saxons he presumably regards as suitable occupants of Gravesend as the barbarian invaders to be compared with the recent incomers. Clark isn't a Welsh surname.

Gravesend, the town around which the borough of Gravesham has been constructed, has a large Sikh population. Who are entitled to vote, of course. Altogether curious.

He doesn't appear on the Institute of Chartered Accountants list of members, but if he has ceased to practice, he would have had to send his certificate back.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Personally I think that's very new-fangled; we lost the plot when we committed the Scriptures to writing and got away from oral tradition...
Oral tradition? Luxury! We couldn't afford words when I were a bairn. We had to get up at midnight, half an hour before we went to bed, memorise entire Bible as liturgical dance, lick 'honoured place' clean wit' tongue, eat handful of incense grains and pay vicar for t' privilege.

Vicar? Luxury!

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
On reflection, I think our friend Geoff is possibly an unholy alliance between:

Hitler (Eugenics, Euthenasia and destruction of minorities)

Alf Garnett (Arm chair grand-standing Racism)

That bloke down the pub who claims something is true because he "reckons it" and all the socio-economic priblems in our country have an easy solution which every honest hard working British bloke can see.

"I bet you reckon something"

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :

Link above not available in North America. Could some passing English Hellhost kindly check.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Not available here either [Frown]

I feel oppressed

Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :

Perhaps Karl's link will work for you:

http://www.brucelawson.co.uk/2012/geoffrey-clarks-redacted-gravesham-council-election-manifesto/

Posted by Tubifex Maximus (# 4874) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
...The will to live gives up after a while...

In which case, Penny S, you are entitled to free advice on how to kill yourself, thus reducing the surplus population.

quote:
Originally posted by the right wing nutjob
legalising euthanasia and giving free euthanasia advice to all folk over 80 years of age, and indeed to all others.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

As long as he's prepared to take the advice when it's offered to him (as surely it is likely to be).

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

...now would be a good time as it would mean the rest of us would have a Happier Christmas

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I note from the manifesto that he is making a point, possibly unrecognised by people out of county or country, that he is not from that flighty East Kent where the Men of Kent hang out, but the west, where the proper Kentishmen are found.

I noticed that. I bet his kind of Christianity goes back to the time when Kentishmen burnt people from the next village in a whicker man to protect the crops....

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
On reflection, I think our friend Geoff is possibly an unholy alliance between:

Hitler (Eugenics, Euthenasia and destruction of minorities)

Alf Garnett (Arm chair grand-standing Racism)

That bloke down the pub who claims something is true because he "reckons it" and all the socio-economic priblems in our country have an easy solution which every honest hard working British bloke can see.

If I'm correctly understanding his reference to Greenbelt, he's also something of an environmentalist. Albeit probably of the Garrett Hardin variety.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Oh, and I like how he settles over 200 years of debate about population with...

"POPULATION growth and declining quality of life are connected (Malthus, 1798)."

Well, there ya go.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

I suspect his green belt reference is more to do with preventing that there Lunnon from spreading out to his own vicinity and filling it up with non-Kentish folk. There's only one borough now between Greater London and Gravesham. London is now, Kent-wise, co-terminous with the boundary established between the British people of London and the Jutes of Kent after the battle of Crayford, with a boundary built as the Faesten Dyke between the two. Can't have that eroded and Boris' plans to take over the Kentish Thameside allowed. Gravesham would be filled with, in addition to the Sikhs, the Africans of Deptford, and who knows who else? All those people from the multitudinous little churches along Watling Street wouldn't vote for someone on his PCC - wouldn't know what it stood for.
I doubt his environmental stance.
I'm just listening to G&S Yeomen of the Guard - will to live restored. (Until the end, bit sad that.)

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

UKIP has dropped him now.

Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :

I am intrigued as to why what he said causes such outrage because in an admittedly cack-handed way he is raising an important issue. It is in Britain a more or less accepted medical policy to screen for things like Downs Syndrome and then counsel an abortion. He is saying that parents who choose not to go down the abortion route should bear some of the financial consequences of that. In a world where even touchy-feely internet companies won't pay their tax who do you consider will pay for the extra costs of handicapped children and adults who now survive because of advances in medical care? And with severely disabled children this can run into tens of millions of pounds over a lifetime. This is in addition to all the costs associated with an ageing population. In reality it is likely to be the children themselves who will enter a world of faltering and failing healthcare.

