Ship of Fools: Benefit cuts

Thread: Benefit cuts 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=029962

Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :

I just need to have a splutter - bear with me.

There's been a lot of UK news about proposed cuts to disability benefits. Every time the government cuts my elderly family member's benefits I have to make up the difference out of my earnings cos leaving elderly disabled widowed family members to starve in debt makes the baby Jesus cry. I don't know whether I'm going to have to find £200 a month to make up for this cut. Elderly family member is panicking despite my reassurances.

Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

News item on benefit cuts

[ 18. March 2016, 09:59: Message edited by: Helen-Eva ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

They're talking about some disabled people losing £3, 500 a year. What? Are they fucking serious?

How can MPs vote for this? As Corbyn says, any one of us could become disabled at any time. I give up on politicians and Parliament. It's a fucking club for the rich.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

meanwhile cathedrals are getting £20 million

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

But there does seem to be a Tory rebellion building up. I suspect my MP won't be involved.

Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
But there does seem to be a Tory rebellion building up. I suspect my MP won't be involved.

Do you live in Chipping Norton then or that part of Cheshire inhabited by the Chancellor?

Incidentally, I now hear that pensioners aren't going to be affected by this cut so my elderly disabled widowed family member is going to be OK this time but that doesn't alter it for many who aren't.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I give up on politicians and Parliament. It's a fucking club for the rich.

More and more so [Frown]

Posted by Doone (# 18470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I give up on politicians and Parliament. It's a fucking club for the rich.
More and more so

Ditto

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

What can one do? Under a Tory govt the rich will get richer, and the poor poorer. Well, there have been improvements since the war, we have had welfare, increased wages, better housing. There was a kind of post-war settlement among politicians. But today? Neo-liberalism rules the roost.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

In the constituency of the minister for war. Oh, confusion, defence.

I notice that the major Tories are sticking to the "we are making sure that those in most need will receive better help" line, and totally failing to define how many would be helped and how many would be losing in the quest for reducing the welfare bill.

I think they are determined to stick to it.

Posted by passer (# 13329) on :

It looks as though the cuts have been abandoned.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

Any Tories with a conscience should vote against this. They should leave the party.

Of course there is the Moral way and the Tory way, and they are increasingly far apart.

Osborne claims that he is standing up for the vulnerable. But then he is a liar. Everything he says is lies, lies and more lies. In reality, he is looking after the rich as they all are.

I have wiped things off my arse with more morality than this government.

Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :

Iain Duncan Smith has resigned!!!!!
[Yipee]

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
Iain Duncan Smith has resigned!!!!!

This is a good thing. But I suspect it is a political move, not really because he has a problem with cutting benefits.

I still think he is a piece of shit. But the fact that the leadership of the party is so divided gives me some hope.

One down, quite a few more to go.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

My theory is that he wanted out over the brexit thing, and wanted to shaft Osborn - thereby positioning himself for the post-cameron leadership challenge. (Ideally, coming off a referendum out vote.)

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

It is just possible Cameron wants to throw Osborn under a bus, so he can row back from the austerity policies a bit and give the tories a better chance in the next election, (I could see him covertly egging on Osborn and IDS in different directions.)

It sort of fits a bit with this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35834904

I also think it show's how much Corbyn's approach has shifted the austerity debate. Actual opposition has led mps to start publically question assumptions that were being taken for granted by both front benches last Summer.

[ 18. March 2016, 21:23: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

He has really gone for the jugular with his resignation letter, full text here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35848891

That last sentence almost achieves a sarcastic font.

[ 18. March 2016, 21:29: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I also think it show's how much Corbyn's approach has shifted the austerity debate.

Thanks, I needed a laugh

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I also think it show's how much Corbyn's approach has shifted the austerity debate.
Thanks, I needed a laugh

Yep. He's shiftd it from "don't give a damn" to "really, I don't give a fuck".

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

I would like to believe that he has discovered the few tattered shreds of a soul. But yes, sinking Osborne may also be in the mix.

Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
Iain Duncan Smith has resigned!!!!!

I expect he read this thread and that made him sit up and think a bit. Ahem.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

IBS has been the tormentor-in-chief of the poor and disabled for years. I'd like to think he's had a Damascene conversion, and will hereafter devote his time and not-inconsiderable personal wealth helping those he's hurt. At the very least, visit each grave of those he's hounded to suicide and place some flowers.

