This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Marcus Rashford
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
BlueJay  UK 23 Oct 20 11.28am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
How much can we expect the state to cater to ignorance and selfishness? We have allowed this country to fill up with an uneducated underclass with origins elsewhere and we now have to foot the bill. As if we didn't have enough of our own already. Neither do I. The only difference being that I take that statement in a realistic and practical sense rather than solely as a finger pointing opportunity.
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
jeeagles  23 Oct 20 11.53am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Rudi Hedman
I do wonder about vouchers. A lot of them get traded for money. I think asylum seekers get vouchers. The left said they were dehumanising. But if a parent gets to the point where they are trading vouchers then the kid is probably best off away from their care. People keep mentioning eat out to help out. It's my understanding that it was a scheme funded by tax breaks rather than cash up front. It also helped keep chefs, waiters, cleaners and a supply chain in work so they could all pay for their kids themselves without asking for handouts. Effectively quantitive easing without any capital investment.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 steeleye20  Croydon 23 Oct 20 12.18pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jeeagles
I think asylum seekers get vouchers. The left said they were dehumanising. But if a parent gets to the point where they are trading vouchers then the kid is probably best off away from their care. People keep mentioning eat out to help out. It's my understanding that it was a scheme funded by tax breaks rather than cash up front. It also helped keep chefs, waiters, cleaners and a supply chain in work so they could all pay for their kids themselves without asking for handouts. Effectively quantitive easing without any capital investment. It seems that you know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| Tom-the-eagle Croydon 23 Oct 20 12.18pm |
|
|---|---|
|
I have the answer to solve all these problems and it’s really quite simple. If you can’t afford to bring up kids, don’t have them! At least until you can afford to. Why people have kids when they don’t even have work is beyond me.
"It feels much better than it ever did, much more sensitive." John Wayne Bobbit |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jeeagles 23 Oct 20 12.55pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by steeleye20
It seems that you know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
It seems you don't understand the definition of the term "price" or "value".
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| steeleye20 Croydon 23 Oct 20 1.01pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jeeagles
It seems you don't understand the definition of the term "price" or "value". A hungry child needs a meal not a lecture on quantitive easing.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| EverybodyDannsNow SE19 23 Oct 20 1.11pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by serial thriller
At the school I work at we have a spare supply of uniform as many students are from families which can't afford to replace old clothes. Over lockdown we also had many staff who were willing to go into the school to tutor the kids from disadvantaged or care backgrounds. The vast majority of teachers and schools are willing to go the extra mile to support students, at no or limited extra cost. They also realise that in the long run, it will cost a lot more if you have kids in class who haven't eaten and are therefore more distracted, or students who in need of extra money because they can't afford food are more susceptible to deal drugs/steal/join gangs. It just seems again that we are so paranoid of a small minority who might abuse the system that we don't want to help anyone. But that rationale only ever happens when we talk about working class people, never billionaires who fleece the state at any opportunity, be it taking furlough pay, taking bailouts, or spending state subsidies on shareholder bonuses. As Rashford has eloquently put, this will actually save us money in the long run. In an era when the government is throwing out free money left right and centre, social investments like this seem far more financially sensible. This. MPs, on their recently-increased £80k salary, get a £25 per day food allowance and we’re happy to fund that, but we draw the line at starving kids. How does one square that off?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Mapletree Croydon 23 Oct 20 1.14pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
How much can we expect the state to cater to ignorance and selfishness? We have allowed this country to fill up with an uneducated underclass with origins elsewhere and we now have to foot the bill. As if we didn't have enough of our own already. I cannot overstate how dreadful this post is. No wonder the other site no longer accepts such comments. The children aren't ignorant or selfish are they? You sacrifice the innocents. As for the 'uneducated underclass' that has 'filled up the country' there is no doubt that such people are helping you to maintain your lifestyle and health. As a matter of interest 11% of children were living in households with persistent low income between 2013 and 2017. In FYE 2018, 12% of children fell below the threshold of low income and material deprivation in the UK. And you write this off as not your problem, only that of their parents. FYI, in schools it is the white low income children that do least well. The most materially deprived (Bangladeshis and pakistanis) actually do quite well so very soon you will need to change your words to white uneducated underclass. We need to care, look after the children and consider the future. Apart from the basic humanity - which seems to pass you by - there is also self-interest in avoiding the development of large groups of helpless people. We need to provide support not snarling derision.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Mapletree Croydon 23 Oct 20 1.16pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Tom-the-eagle
I have the answer to solve all these problems and it’s really quite simple. If you can’t afford to bring up kids, don’t have them! At least until you can afford to. Why people have kids when they don’t even have work is beyond me. Solves nothing for the children currently living with hunger. What will you do for them?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Teddy Eagle  23 Oct 20 1.25pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Isn’t a lot of this already happening?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jeeagles 23 Oct 20 1.42pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by steeleye20
A hungry child needs a meal not a lecture on quantitive easing. No ones saying the don't. The discussion is over how it should be funded to get best value. With a side point about how the left are more interested in chucking cheap insults around rather than seeing what the best way to solve to problem would be. Your wilful ignorance of of understanding basic funding mechanisms shows how stupid the populist virtue signalling over this issue is. I suggest you read back through my comments.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jeeagles 23 Oct 20 1.51pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow
This. MPs, on their recently-increased £80k salary, get a £25 per day food allowance and we’re happy to fund that, but we draw the line at starving kids. How does one square that off? £80k if f*** all compared to the responsibilities, job security, and exposure MP's have. The reason MP's were paid in the first place was to make it more accessible for people who have the means to do the job for free. I think it should be doubled. The Labour Party stand to benefit the most as it will attract better candidates. Corbyn, Blair, Cameron, and Johnson all come from wealthy families (although 3 of them had successful careers before entering politics). If you want decent talent, you have to pay for it. £25 is the standard allowance for any lunch claimed on expenses. It's set by HMRC. More populist nonsense.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.