[ 21. December 2012, 12:42: Message edited by: aumbry ]

Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :

quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
In a world where even touchy-feely internet companies won't pay their tax who do you consider will pay for the extra costs of handicapped children and adults who now survive because of advances in medical care? And with severely disabled children this can run into tens of millions of pounds over a lifetime. This is in addition to all the costs associated with an ageing population. In reality it is likely to be the children themselves who will enter a world of faltering and failing healthcare.

Hang on... are you really saying that because tax receipts are lower because of non-compliance by companies (amongst other things), we should abort more babies just because they may be costly?

Really?
[Eek!]

Not, y'know, get those companies to pay their tax properly so that we can afford to pay for them, like you'd think a civilised country or world would. Or assess our spending priorities so that we can use the money we have for things like that?

What a mess we're in if this is the sort of thing people are starting to say...

[Mad]

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I suspect his green belt reference is more to do with preventing that there Lunnon from spreading out to his own vicinity and filling it up with non-Kentish folk. There's only one borough now between Greater London and Gravesham. London is now, Kent-wise, co-terminous with the boundary established between the British people of London and the Jutes of Kent after the battle of Crayford, with a boundary built as the Faesten Dyke between the two. Can't have that eroded and Boris' plans to take over the Kentish Thameside allowed. Gravesham would be filled with, in addition to the Sikhs, the Africans of Deptford, and who knows who else? All those people from the multitudinous little churches along Watling Street wouldn't vote for someone on his PCC - wouldn't know what it stood for.
I doubt his environmental stance.
I'm just listening to G&S Yeomen of the Guard - will to live restored. (Until the end, bit sad that.)

Penny:

Thanks for the crash course on boundary disputes in southeast England.

I will say that it's not exactly unheard of for anti-immigration environmentalists to be apparently sincere on both counts. I've heard it expressed as "If we bring in more immigrants, we're just moving people from low-consumption areas to high-consumption areas". Basically, keep them in the third-world, so as to ensure that their carbon-footprints remain small.

Maybe Clark's latching onto Greenbelt is just a cover for his outright racism(which I don't doubt exists), though his references to population-control and Malthus led me to think he might have some grounding in the environmental end of the argument.

In addition to Mr. Hardin whom I mentioned earlier, the Sierra Club also has had long-standing internal divisions over immigration...

link

Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:

quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
In a world where even touchy-feely internet companies won't pay their tax who do you consider will pay for the extra costs of handicapped children and adults who now survive because of advances in medical care? And with severely disabled children this can run into tens of millions of pounds over a lifetime. This is in addition to all the costs associated with an ageing population. In reality it is likely to be the children themselves who will enter a world of faltering and failing healthcare.
Hang on... are you really saying that because tax receipts are lower because of non-compliance by companies (amongst other things), we should abort more babies just because they may be costly?

Really?

Not, y'know, get those companies to pay their tax properly so that we can afford to pay for them, like you'd think a civilised country or world would. Or assess our spending priorities so that we can use the money we have for things like that?

What a mess we're in if this is the sort of thing people are starting to say...

I am not saying babies should be aborted because companies won't pay their tax so just read the post again properly.

The moral difficulty is that you cannot keep bringing severely disabled babies into the world if there are not the resources to look after them and in that respect parents do have to take responsibility.

Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :

quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
The moral difficulty is that you cannot keep bringing severely disabled babies into the world if there are not the resources to look after them and in that respect parents do have to take responsibility.

What evidence do you have that most parents of disabled children do not "take responsibility" for the extra costs?

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

re: Down Syndrome and eugenics.

Somewhere around 90% of all Down Syndrome fetuses in Europe and the US are aborted. So, essentially, even without a state-enforced eugenics policy, we're garnering pretty much the same result as we would if such a policy were in place.

You can draw whatever conclusions you want from that, both about the economic benfits to be derived from any compulsory eugenics program(close to nil, I'd say), and about the willingness of most prospective parents to welcome a Down Syndrome child into their lives(also pretty close to nil).

link

[ 21. December 2012, 16:05: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :

It's a real pity you have a deaf spaz hosting this thread. I sure hope I get to see more people supporting compulsory abortion of "deficient foetuses". Personally, I would rather have compulsory euthanasia of all small minded TABs. It would sure cut down on misery and make a kinder, gentler world.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

The rise of eugenics does pretty much give the lie to the idea that most people believe human lives to be of equal value.

I'd mention a list of people with disabilities who have achieved amazing things, but that would just mean I was implying that if they didn't the eugenicists would have a point.

(For mammon-worshipping fuckwads, I suggest that people with disabilities create a demand for additional goods and services - which other people then produce and pay for. When someone creates a demand for ipads that is apparently fine.)