However, I don't think he gives that much of a shit about them even now, and is simply playing petty politics against the Treasury. Expect him to take a directorship in Serco or G4S in due course.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
IBS has been the tormentor-in-chief of the poor and disabled for years. I'd like to think he's had a Damascene conversion,

I think IDS has had good intentions, and has genuinely wanted to improve things. Universal Credit, for example, is in principle a good idea. I think his implementations have been problematic, and I'm certain he's been given the shaft by George Osborne, who is Satan.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
IBS has been the tormentor-in-chief of the poor and disabled for years. I'd like to think he's had a Damascene conversion,
I think IDS has had good intentions, and has genuinely wanted to improve things. Universal Credit, for example, is in principle a good idea. I think his implementations have been problematic, and I'm certain he's been given the shaft by George Osborne, who is Satan.

I have to agree. Way back in June 2010 IDS mooted a "joined-up benefit" scheme that would give people enough to live on but at the same time encourage them to move into work. That simply doesn't happen because there are so many means-tested benefits that are all partially withdrawn when a wage is earned, such that the overall effect of the withdrawals cancels out most of the wage earned, and can even reduce overall income (ie, you earn a pound but lose more than a pound in benefits).

And the Treasury, in the person of George Osborne, is still too stupid to realise this. All they have done is impose a crude cap which is nowhere near enough for a family living anywhere other than in a very cheap area in social housing.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

Good intentions? Well, look where we're posting.

There's nothing wrong with organising a benefit system that tapers so that paid employment can gradually replace benefits, such that the marginal rate of tax doesn't exceed 100%.

And in theory, there's nothing wrong with putting foxes in charge of the hen house, because it's in the foxes' best interest to ensure a regular and continuing supply of both birds and eggs.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

FYI: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35824033

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Yep. He's shiftd it from "don't give a damn" to "really, I don't give a fuck".

No-one expects you to give a fuck you cretinous cockwomble. Fucks are given by people with souls and a conscience.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

IDS has gone in lieu of the EU referendum debacle, it's doubtful he, personally, gives a flying fig about benefit cuts. Some comfort, for those seeking it, can be drawn from one's enemy's enemy being a friend.

His won't be the first butt to disappear into the dark before, or after June 23rd

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

I am not qualified to judge anyone but I have to admit that sometimes what people say does ring very hollow.

If you want to stand up to someone and tell them that they're wrong kicking someone when they're already down and bloodied and beaten, that's nobel. Even if the person you're saying it to is a close friend.

But if the reason that they're bloodied and beaten is because you and your friends put them there, if you have been doing quite a bit of the kicking and told the victim that it's all for their own good, then I'm afraid to say that you lack credibility is an astounding understatement.

Yes Mr Duncan-Smith, I mean you. I have no idea what you are like as a person but I have seen with my own eyes that your department - whose whole raison d'etre is to protect us all when we become old or ill or disabled - has for these past few years been nothing short of evil. And yes, I do mean that word. Whatever the intend that has been the effect. And you have either been blind or willfully blind to this.

I am not sorry to see you go, but the damage was done a long time ago

AFZ

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Good intentions? Well, look where we're posting.

Well spotted [Biased]

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
IBS has been the tormentor-in-chief of the poor and disabled for years.

Where I live, IBS stands for irritable bowel syndrome. [Big Grin]

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
IBS has been the tormentor-in-chief of the poor and disabled for years.
Where I live, IBS stands for irritable bowel syndrome.

In fairness it's not hard to understand how one might confuse the two.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

To be accurate, his initials are IDS - as in the trending hashtag #IDSofMarch.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

In our house, it's either IBS or Iain Duncan Shit. In the same way that it's Gideon, and never George, and David "Pigfucker" Cameron. Lest we forget.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

I struggle to tell the difference between them. But then I am not a coprologist.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Nor does Stephen Crabb exactly stand out as any different, despite that rather glowing BBC write-up. No mention there of his support for cutting £30 per week from disabled people. Nor, his homophobia.

Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
In the same way that it's Gideon, and never George

I've always been a little concerned about people who do this - firstly, that's his legal name, it's what he chose to call himself and some respect should be shown.

But secondly, I think it's very interesting that he changed it because he perceived that such a Jewish sounding name would make it hard for him in public office, which given the amount of people who would like to remind him of his Jewish sounding name seems a fair fear, and perhaps is illustrative of the little acknowledged hint of anti-Semitism in some parts of centre-left and left wing politics in the UK.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Is it because it sounds Jewish, or people worry about giving a position of authority to someone who keeps forgetting to take his Bible home when he stays in a hotel?

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

LOL, Alan. And yeah, I wouldn't assume someone named "Gideon" was Jewish. Could be Christian; could be his parents were fond of Mandy Patinkin's character on "Criminal Minds"!

