Printable View
Obviously I'm not stupid enough to buy a house built on a flood plain. If my house gets flooded the museum will be visited by fish ;DQuote:
Obviously you don't live in a place that will suffer from flooding, ever?
Council are renown for spending money on wasteful stuff just to keep their budgets up.
As for CCTV don't get me started on that.
So any friends or family who find their homes flooded, their possessions ruined, and all the associated problems with insurance, accomodation and repairs shouldn't count on you for help or support, after all they are stupid enough to buy a house in an area that might get flooded? Although they can rely on you to tell them how mentally deficient they are compared to you I take it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Swanny
You won't get any argument from me that council's waste lots of money on some things, making sure there are top quality biscuits and drinks available for meetings for example, but we should be cutting those bills rather than cutting services that people rely on.
CCTV is a contentious issue, personally I don't mind the camera themselves, it's what they are used for in some cases that bothers me. I understand that not everyone shares my point of view and would rather they all got removed, I assume that from your comment that you are in this camp? So if you, a family member or a friend was the victim of an assault, burglary or a hit and run and there was CCTV evidence that identified the perpetrator and would seal a conviction, you would ask for that evidence to be removed and not used?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMWGraeme
Ditto![/quote]
You know it makes sense chaps :)
Hmmm... road signs must be interesting..... :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Swanny
Hmmm... road signs must be interesting..... :D[/quote]Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon_W
They are pictures for a reason :)
Sorry Humar but I have no sympathy for someone that buys a house in an area that is prone to flooding.
What about those people who got flooded for the first time? When we got hit with 'extreme rainfall' last year, many areas got flooded for the first time. You also have a knock on effect that the more insurance companies have to pay out, the higher you own insurance costs will rise to help pay for it. Of course the value of your house would go up, which will be nice for you, but thousands of people would have huge amounts wiped off theirs, still, never mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Swanny
So the question about the CCTV footage? If you are completely against them, would you refuse the use of footage to prove your innocence or prove the guilt of someone who assaulted or stole from you, a friend or family member?
Given the choice of a world with or without CCTV I'd go for without.
Anyone that buys a house near a river or on the same level as a river knowing that floods are becoming more common needs their head tested.
I'd agree, but what about people that make a sensible decision and find the council let them down or the builders leave blocked drains or simply too much rain in their area?Quote:
Anyone that buys a house near a river or on the same level as a river knowing that floods are becoming more common needs their head tested.
I am all for people having to take personal responsibility for their decisions (more than most) but not everything that happens is forseeable or the result of a bad decision - life simply isnt' that black and white.
It really doesn''t help anyone to say that people are responsible for the situations they find themselves in. Sometimes they are, sometimes their not.
That's because you are looking at it from a reasonable point of view, with some compassion for others in difficulty. You have to look at it from Swanny's point of view, which appears to be more along the lines of "as long as I'm alright, f**k everyone else", which would apparently also include his family and friends as well as general members of the public. I don't agree with that point of view personally, my grandparents have had their homes modified to enable them to stay in their own homes, I know he doesn't think that the tax payer should fund that, but that's because he can't see beyond his own selfishness. During the war my grandmother was a land army girl, one grandfather was part of the 3rd wave to hit Normandy beaches on D-day and his job was to take ammunition's and grenades from dead and dying soldiers to feed the front line, my other grandfather was in the SAS. He was dropped behind enemy lines to knock out supply depots and other targets, when the war finished he was sent ahead of the rest of our troops to ensure that all remaining German troops where captured or 'neutralised' and it was his unit that came across the concentration camps before everyone else, he said you can tell when you're approaching one of those camps a week before you found it because of the smell of death in the air even if the wind was blowing in the wrong direction. I can't begin to imagine what horrors they witnessed during their service.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducatista
I am sure to reasonable people wold agree that we should do everything we can to help people like my grandparents, when you consider what they have done for us. I guess not everyone is that reasonable, and couldn't care less what happened to these people. Of course should Swanny ever need these services and isn't in a position to afford them, I doubt very much he would refuse them if the state offered them to him. Having a "f**k everyone else attitude" is all well and good, but very few of the people that have that attitude will stick by their morals and principles when it's their turn to need help.