[ 21. December 2012, 18:44: Message edited by: Doublethink ]

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

Geoffrey Clark lost, coming second in the two elections in which he was standing.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Funny how this cost-benefit analysis for human lives stops at birth. I'd like to see the more useless individuals being weeded out regularly, with annual reviews.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Geoffrey Clark lost, coming second in the two elections in which he was standing.

Hooray for the Tories!

Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on :

He got just under half as many votes as the Tories, just under twice as many as Labour, and just over five times as many as the LibDems in Gravesham. Just under 2.75 times the Tory vote, a bit over 1.5 times the Labour vote and just slightly less than seven times more than the LibDem vote for the Kent County Council election. And this from a disowned UKIP party candidate!

Even with these stats (which pose a serious question about the issues people vote on), I can't echo any Hooray for the Tories who, imo, are a vicious bunch of bastards no less despicable than the NuLabour govt they succeeded.

[ 22. December 2012, 00:08: Message edited by: Jahlove ]

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Funny how this cost-benefit analysis for human lives stops at birth. I'd like to see the more useless individuals being weeded out regularly, with annual reviews.

Can we select them by democratic process please?

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jahlove:
He got just under half as many votes as the Tories, just under twice as many as Labour, and just over five times as many as the LibDems in Gravesham. Just under 2.75 times the Tory vote, a bit over 1.5 times the Labour vote and just slightly less than seven times more than the LibDem vote for the Kent County Council election. And this from a disowned UKIP party candidate!

Even with these stats (which pose a serious question about the issues people vote on), I can't echo any Hooray for the Tories who, imo, are a vicious bunch of bastards no less despicable than the NuLabour govt they succeeded.

OK then, a small expression of relief that, with the Tories about as vulnerable as they will ever be in constituencies in which Labour has no chance, the UKIP protest vote hasn't achieved anything (this time round).

I'm confident that if every UKIP candidate's record is examined in detail they will be found to be no more plausible than McKenzie (their candidate in the Croydon by-election) and Clark. That should cut down the protest vote.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Funny how this cost-benefit analysis for human lives stops at birth. I'd like to see the more useless individuals being weeded out regularly, with annual reviews.
Can we select them by democratic process please?

But there are people who are disliked but who still provide valuable services.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Funny how this cost-benefit analysis for human lives stops at birth. I'd like to see the more useless individuals being weeded out regularly, with annual reviews.
Can we select them by democratic process please?
But there are people who are disliked but who still provide valuable services.

Like Hellhosts you mean? [Biased]

Posted by comet (# 10353) on :

Speak for yourself. I'm a ray of motherfucking sunshine. Everybody loves me.

Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :

True

Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Funny how this cost-benefit analysis for human lives stops at birth. I'd like to see the more useless individuals being weeded out regularly, with annual reviews.

But it doesn't; he wants all 80-year-olds to be offered euthanasia, because they cost the NHS a lot of money as well.

I want to know at what point he and/or Aumbry would kill Stephen Hawking...

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :

Or me. Not that I am in the same class as Hawking, but I have been, and continue to be, a useful member of society. Unlike Aumbry. Or Clark.

Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
Or me. Not that I am in the same class as Hawking, but I have been, and continue to be, a useful member of society. Unlike Aumbry. Or Clark.

Or me. Wonder if Aumbry personally knows any disabled folks.

Posted by Tubifex Maximus (# 4874) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
Or me. Not that I am in the same class as Hawking, but I have been, and continue to be, a useful member of society. Unlike Aumbry. Or Clark.

But Geoffrey doesn't want to kill you, PeteC; heavens forfend, perish the thought, no. He just wants you to know that if you ever,...you know,...got a bit..you know,.. like, bored n'stuff. He'd be around, only if you needed him, to give you some advice about how to...you know. And it's for free, not like you'd have to pay or anything.

Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :

quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Funny how this cost-benefit analysis for human lives stops at birth. I'd like to see the more useless individuals being weeded out regularly, with annual reviews.
But it doesn't; he wants all 80-year-olds to be offered euthanasia, because they cost the NHS a lot of money as well.

I want to know at what point he and/or Aumbry would kill Stephen Hawking...

To you and others, putting aside everything else he has said, he didn't say that he was going to force people to be euthanised, just that for the growing number of people that wish to be able to consider that route it should be open to them with advice (since he does not spell out what form this advice would take then it is difficult to judge it.)

If I may say, your a bunch of jumpy, scaremongerers who saw someone advocating euthanasia becoming a legal option and decided he wanted to compulsaraly (?) put everybody over 80 down... jeez people, get a grip!