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

I was talking to a friend recently, who was telling me something I find very sad and concerning.

Without giving personal details (and so even though this is unidentifiable, I'm only saying what has already been said in public by him), he recently divorced from his wife and moved out of the family house and into a flat.

He said to me that a major factor in this was because they were struggling to survive financially. As he was the only earner, he felt like he was forced to move out and sever financial links to his wife and children and move into a considerably cheaper flat.

The state picks up the tab of the cost of housing everyone else via housing benefit and he is better off - even with the costs of child contributions - because the flat is considerably cheaper.

There is more to this story.. but still, it seems more-than-slightly insane that the state system is actually contributing to family breakup by making the most sensible financial move for a money-earner to leave the family home.

That, my friends, is fucked up.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

posted by dyfrig

quote:
...hint of anti-Semitism in some parts of centre-left and left wing politics in the UK.

HINT?

The co-chair and BME representative of the Oxford University Labour Club have both resigned in the past 3 weeks, citing anti-semitic bullying
the reinstatement of a Labour Candidate (Vicki Kirby) who has tweeted "Who is the Zionist God, I'm starting to think it may be Hitler" and suggested that ISIS should attack Israel
the reinstatement (supported by John McDonnel) of Gerry Downing, who compared Labour Friends of Israel to Joseph Goebbels, is,pro Hamas and Hezbollah, and refers to the "Jewish Problem"
A renewed hate campaign on twitter aimed at Luciana Berger, who has spoken out about anti-semitism in the Labour Party
anti-semitic bullying allegations against two Momentum activists (one an adviser to Jeremy Corbyn) are being swept under the carpet

This is more than a "hint" - this is starting to become a torrent.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
In the same way that it's Gideon, and never George
I've always been a little concerned about people who do this - firstly, that's his legal name, it's what he chose to call himself and some respect should be shown.

Gideon is his name. Gideon Oliver. 'George' isn't any of his names. And it's as Gideon that he's the inheritor of a multi-million pound trust fund and the title of Baron Gideon of Ballentaylor and Ballylemon.

Gideon is a perfectly decent name - my first novel's protagonist is called Gideon, and I have a great deal of affection for it. So why does he try to hide both it, and his inheritance?

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Gideon is his name. Gideon Oliver. 'George' isn't any of his names.

He's entitled to call himself any name he likes, for any non-fraudulent reason.

Full stop, end of.

Yes, George is a name that he chose rather than a name he was assigned at birth. What of it? (And it makes not the slightest difference if he has chosen to execute a deed poll or not. If someone says "My name is George", George is his name. Regardless of what it may say on his passport.)

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Gideon is his name. Gideon Oliver. 'George' isn't any of his names. And it's as Gideon that he's the inheritor of a multi-million pound trust fund and the title of Baron Gideon of Ballentaylor and Ballylemon.

... why does he try to hide both it, and his inheritance?

I can see no reason to hide his name. But, I can see how it would be politically problematic to make an issue of a multi-million pound inheritance and title. Like many other Tories (and, some Labour and other party politicians) he is caught between the reality of being a member of a very small privileged class and the need to be seen to be "one of us" to his local party membership and constituents. So, they don't exactly fib ... but are a bit evasive (to say the least) about the subject - and, anything else too.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Gideon is his name. Gideon Oliver. 'George' isn't any of his names.
He's entitled to call himself any name he likes, for any non-fraudulent reason.

Full stop, end of.

Yes, George is a name that he chose rather than a name he was assigned at birth. What of it? (And it makes not the slightest difference if he has chosen to execute a deed poll or not. If someone says "My name is George", George is his name. Regardless of what it may say on his passport.)

You mean, like Drumpf?

Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :

I don't think your last paragraph is right, Doc. A quick look on the web finds both Guardian and Times saying he changed it by deed poll. As far as I can tell his legal name is George Gideon Oliver Osborne, but you may have another source.

His reasons for adopting the name - no less weird, it seems to me, than CS Lewis declaring himself to be "Jacksie" at the age of 4, which became his lifelong appellation of Jack - have been given in different ways. He told the Telegraph that he didn't like the name, and adopted his grand-father's name at 13 - "Life was easier as George". He told the Evening Standard "I couldn't think of anyone who I liked or who was successful who was called Gideon."