His arguments are easy to pick apart, hence the lack of response to my other points, because his argument doesn't stand up to rational debate.
That's because you are looking at it from a reasonable point of view, with some compassion for others in difficulty. You have to look at it from Swanny's point of view, which appears to be more along the lines of "as long as I'm alright, f**k everyone else", which would apparently also include his family and friends as well as general members of the public. I don't agree with that point of view personally, my grandparents have had their homes modified to enable them to stay in their own homes, I know he doesn't think that the tax payer should fund that, but that's because he can't see beyond his own selfishness. During the war my grandmother was a land army girl, one grandfather was part of the 3rd wave to hit Normandy beaches on D-day and his job was to take ammunition's and grenades from dead and dying soldiers to feed the front line, my other grandfather was in the SAS. He was dropped behind enemy lines to knock out supply depots and other targets, when the war finished he was sent ahead of the rest of our troops to ensure that all remaining German troops where captured or 'neutralised' and it was his unit that came across the concentration camps before everyone else, he said you can tell when you're approaching one of those camps a week before you found it because of the smell of death in the air even if the wind was blowing in the wrong direction. I can't begin to imagine what horrors they witnessed during their service.Quote:
Originally Posted by swarwick
I am sure to reasonable people wold agree that we should do everything we can to help people like my grandparents, when you consider what they have done for us. I guess not everyone is that reasonable, and couldn't care less what happened to these people. Of course should Swanny ever need these services and isn't in a position to afford them, I doubt very much he would refuse them if the state offered them to him. Having a "f**k everyone else attitude" is all well and good, but very few of the people that have that attitude will stick by their morals and principles when it's their turn to need help.
His arguments are easy to pick apart, hence the lack of response to my other points, because his argument doesn't stand up to rational debate.[/quote]
I don't think that Swanny was taking the 'f*ck everyone else' approach. I live in an area with high crime, when I moved to the area I knew full well insurance would be dearer and that the potential for me to be a victim of crime would be higher. I took a knowing risk.
In the seven years i have lived here I have been been the victim of crime 6 times (attempted break-in and theft amongst other things).
Now I knew the risks, but I still decided to live here - I've never moaned once [possibly about the police's slow response!] and the useless uncaring local MP. A lot of people told me I needed my head reading and still do, maybe they are right. I'll tell you something i don't expect anyone else to foot the bill for my higher insurance costs, the additional measures i have to take etc. Personal responsibility seems to be dirty-phrase these days.
On a footnote, i do think we should cut overseas aid and plough that into long term flood prevention, but of course that also puts me as 'f*ck the rest' type by some of your measures, as I don't give 2-sh1ts about foreign aid to some dictator-ran african hell hole. :P
Humar I certainly don't have a **** everyone else approach, I just don't like to see my tax wasted on **** we don't need. And even more I don't want my tax wasted on people that buy houses in high risk flood zones.
By the way I too have war heroes in my family :P
I would refer you to reply #13 on this thread - read what you wrote there and you'll see that you have just contradicted yourself. If you are unable to see this, try Specsavers...Quote:
Originally Posted by Swanny
Can I point out that practically everyone has a relative that was part of the war effort. Bringing it up means nothing and is just basking in reflective glory.
You can't pick and choose what your taxes, rates etc are used for. I got thrown out of a council tennants house today after fitting a £6000 central heating system which was free because at the end of the job there was a 1ft area of fine dust on the floor. She doesnt apreciate or deserve the safety net that has been put in place for her. Should we scrap it? No, because there are people whos lives depend on it. That's the way it works.
If you want to opt out of society, go for it. You won't be missed.