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

If I may say, your a bunch of jumpy, scaremongerers who saw someone advocating euthanasia becoming a legal option and decided he wanted to compulsaraly (?) put everybody over 80 down... jeez people, get a grip!

And you're a semi-literate pillock with a comprehension by-pass and the empathy levels of a brick.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

If I may say, your a bunch of jumpy, scaremongerers who saw someone advocating euthanasia becoming a legal option and decided he wanted to compulsaraly (?) put everybody over 80 down... jeez people, get a grip!

Euthanasia is one thing, but to advocate it to save money indicates that the matter of choice is to be restricted in, no doubt, the national interest, and to Clark, an accountant turned politician, that would be the national economic interest. Great idea for deficit reduction!

Still, it's better, or at least more honest, than cutting benefits so people die of the cold, malnourishment or inadequate accomodation, which is where we're headed right now on both sides of the Pond.

Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:

quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

If I may say, your a bunch of jumpy, scaremongerers who saw someone advocating euthanasia becoming a legal option and decided he wanted to compulsaraly (?) put everybody over 80 down... jeez people, get a grip!
And you're a semi-literate pillock with a comprehension by-pass and the empathy levels of a brick.

I whole-heartedly accept I am guilty as charged on the first two indictments, however I thoroughly refute the third charge, m'lud. [Two face]

He does draw attention, as many others of a more prestigious pedigree have done previously (for example the ever great David Attenborough) without drawing some of his more crazy suggestions but certainly his more moderate ones, about a maximum supportable population, balancing the needs of God's creation with our needs. Population control is a real issue if we are to continue to exist on this little planet whilst protecting the natural environment around us... euthanasia and abortions are not the answer, but certainly birth control is...

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

If I may say, your a bunch of jumpy, scaremongerers who saw someone advocating euthanasia becoming a legal option and decided he wanted to compulsaraly (?) put everybody over 80 down... jeez people, get a grip!
Euthanasia is one thing, but to advocate it to save money indicates that the matter of choice is to be restricted in, no doubt, the national interest, and to Clark, an accountant turned politician, that would be the national economic interest. Great idea for deficit reduction!

Still, it's better, or at least more honest, than cutting benefits so people die of the cold, malnourishment or inadequate accomodation, which is where we're headed right now on both sides of the Pond.

Please, cutting benefits may result in a handful of people being reduced to the situation you are talking about (in the UK), but for many it is a case of having to tighten the financial belt and suck it up (and where do you think a 1% rise in benefits in the UK constitutes a cut? - even my basic level maths understands that!) Having endured the life on benefits it was truly more expensive for me to move from being on state benefits with my JSA, council tax benefit, housing benefit and the other funds that are occassionally open if need be, to being employed, paying tax and finding I lost all benefits because I earned (before tax) over the limit set, but once tax etc. are taken into account I earn just enough to cover my bills each month with about £100 left over for niceties and my fags...

My real issue with benefits is, if you are working and the state then graciously hands over cash to you (in fact returning your money to you...) then evidently people are being taxed too much in the first instance (since I see this going to a 'but it is the people in work receiving benefits that will be hurt') - tax people less and then they wouldn't need top-up benefits!

The numbers of people dying of cold and hunger are relative... we have a high standard of living in the UK as a general rule, what constitutes poverty in the UK is relatively higher than what many in the world constitute as a daily wage on which to live day-by-day... If you are so concerned than act as community, get your local Church/community group to set up a soup kitchen, hostel for the homeless and do something Christian about it instead of expecting the sprawling, beaurocratic state to hold all the answers to every problem...

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
Or me. Not that I am in the same class as Hawking, but I have been, and continue to be, a useful member of society. Unlike Aumbry. Or Clark.

Pete - you're royalty! Some of us have never accepted that Tudor pretender.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

If I may say, your a bunch of jumpy, scaremongerers who saw someone advocating euthanasia becoming a legal option and decided he wanted to compulsaraly (?) put everybody over 80 down... jeez people, get a grip!

Well, if I'm at a party, and the host says "Hey Stetson, you don't seem to be having a good time. If you wanna leave, I won't be offended. I'm glad you came anyway", that's one thing.

But if the host says, "Uhh, Stetson, we're kinda running low on booze and chips, and, let's face it, no one seems to really enjoy having you here, so, you can certainly stay if you want, but, you know, feel free to leave if you're not having a good time", that's quite another.

Clark's comments about euthanasia, situated as they were within a finacical calculation, were closer to the second statement, I'd say.