The material I thought I had read on Wikipedia isn't there anymore, so or otherwise I'm misremembering the source, but I have read about his perception of the name. The notion of life being "easier" as George suggests to me that I';m right in recalling that there is some element of protecting himself against the casual prejudices of British society. Whilst it may have become one of the fashionable names Evangelicals in the later 90s, along with Joshua, in mid-80s rich London I suspect it wasn't entirely left unremarked on. People from the two generations of British Jews that I have to know have very "neutral" names like Dennis, Malcolm and (oddly) Merton. GO's brothers are Benedict, Adam and Theo and his mother is Felicity, not notably Jewish sounding names. I think it very probable indeed that (English public schools being what they are) that some of the ab- sorry, schoolboy japes and banter directed at him played on his name. At around the same time we in the state sector mocked a guy at our school for having part of his name that sounding like "AIDS" and regularly referred to Malcolm Allen's kid brother as Chris Chocs. The grammar may have been better at George's school, but I suspect the intent was the same.

As someone who has changed their name by deed poll and helped others do it - it involves the word "renounce" - I'm probably more aware of the need to respect the choices people make in this regard.

What a weird few days - waking up to on Saturday to hear that IDS was nearly on the side of the angels, and today defending George Osborne's right to call himself what he damn well likes. Well, as Arthur Keostler said, you can't stop people being right for the wrong reasons.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
He's entitled to call himself any name he likes, for any non-fraudulent reason.

Full stop, end of.

Yes, George is a name that he chose rather than a name he was assigned at birth. What of it? (And it makes not the slightest difference if he has chosen to execute a deed poll or not. If someone says "My name is George", George is his name. Regardless of what it may say on his passport.)

My grandfather's name was (in the form of) Robert James Smith.

In the army he was Jim Smith. Later in life he was called Robert (for reasons we can't quite explain, but probably due to him wanting to distance his old age from the active part of his life). In official documents until his death he was RJ Smith.

What was his name? Clearly it depends who you're asking and in what context he was known and - perhaps oddly - which period of his life he was known.

But it isn't untrue to say that his name was Robert James Smith. Or Robert. Or Mr RJ Smith.

I don't think one can be too "thing" about this. The guy's name is Gabriel, just as Paddy Ashdown's firstname is Jeremy, and Jack Straw's firstname is John.

They have professional/political names. They also have real firstnames. One can obviously use their real firstname to highlight the fact that they're not. No biggie.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

OK if he has actually legally changed his given name, that's a bit different.

I note that he is George on the UK parliamentary biography, unlike Paddy Ashdown and the others - so I think it is highly likely that George is his legal firstname.

Posted by Amorya (# 2652) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
I don't think your last paragraph is right, Doc. A quick look on the web finds both Guardian and Times saying he changed it by deed poll. As far as I can tell his legal name is George Gideon Oliver Osborne, but you may have another source.

In the UK, your legal name is whatever you ask to be called.* There's no need to document or register it.

A deed poll or statutory declaration makes some things easier, like getting a new passport. But it's not a legal requirement.

Amorya

*As long as there is no intent to defraud.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
so I think it is highly likely that George is his legal firstname.

This idea of someone having "a legal name" is an American one. I don't think English law quite has the concept.

A "deed poll" doesn't change your name - it provides evidence that you have changed your name. The only thing required for someone to change his name is to start using his new name as his name.

Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :

Sorry, that long paragraph of mine seems to descend into gibberish at several points. I shall blame the corneal edema rather than my own laziness or stupidity.

Yes, Mr C, I think it is important if he has actually changed his name. But I also think there is a qualitative difference in the way people spotlight his aristocratic and money heritage, and his name change.

None of these things have ever been kept secret. That Telegraph article I quoted is from 2005, but the first time I heard it referred to by a comedian - on the News Quiz - was in 2014. And it seems to be that comedians and others who would normally not tolerate race-based jokes do seem to want to highlight the fact in ways they would not in the other, very good examples, which you refer to. (Another example is Robert Maclennan, the second leader of the SDP, who eventually changed his name by deed poll to "Sorry, and you are.....?")

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

I'm normally utterly sanguine about what people want to call themselves: I grew up calling the Lord Lieutenant of Berkshire "Nicky", and the Hon. Lady Featherstone, "Feathers". And how else can I expect folk to respect my wish to be called "Lord High Potentate of Space and Time"?

The likelihood of ever meeting Osborne is minimal, and I might even prefer "you utter bastard" to "Gideon" by that point. But I do think he's deliberately trying to obfuscate his inherited wealth and privilege - which is disingenuous of him. If he's that ashamed of it, perhaps he should renounce both his impending title and his trust fund.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
I don't think your last paragraph is right, Doc. A quick look on the web finds both Guardian and Times saying he changed it by deed poll. As far as I can tell his legal name is George Gideon Oliver Osborne, but you may have another source.