That would suggest that you have not read his posts, as Scotty has pointed out, read reply #13. I would suggest that someone who thinks that the tax payer shouldn't fund modifications to homes so that disabled people, who are unable to fund these modifications themselves, have a better quality of life and retain their independence for longer, or believes that people on low incomes or find themselves unable to get a job should receive no help with housing and council tax costs, who believes that we shouldn't fund schools to educate our children, has a "f**k everyone else" attitude.Quote:
Originally Posted by pilninggas
As you said, you where aware of the high crime levels in your area when you moved in, so I guess that in that respect you shouldn't be surprised when you become a victim, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't complain about it, or try and get something done about it. What if you where not aware though, or what if the area had a very low level of crime and then after you moved in the crime levels rose dramatically, would your position remain the same? Would you still be happy about having to fork out the extra on insurance and additional measures? or would you be demanding that when you moved in you believed it to be a safe area, and something should be done now that it's more risky? A situation that many flood victims found themselves in last year.
As for the foreign aid budget, I think that is something that we should be immensely proud of. I agree that in some places we need to evaluate how that money is spent, but I think the fact that we are helping those less fortunate than ourselves is something that we, as a nation, can and should feel very good about. I just want to be sure that I understand you point of view correctly, we shouldn't help the men, women and children of a country who are suffering, starving and dying because of the person/s in charge? That's fairly harsh don't you think? Cutting the aid budget would also mean that people who do need our help, that don't live in an dictator-ran African hell hole, would also suffer, and to what end? so that we can afford to shop at Waitrose rather than Aldi? Given the choice I would rather shop at Aldi, and know that with my help an innocent child might live to see adulthood, or a village gets clean and safe drinking water. That's just me though, I would rather lend a helping hand than turn a blind eye and ignore the suffering. I would challenge you to visit some of these places and see the suffering for yourself, and then see if you still hold the same view that we shouldn't help them, and they should be left to suffer.
I believe you said that YOU shouldn't pay for things that YOU don't want, not things that you THINK we (society in general) don't need.Quote:
Originally Posted by Swanny
As Scotty pointed out, read reply #13 on this thread which you wrote and explain to me how you not wanting to help disabled people live in their own homes or get a decent meal delivered isn't a "f**k them" attitude? I have already raised this and other points in a previous post, I note that you have not responded to the majority of those points and just picked out the point about flooding. Perhaps if you did that would go someway to helping me understand how it isn't a "f**k them" type of attitude that you put across in reply #13.
I hope those war heroes in your family are rich enough to pay for their own home modifications if they need them now or in the future, from your comments I trust they would receive no help from you? How about the more recent batch of heroes who come home with limbs blown off and other physical and mental disabilities? we, or you, shouldn't bother to help them either? Or how about a regular member of the public, who has never served in our armed forces but has a disability which means that in order to live as much of an independent life as possible they need some modifications to their home, but their disability prevents them from working to earn the money to pay for them? I can remind you of what you said in case you're not sure,
Sounds like a "F**k them" attitude to me, but I could be wrong, I would be interested in undertanding how it isn't though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Swanny
Oh and it's HUNAR :)
My apologies if being proud of what my grandparents have done offends you. Bringing it up isn't about basking in reflective glory at all. I was trying to make the point that saying the tax payer shouldn't fund modifications to a disabled persons home is kinda harsh considering what some of those disabled people have done for us, and that was the best example I could think of, if you let me know what your relatives did I would be happy to include their efforts should I need to make this point again, but I was not privy to that information at the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by dan_geoghegan
I bet it must cost you a fortune when you go shopping around Bath giving money to all the street beggers being that you're such a kind and caring person. How are you ever going to manage when the financial system collapses?
Surprisingly all the members of my family that served in the war are dead.
By the way you should educate yourself about who the real dictators are today.