Posted by JonahMan (# 12126) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

Please, cutting benefits may result in a handful of people being reduced to the situation you are talking about (in the UK), but for many it is a case of having to tighten the financial belt and suck it up (and where do you think a 1% rise in benefits in the UK constitutes a cut? - even my basic level maths understands that!)

Perhaps your basic maths needs to take into account that the inflation rate is larger than 1% (aprticularly on things which the poorest people spend the most on), and therefore, in real terms
it is a cut.

Not to mention that many benefits are being withdrawn or reduced anyway.

quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

My real issue with benefits is, if you are working and the state then graciously hands over cash to you (in fact returning your money to you...) then evidently people are being taxed too much in the first instance (since I see this going to a 'but it is the people in work receiving benefits that will be hurt') - tax people less and then they wouldn't need top-up benefits!

Most benefits are being paid to people in work - though not necessarily paying tax. This suggests that they are being paid too little. I would certainly argue that the minimum wage is below a living wage. For all the bleating from conservatives about benefits, they don't seem willing to accept that rewarding work should include ensuring that people are paid enough in the first place.

quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

The numbers of people dying of cold and hunger are relative... we have a high standard of living in the UK as a general rule, what constitutes poverty in the UK is relatively higher than what many in the world constitute as a daily wage on which to live day-by-day... If you are so concerned than act as community, get your local Church/community group to set up a soup kitchen, hostel for the homeless and do something Christian about it instead of expecting the sprawling, beaurocratic state to hold all the answers to every problem...

Because if there is any point at all in having a state it should be to ensure everyone's basic needs are met. We shouldn't have to rely on random individual charity to do this. Of course, tehre are always going to be people slipping through the net, and soup kitchens etc should be there to deal with this. But it is not a solution to widespread, endemic poverty.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
He does draw attention, as many others of a more prestigious pedigree have done previously (for example the ever great David Attenborough) without drawing some of his more crazy suggestions but certainly his more moderate ones, about a maximum supportable population, balancing the needs of God's creation with our needs. Population control is a real issue if we are to continue to exist on this little planet whilst protecting the natural environment around us...

Then he should do the decent thing and top himself to save us all some money and natural resources, rather than suggesting that other people are too expensive.

[ 22. December 2012, 21:50: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

If I may say, your a bunch of jumpy, scaremongerers who saw someone advocating euthanasia becoming a legal option and decided he wanted to compulsaraly (?) put everybody over 80 down... jeez people, get a grip!
Euthanasia is one thing, but to advocate it to save money indicates that the matter of choice is to be restricted in, no doubt, the national interest, and to Clark, an accountant turned politician, that would be the national economic interest. Great idea for deficit reduction!

Still, it's better, or at least more honest, than cutting benefits so people die of the cold, malnourishment or inadequate accomodation, which is where we're headed right now on both sides of the Pond.
Please, cutting benefits may result in a handful of people being reduced to the situation you are talking about (in the UK), but for many it is a case of having to tighten the financial belt and suck it up (and where do you think a 1% rise in benefits in the UK constitutes a cut? - even my basic level maths understands that!) Having endured the life on benefits it was truly more expensive for me to move from being on state benefits with my JSA, council tax benefit, housing benefit and the other funds that are occassionally open if need be, to being employed, paying tax and finding I lost all benefits because I earned (before tax) over the limit set, but once tax etc. are taken into account I earn just enough to cover my bills each month with about £100 left over for niceties and my fags...

My real issue with benefits is, if you are working and the state then graciously hands over cash to you (in fact returning your money to you...) then evidently people are being taxed too much in the first instance (since I see this going to a 'but it is the people in work receiving benefits that will be hurt') - tax people less and then they wouldn't need top-up benefits!

The numbers of people dying of cold and hunger are relative... we have a high standard of living in the UK as a general rule, what constitutes poverty in the UK is relatively higher than what many in the world constitute as a daily wage on which to live day-by-day... If you are so concerned than act as community, get your local Church/community group to set up a soup kitchen, hostel for the homeless and do something Christian about it instead of expecting the sprawling, beaurocratic state to hold all the answers to every problem...

Silly me! I should have omitted the second paragraph in the hope that you would reply to the first! C'mon, what do you have to say to that?

Posted by Thread Necromancer (# 17559) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:

quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

If I may say, your a bunch of jumpy, scaremongerers who saw someone advocating euthanasia becoming a legal option and decided he wanted to compulsaraly (?) put everybody over 80 down... jeez people, get a grip!
And you're a semi-literate pillock with a comprehension by-pass and the empathy levels of a brick.

Wow! People really get nasty around here.

Posted by comet (# 10353) on :

Die die DIE!

comet, Slayer of the Undead

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0