His reasons for adopting the name - no less weird, it seems to me, than CS Lewis declaring himself to be "Jacksie" at the age of 4, which became his lifelong appellation of Jack - have been given in different ways. He told the Telegraph that he didn't like the name, and adopted his grand-father's name at 13 - "Life was easier as George". He told the Evening Standard "I couldn't think of anyone who I liked or who was successful who was called Gideon."

The material I thought I had read on Wikipedia isn't there anymore, so or otherwise I'm misremembering the source, but I have read about his perception of the name. The notion of life being "easier" as George suggests to me that I';m right in recalling that there is some element of protecting himself against the casual prejudices of British society. Whilst it may have become one of the fashionable names Evangelicals in the later 90s, along with Joshua, in mid-80s rich London I suspect it wasn't entirely left unremarked on. People from the two generations of British Jews that I have to know have very "neutral" names like Dennis, Malcolm and (oddly) Merton. GO's brothers are Benedict, Adam and Theo and his mother is Felicity, not notably Jewish sounding names. I think it very probable indeed that (English public schools being what they are) that some of the ab- sorry, schoolboy japes and banter directed at him played on his name. At around the same time we in the state sector mocked a guy at our school for having part of his name that sounding like "AIDS" and regularly referred to Malcolm Allen's kid brother as Chris Chocs. The grammar may have been better at George's school, but I suspect the intent was the same.

As someone who has changed their name by deed poll and helped others do it - it involves the word "renounce" - I'm probably more aware of the need to respect the choices people make in this regard.

What a weird few days - waking up to on Saturday to hear that IDS was nearly on the side of the angels, and today defending George Osborne's right to call himself what he damn well likes. Well, as Arthur Keostler said, you can't stop people being right for the wrong reasons.

I'd be really interested if you can find a source for the change having anything to do with perceptions or otherwise of Jewishness - it's an explanation I've literally never come across.

FWIW the inference I'd always put on his name change at age 13 making life "easier" was simply that, having been at an all-boys school myself, I can well imagine being called Gideon was a handy bit of ammunition for the bullies - and the sort of thing which might make a sensitive child look around for a new name.

I'm not sure it was because at the age of 13 he wanted a better name for being PM, or to hide a baronetcy (*not* a barony). I think it's slightly more likely that he was a typical 13 year old looking for an easier life, and questioning one of the more outre decisions of his parents 13 years beforehand.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
But I do think he's deliberately trying to obfuscate his inherited wealth and privilege - which is disingenuous of him. If he's that ashamed of it, perhaps he should renounce both his impending title and his trust fund.

FFS, he made the decision when he was 13! I can think, see previous post, of at least one *slightly* more plausible explanation for the decision than

"in 30-odd years time this is going to make it really easy for me to hide inherited wealth and privilege"...

Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
I'd be really interested if you can find a source for the change having anything to do with perceptions or otherwise of Jewishness

You and me both, duckie - I've definitely read, but I'm buggered if I can find it.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

Do I have to be fair?

No. No, I don't.

And as has been noted, people end up with different names as they move through life. Being called George now is useful to him in a different way that it was when he was 13. Not so difficult to understand that, is it?

Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :

Sadly, the one source it might be is Hislop's Esteemed Organ, which (having had my own work dissed by proxy in it) I tend to treat with scepticism, so it might have been a gloss from their source which wasn't necessarily Osborne's own words. I shall now refer myself to the judgement in Arkell v. Pressdram and get on with some real work.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Do I have to be fair?

No. No, I don't.

And as has been noted, people end up with different names as they move through life. Being called George now is useful to him in a different way that it was when he was 13. Not so difficult to understand that, is it?

no, and if he changed his name now to Derek, for example, I'd have more time for your contention.

what I think is slightly more difficult is your argument that because it's now a useful stick to beat him with you can ignore the original reasons behind the name change and act as though he's done it for the reasons you would prefer him to have done it for to fit your thesis.

I can see why you would prefer him to have done it because he's a scheming narcissist rather than because he was apparently a bullied 13 year old boy, but rather unfortunately...

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

And, of course, it's far more important that we concentrate on what we call the hoofwangling bunglecunts, as opposed to the fact that their malicious reign is actually killing people.

If I thought for a moment that referring to them by their great titles of state might save a life, I'd be all over that like a rash. But as it is, these petty nibblings will have to suffice. Because they don't fucking care one jot, neither will I.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You mean, like Drumpf?

Yes, pretty much exactly like Drumpf. Donald Trump's grandfather was a German immigrant called Drumpf. Neither he not his father have ever had a name other than "Trump".