My apologies if being proud of what my grandparents have done offends you. Bringing it up isn't about basking in reflective glory at all. I was trying to make the point that saying the tax payer shouldn't fund modifications to a disabled persons home is kinda harsh considering what some of those disabled people have done for us, and that was the best example I could think of, if you let me know what your relatives did I would be happy to include their efforts should I need to make this point again, but I was not privy to that information at the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by swarwick
[/quote]
Oh so deeply offended ;D ;D ;D
I rarely if ever got to bath, but if I see a homeless person on the street in Swindon, and I have a few coins in my pocket I will get them a hot snack or drink. If I don't have any money then I don't, simple as that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Swanny
Now are you going to answer the points I raised or continue to avoid them?
Swanny : care to have a go at the BBC calculator
Tax: Do you give more than you get?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13633966
I'll show you mine if you show me yours ;)
I've done it - no real surpises for me. I might be out of the ordinary in this respect, but in general I'm quite comfortable with the way my taxes are spent although, like everyone else, I have my biases over how I would like to have them spent. I'm quite happy for it to be spent on all those things mentioned even if they don't affect me because that's the society that I prefer to live in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducatista
The point that WB makes in that we have no choice over what our taxes are spent on is 100% correct on a day by day basis and frankly I can't see a real alternative as the whole of our society is managed and budgeted that way. This is not a matter of party politics - I see it as this is the way we, as a society, choose to operate. This is nothing new. If individuals don't want to live in that society then simply they should make the choice to leave it. Only society itself can change the way it operates, not an individual. As ever, in my humble opinion of course..... ;)
Society as we know it is about to collapse so none of the above really matters anyway
Keep doing just enough to give yourself a smug little feeling ;D
Someone's been on an Advanced Trolling Course and picked up a few tips? ;D ;D ;)
Yea I would say that's you. :P
TRANSLATION: "I know you are, you said you are, but what am I? :P "Quote:
Originally Posted by Swanny
There's nothing like a grown up debate.....and this certainly is nothing like it.
“If individuals don't want to live in that society then simply they should make the choice to leave it. Only society itself can change the way it operates, not an individual.”
Not so sure supporters of Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela would agree with that point of view. Instead of simply leaving, an individual can choose to follow an alternative path and try to persuade other individuals that a fairer and more caring society is possible.
Who knows, if it was not for Gandhi, Indian society could still be under British rule and without Mandela’s decades of campaigning, the black inhabitants could still be living under a system of racial segregation in South Africa.
When we discuss ‘personal/individual responsibility’ and ‘life choices’ I think it is important to remember that not everyone is born (and lives their whole lives) without mental and/or physical disabilities and not everyone is presented with the same level of opportunities throughout their lives.
“Equality of opportunity” is simply a sound-bite often spouted by politicians and most certainly does not exist throughout every level of our society.
Governments really don't like people trying to live outside of the system they've set up. I'd love to claim sovereignty but know how difficult that is.
Don't forget the government taxes you on everything you buy as well as income tax.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducatista
With respect Swanny, governments are made up of people. People control goverments. If we are allowing the 'tail to wag the dog' then that is a weakness in the people, not the government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Swanny
Loving the action here..where's me popcorn smiley 8-)
regarding the waffle about flooding and having a house on a flood plain....
errrrrrrr I like Hunars signature sentence ;D ;D
I quite like yours, with a little additionQuote:
Originally Posted by Col
"beer is proof that god loves us and wants us to be happy, weed proves he wants us to live in peace"
toke toke pass...
I don't believe it's everything (for example some goods are VAT free) but I take your point.Quote:
Don't forget the government taxes you on everything you buy as well as income tax.
However don't forget that ALL of us take from the system in some way. Whether that be refuse collection, street lighting, NHS, police etc. etc.
The vast majority of people in this country are actually takers. Yes they pay tax, but they also take in either direct benefits or indirectly via schools, NHS, refuse collection.
Unless you are a genuine hermit who lives in the woods off rabbits then you will be using such services.
If you are on an average salary then you are probably a taker and not a giver.
I'm not saying I have any issue with (genuine) takers - I don't. Simply that most people are quick to assess what they put it, without counting the cost of what they take out whether it's via hospitals, police, school, army keeping the peace etc.