Tis a terrible thing, poverty, however I'm running a kiddies "get to know chimneys" forum at Chippenham Town Hall this weekend. Maybe it could interest a few of our members?
|
|
12-10-11, 06:15 PM
Tis a terrible thing, poverty, however I'm running a kiddies "get to know chimneys" forum at Chippenham Town Hall this weekend. Maybe it could interest a few of our members?
12-10-11, 06:20 PM
If it were up to me, after 18 months of being on benefits without a valid and provable reason for not being able to get a job then you get cut off.
I am proof that jobs aren't as thin on the ground as everybody makes out, in the 12 months i've lived in Salisbury i've had 3 jobs and a further 2 job interviews that i turned down when offered a full time position!
The problem isn't that there are no jobs its that it is easier for people to sit on their arse and scrounge off the government who is so full of human rights and political correct BS that they can't see they're being had!
If you've not got a job after 18 months of being on benefits you either get cut off, join one of the armed forces or get shot in the face! You can choose which ever you like but "none of the above" is not an option!
If you have kids and choose option #3, then the children get put in for adoption! Sorted!
12-10-11, 06:25 PM
A Sense of Perspective
Amid all the doom and gloom I thought I would post these set of statistic to put a perspective on just how bad things apparently are at present!!
If we could shrink the earth's population to a village of precisely 100 people, with all the existing human ratios remaining the same, it would break down on a per person scale accordingly... There would be:
57 Asians
21 Europeans, 14 from the Western Hemisphere, both north and south
8 Africans
52 would be female 48 would be male
70 would be non-white 30 would be white
70 would be non-Christian 30 would be Christian
89 would be heterosexual 11 would be homosexual
6 people would possess 59% of the entire world's wealth and all 6 would be from the United States.
80 would live in substandard housing
70 would be unable to read
50 would suffer from malnutrition
1 would be near death; 1 would be near birth 1 (yes, only 1) would have a college education
1 would own a computer
When one considers our world from such a compressed perspective, the need for acceptance, understanding and education becomes glaringly apparent. The following is also something to ponder... If you woke up this morning with more health than illness...you are more blessed than the million who will not survive this week.
If you have never experienced the danger of battle, the loneliness of imprisonment, the agony of torture, or the pangs of starvation ... you are ahead of 500 million people in the world.
If you can attend an idealogical meeting without fear of harassment, arrest, torture, or death...you are more blessed than three billion people in the world.
If you have food in the refrigerator, clothes on your back, a roof overhead and a place to sleep...you are richer than 75% of this world. If you have money in the bank, in your wallet, and spare change in a dish someplace ... you are among the top 8% of the world's wealthy.
If your parents are still alive and still married ... you are very rare, even in the United States and Canada. If you can read this article of perspective, you are more fortunate than over two billion people in the world that cannot read at all. Of course, as I see the world today, perhaps that's not such a bad thing.
12-10-11, 06:49 PM
Things are going to get a little awkward!Originally Posted by DaytonaDog
12-10-11, 08:11 PM
Contributions on this debate clearly show that members have differing views on the definition of poverty and rightly so. Hopefully however, the following will bring some clarity regarding the findings of the respected IFS. Their report, from which I quoted, uses the technical term of "absolute" poverty, which is not about what people can or cannot afford but a measure in relation to other earnings - in this case defined as being below 60% of the median income, adjusted for inflation.
I think it’s important to note that all the children from the predicted households living on 60% below the average wage will be in that position through no fault of their own and a significant number will have parent(s) who are in work.
I believe these predicted figures are alarming and we cannot afford to ignore them. Successive governments set targets to reduce child poverty because they are only too aware of the cost to society and I’m not just talking in financial terms. Let’s not forget that we have entered uncharted waters in terms of the highest youth unemployment since records begun. I just don’t accept the mail and sun editorials that the 2.6 million unemployed (another 100000 announced today) are work-shy.
12-10-11, 08:46 PM
Agree.
It troubles me that for 99.9% of our life we as adults have to endure carrying around testicles, boobs and have to endure the misery of periods (yup, both male and female suffer) just incase we may actually need to use them someday?
They should be removable, like panniers? Or velcro? Retractable? When you want to breed (POP) out come your funplums and you're on fullfat rather than skimmed!
12-10-11, 09:10 PM
Unemployment doesn't go up because people suddenly can't be arsed to work. Standard of living doesn't go down because people can't be arsed to work. In the same way child poverty doesn't go up because people can't be arsed to work. Agreed, there is always going to be spongers in society, but there are also those in genuine need. Everytime this debate comes up, all anyone can do is point out the spongers. What about those in genuine need? I feel lucky that I'm still in business, and keeping afloat, when so many are losing their livelihood. I feel sorry for those who have worked all their life in an industry, that is now getting hit by this recession. Some jobs are very specialised, and trying to find alternative employment, when even low paid jobs are going to the Polish, is not easy. Just my two cents...
12-10-11, 09:23 PM
SF, who would you call worthy judges deciding on who is and who is not worthy for parenthood? What about members of John Major's Government? Lecturing the nation with their “Back-to-basics” policy on family values while half the cabinet was involved in affairs.
Even Major himself was revealed, albeit after leaving office, to have had an affair - with fellow Tory frontbencher Edwina Currie.
12-10-11, 11:30 PM
Even Major himself was revealed, albeit after leaving office, to have had an affair - with fellow Tory frontbencher Edwina Currie.
Hey, I'm just off to bed. I'm going to have nightmares now!
13-10-11, 01:26 AM
@RedKen Seems to me that,perhaps, the main modernised populations may have reached a watershed in that technology is now responsible for reduced employment needs and must , therefore, accept that large numbers of an increasing population will inevitably be surplus to requirements and we ,society, must recognise that there simply is nothing for 'the surplus' to do. In fact if rapid modernisation of the lower economies happens then it follows that huge numbers of them will also be deemed 'surplus'---there are, of course, many avenues to explore on this subject.
It should be noted that even now the government is continuing to borrow money--the State is bankrupt in all but name and employees of the 'State' have to accept this about their employers. Read that borrowing is set to be £500 billion or whatever half a trillion looks like ;D
I have just arrived from pub [contributing to tax] if this makes no sense ;D ;D drink beer write borrocks you know it makes sense
| « Previous Thread | Next Thread » |