It is reasonable to contrast Mr. Trump's stated positions on immigration with his business practices, and it's reasonable to contrast them with his own family history. To do so by claiming that his name is "really Drumpf", "should be Drumpf" and so on is incorrect.

Similarly, it's entirely reasonable to refer to the early childhood of Gideon Osborne, the Olympic career of Bruce Jenner, or the early career of boxer Cassius Clay. It is not reasonable to use those names to refer to those people in a current context.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
It is reasonable to contrast Mr. Trump's stated positions on immigration with his business practices, and it's reasonable to contrast them with his own family history. To do so by claiming that his name is "really Drumpf", "should be Drumpf" and so on is incorrect.

Up to the point he made fun of another immigrant family's surname-change, there was no question of calling him anything else.

Surely I don't have to explain the concept of satire to you?

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Up to the point he made fun of another immigrant family's surname-change, there was no question of calling him anything else.

So where has Mr. Osborne been misnaming people that you feel justified in calling him "Gideon"?

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

If misnaming people was the least of his sins, then I might reconsider.

But since you appear to care more about whether or not someone has the correct appellation than whether their policies drive people to suicide, I have no hesitation in calling you Learning Shit.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

And this (nsfw) is simply typical of how Brits behave.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

I actually think this is rather more typical of how British humour works when asked to name something.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
But since you appear to care more about whether or not someone has the correct appellation than whether their policies drive people to suicide, I have no hesitation in calling you Learning Shit.

You have absolutely no grounds for this statement, but you will, I'm sure, do as you please.

For anyone else reading this thread: As far as Mr. Osborne goes, calling him "Cunty McCuntface" is an obvious insult mixed with a bit of topical humour. There are schools of feminist thought that would oppose female-genitalia-as-insult on principle, and those who, again on principle, oppose crude language, but apart from that, there's no particular issue with using that word to describe either him or Mr. Hunt. I described Mr. Osborne as Satan a few posts ago, so you might guess that I am not his biggest fan either.

"Gideon", however, isn't an insult. It's a name that Mr. Osborne was assigned at birth, and chose not to use. And as far as that goes, people who call him "Gideon" are wrong. Mr. Osborne has just as much right to determine his own identity as anyone else, and the fact that he's an odious little man with nasty politics doesn't change that.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

Whether Mr Osborne refers to himself as Gideon and/or George refers to a clearly conscious personal decision. [Like many of us I am known by several names depending on the context I'm in and the people I'm with - my full name, a shortened version, my family name, my dad's/granddad's name, my "stage" name. None of these matters, I am who I am].

The real issue is whether Osborne is trying to portray himself as a man of the people when he isn't. If that's the case, then he's a liar and a hypocrite. It hasn't helped his case to be told "we're all in this together" when the burden has fallen disproportionately on the poorest: hardly a one nation Government unless "one nation" is like the One Ring of Tolkein fame.

Yes I know the BBC have been quoting stats that prove that the better off are paying a higher % of our tax bill - but you'd expect that. They now earn more and will be taxed more: changes in disposable income are a far better measure of social and financial mobility. One example suffices: NHS Nurses get 1% - what do MP's get?

Osborne's claims to be a man of the people raises the question of "which people?" The UK isn't and never has been one tribe. It seems as if he's trying to appear engaging to as many influencers as possible - the rest just don't matter. How is a disabled man from the New Jerusalem ever going to benefit Osborne with a nice meal or a holiday? His lifestyle is like a fantasy novel to anyone of the 6000 people who live on the estate a couple of hundred yards away.

It's a wider issue. We have whole hosts of people in the public eye claiming to be " a man/woman of the people." As if. Take Esther Rantzen - lots of good work and claims to be a housewife like any other. With a degree in English from Oxford and several houses I think there's an amount of smoke and mirrors here. She's not queuing in Poundland to buy food for a family nor is she buying school uniforms from ASDA. I'm sure she cares about all the causes and work she's involved in - but perhaps she like others should do so as themselves not as a pastiche or a "figure."

[ 22. March 2016, 04:26: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

For anyone else reading this thread: As far as Mr. Osborne goes, calling him "Cunty McCuntface" is an obvious insult mixed with a bit of topical humour. There are schools of feminist thought that would oppose female-genitalia-as-insult on principle, and those who, again on principle, oppose crude language, but apart from that, there's no particular issue with using that word to describe either him or Mr. Hunt. I described Mr. Osborne as Satan a few posts ago, so you might guess that I am not his biggest fan either.

"Gideon", however, isn't an insult. It's a name that Mr. Osborne was assigned at birth, and chose not to use. And as far as that goes, people who call him "Gideon" are wrong. Mr. Osborne has just as much right to determine his own identity as anyone else, and the fact that he's an odious little man with nasty politics doesn't change that.

I don't understand your reasoning here. You appear to be comparing one thing that is clearly an exaggerated personal insult (he doesn't have genitalia for a face) to another thing that is an exaggerated insult (using a name that isn't his official name) - and then saying the latter is beyond the pail.

So why is one inaccurate insult worse than another (apparently) inaccurate insult? Isn't the nature of calling people names that you use insults that are not their name? Isn't it somewhat more nuanced to call someone by a name they used to be referred to - perhaps like calling Boris by his school nickname. Or a name that sounds like it should have been his school nickname.

Anyway, more important things are happening than getting in a stew about calling someone a name, no?

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

Personally I don't go much for personal invective even for highly-deserving politicians so wouldn't use "Cunt-face" or "Gideon". But I can't see much case for a moral superiority of one over the other except for the charge of anti-semitism.

I think calling someone a name they clearly didn't like and wanted to get rid of is grounds for finding it insulting, irrespective of anti-semitism. However I do worry a bit that some people find "Gideon" especially insulting because the name is associated with Jews.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I'm not aware that the fictional "Gideon of Scotland Yard" had any Jewish association whatsoever.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

I think calling someone a name they clearly didn't like and wanted to get rid of is grounds for finding it insulting, irrespective of anti-semitism. However I do worry a bit that some people find "Gideon" especially insulting because the name is associated with Jews.

OK that's fair comment, I'd not fully contemplated any anti-Semitic aspects.

But even there, I still find it hard to get het-up about calling the man by the name his mother gave him.

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

Is Gideon really a name that the average person on the street would associate with Jewishness? I can think of very few Gideons, and google doesn't help much either, but, to me, it's a name most commonly associated with evo Christians, possibly because of the bible charity. If he had been called Moses or Solomon, then maybe, but I would no more think someone called Gideon was Jewish than someone called Joel or Nathan or any one of a dozen other Biblical names so beloved by attendees of HTB or other well heeled London preaching shacks.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

I know a Joel here, who named his son Nathan (though, his wife might have has a say in the name too). One time LCMS missionaries now working here. So, no hint of Jewishness there but plenty of evangelical Christianity. No one would think of David as a particularly Jewish name either, though it is, or Sarah, Rebecca, Samuel, Joseph ...

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

I read this thread expecting to hear people fulminating about the hideous way the most vulnerable people in our society are being targeted by the Government. And you lot are worried about what the Chancellor calls himself? [Mad]

If I had the energy I'd call you all to Hell for being small-minded fuckwits.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

But even there, I still find it hard to get het-up about calling the man by the name his mother gave him.

I think you'd find it quite easy to get het-up about someone calling Caitlin Jenner by "the name his mother gave him". It might be less obvious why you should care about someone being "merely" misnamed rather than misgendered, but there's a similarity.

Identity is very personal. Osborne has quite clearly chosen not to identify as Gideon. Resurrecting "Gideon" suggests that he doesn't have the right to determine his own identity, which is unreasonable. Calling him by some insult or other, contrasting his privileged background with that of the people who are most affected by his policies - all this is fair game. But not "Gideon".

Maybe I'm too sensitive about this, but there you are.

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
I read this thread expecting to hear people fulminating about the hideous way the most vulnerable people in our society are being targeted by the Government. And you lot are worried about what the Chancellor calls himself?

If I had the energy I'd call you all to Hell for being small-minded fuckwits.

You have a point.

The hideous way that every so called 'tough decision' or episode of 'strong leadership' has meant hitting the most vulnerable, but:

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

But even there, I still find it hard to get het-up about calling the man by the name his mother gave him.
I think you'd find it quite easy to get het-up about someone calling Caitlin Jenner by "the name his mother gave him". It might be less obvious why you should care about someone being "merely" misnamed rather than misgendered, but there's a similarity.

Identity is very personal. Osborne has quite clearly chosen not to identify as Gideon. Resurrecting "Gideon" suggests that he doesn't have the right to determine his own identity, which is unreasonable. Calling him by some insult or other, contrasting his privileged background with that of the people who are most affected by his policies - all this is fair game. But not "Gideon".

Maybe I'm too sensitive about this, but there you are.

We need to avoid cheap shots and personal insults.
There is an argument to win. It is satisfying to vent anger and much deserved but that will not help the victims and that is what matters.

At the risk of, you know, showing off and all... here's something I wrote six month ago; I think I was right. The question remains, will Labour step up?

AFZ

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I think you'd find it quite easy to get het-up about someone calling Caitlin Jenner by "the name his mother gave him". It might be less obvious why you should care about someone being "merely" misnamed rather than misgendered, but there's a similarity.

I don't think there is much similarity, to be honest with you. By calling him by a male name I am not asserting anything other than making the point he has changed his. Jenner is a different issue. A similar insult here would be to call her Caitlin-the-ex-Kardashian.

Which isn't really saying anything about her struggles as a transgender person and is just being insulting about the previous family relationship.

But even there, I probably wouldn't be thinking to insult Jenner - because a) I have no interest in celebrity television and b) there isn't anything to insult other than the well publicised events over the last few years.

That's quite a different thing to insulting the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who as finance minister is currently alleging that he is somehow the friend of the weak and disabled whilst simultaneously doing everything possible to make them even weaker.

And tbh, an oblique reference to his title, wealth and social standing seems entirely appropriate to me. I thought it was quite clever - although slightly dampened by the suggestion it could be anti-Semitic.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
One example suffices: NHS Nurses get 1% - what do MP's get?

I'm far from holding any brief for politicians in general, let alone those in government but as far as I can discover the percentage terms increases for nurses at entry level are 91% from 1997-2015 and 10% from 2010-2015.

For MPs, the figures are 69% from 1997 to 2015 and 13% from 2010-2015.

Of course percentages are only part of the story. An MP in 2015 was being paid £74,000 against an entry level nurse's £23,345. (1997: £43,860/£12,230).

Proportionally the figures remain fairly constant. In 1997 an entry level nurse would have been getting 28% of an MP's pay. Now, she/he would be getting 32% of an MP's pay.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
I read this thread expecting to hear people fulminating about the hideous way the most vulnerable people in our society are being targeted by the Government. And you lot are worried about what the Chancellor calls himself?

If I had the energy I'd call you all to Hell for being small-minded fuckwits.

My God, I expected to see you fulminating about the global health emergency of malnutrition, infectious disease and poor maternal care and instead you're annoyed about people debating what the chancellor calls himself? Why don't you fuck off you small-minded pathetic worm of indignation. How fucking dare wasting your time on an internet board when there are real fucking problems in the world.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I think you'd find it quite easy to get het-up about someone calling Caitlin Jenner by "the name his mother gave him". It might be less obvious why you should care about someone being "merely" misnamed rather than misgendered, but there's a similarity.

No I don't think there is much similarity. Someone refusing to recognize a name a trans-gender person takes is very likely making a point about not recognizing their trans-gender.

People aren't misnamed as there is nothing objective about a name. It is simply an arbitrary choice to decide I do or don't want to put up with my given name.

You clearly find not recognizing a change of name a particularly offensive poke. I don't have a problem with that, the taking of offense is necessarily subjective and that's a perfectly supportable reaction. However it doesn't seem to be one that is generally shared which therefore will have an impact on what is viewed as proper public discourse in different settings.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
No one would think of David as a particularly Jewish name either, though it is, or Sarah, Rebecca, Samuel, Joseph ...

Well Jesus is originally a Jewish name as well, although Jews seem to prefer Joshua for some reason.

It is interesting how some Jewish names have been taken up widely by different Christian groups. If you meet an Isaac or a Moses in the UK he's quite likely to be Jewish. Unless he's black in which case many black Christian communities use Isaac and Moses a lot.

I've known a few Gideon's and they were all Jewish. I've looked briefly for some stats but didn't find any. There are some stories discussing whether the Jewish link to Gideon was a factor in changing it.

Posted by Doone (# 18470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
No one would think of David as a particularly Jewish name either, though it is, or Sarah, Rebecca, Samuel, Joseph ...
Well Jesus is originally a Jewish name as well, although Jews seem to prefer Joshua for some reason.

It is interesting how some Jewish names have been taken up widely by different Christian groups. If you meet an Isaac or a Moses in the UK he's quite likely to be Jewish. Unless he's black in which case many black Christian communities use Isaac and Moses a lot.

I've known a few Gideon's and they were all Jewish. I've looked briefly for some stats but didn't find any. There are some stories discussing whether the Jewish link to Gideon was a factor in changing it.

I believe Jesus is the Greek form of Joshua. Though I haven't come across anyone called Moses, Isaac is getting fairly popular generally (including my grandson), as is Nathan, Adam, Joshua and other OT names. In teaching, it's interesting to see changing fashions in names [Biased]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0