Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: stewiegriffin May 28 2012, 11:50 AM

Well, it's another lovely day, so I went for a walk along the canal this morning from Ham bridge to Thatcham station.

All the way from the swing bridge to Monkey Marsh lock is strewn with revolting quantities of litter. It seems to be the remains of about 3 separate BBQ's.
There are empty boxes of lager, beer cans & bottles, plastic coke & cider bottles, choc ice boxes, frozen chicken & burger boxes, charcol boxes, even a half empty tomato ketchup bottle floating by the lock.

It really is a disgusting sight. I can only imagine the type of feral pikey filth that was partying hard there over the weekend.

The canal is a great local resource and a lovely place to go for a wander on a sunny day. It's such a shame to see it utterly spoiled by the TOWIE watching garbage who think it's a great idea to throw their vast quantities of litter everywhere then just bugger off home to their council houses.

There are times when I really do despise humanity.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 28 2012, 11:56 AM

I pretty much agree with your statement, but sadly I have seen proof that this isn't just a council house tenant phenomena.

Posted by: stewiegriffin May 28 2012, 12:04 PM

True, I'm making an assumption for effect there, I know.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 28 2012, 12:07 PM

What is almost a certainty, they will be youths or youngsters, if my observations are anything to go by.

Posted by: massifheed May 28 2012, 12:18 PM

Agreed. I have witnessed the same kind of behaviour from young folk in the park. I have no idea what it is that makes people think that it's fine to simply leave the rubbish left over from your lunch on the grass for someone else to clear up.

Obviously, it's not always young people that drop/leave litter. But I have yet to witness anyone under the age of, say, 30 leave the equivalent of carrier bags full of rubbish behind.

It's definitely an upbringing issue. My parents made sure I knew it was unacceptable to drop litter. And even through my teenage years (when one generally does what the **** one wants) I found a bin for my rubbish. I just can't see the logic in it dropping it or leaving it behind.

Posted by: Nothing Much May 28 2012, 02:54 PM

It is a terrible thought that people have no care for their environment.
It is not youngsters alone. Back in the olden days a gent sold Socialist Worker papers from a fold up stool.
He was a lot older than I, but when he coughed and chucked an empty fag packet in front of me.
I picked it up, popped it on his unsold rags and told him he was a tosser, I felt better for it.
needless to say the packet ended up exactly where it first came to rest and I got a mouthfull from a bloke wiv no teeth.
He will be dead by now, and frankly or shirly. I don't give a "respectful swear word"

Posted by: andy1979uk May 28 2012, 02:57 PM

Its likely that their parents will be on benefit and that they will be in social housing.

Posted by: Roger T May 28 2012, 03:07 PM

Are you Jeremy Kyle?
You remind me of him.

Just shouting "YOU, YOU'RE SCUM" in people's faces. The joke is most people who watch that are on benefits themselves. As it's in the daytime.

Posted by: andy1979uk May 28 2012, 03:13 PM

It is sterio typical I know, but I reckon about 80% accurate of the idiots what wonder round in stupid clothes dropping litter and talking crap. Its the welfare system to blame I tell you.

Posted by: x2lls May 28 2012, 03:15 PM

It's also likely they died before he lost his teeth!!

Posted by: Bloggo May 28 2012, 03:16 PM

The people that leave this sort of debris behind them have no regard or respect for the environment or any one else around them.
Until the law gets tough then nothing will change.
As fast as the responsible amongst us clear up the crap these morons are throwing it around.
What can you do? If you admonish them you will be attacked, possibly physically and again the law want provide an adequate deterent.

Posted by: andy1979uk May 28 2012, 03:19 PM

They will prob be a grandparent by the time they are 30

Posted by: Bloggo May 28 2012, 03:20 PM

Yep, and the whole sorry cycle starts again.

Posted by: andy1979uk May 28 2012, 03:23 PM

Sort the welfare state, limit benefits and the problem will mend itself. Scrub tax credits.

Posted by: Timbo May 28 2012, 03:34 PM

So assuming someone gives birth at 16, their child would be 14 when they give birth to, in turn, their child.
Your way of thinking is completely illogical, wrong, twisted, and falls perfectly inline with the mindset of a typical Daily Mail reader.

Really, what stereotyping family brought you up? Next you'll be going on about how it's mostly immigrants who commit crimes...

Posted by: andy1979uk May 28 2012, 03:36 PM

Prob mainly people in welfare that commit crimes, 14 I expect they will have several kids by that age.

Posted by: Nothing Much May 28 2012, 03:45 PM

I didn't add my comment as a litter rant.. more of a litter rant.
I am sure kind folk will understand.
ce

Posted by: Timbo May 28 2012, 03:46 PM

You for a start?
Since obviously you like to tar everyone with the same brush...

Posted by: x2lls May 28 2012, 03:51 PM

Just like a mail reader? you contradicted yourself. I read the mail, I also read the Express, the Sun, and various others. I have also been known to read the odd forum.

Being a particluar newspaper reader is about as characteristic as saying 'he has long hair and lives in England'. No meaning at all. That said, I agree with your point, (which mine also makes), is that you cannot generalise. If all council tenants were like Andy says, then there would be a simple resolution. Castrate/steralise at 13 and hand the house over so as to be a private occupancy. Problem solved. All of it utter bollox.


Welcome to Germany pre 1945.

The people that do the litter stuff, are also those that drive stupidly, get intyo fights after a beer or fifty over the weekend and attend either Newbury race days or football matches.
See? generalisation is irrational and always dangerous.

The litter idiots, are simply this.. Ignorant, mind blowingly neanderthal, a waste of space and are certainly not showing any respect for others.

Posted by: HeatherW May 28 2012, 03:51 PM

I see that all the time. Why do not the authorities take action? Set up a camera or something at the worse spots.

Posted by: Nothing Much May 28 2012, 04:00 PM

Sometimes I don't get involved with local troubles.
Littering is a national pastime.. and grumbling about it
is an equally cheery way of spending a day on the keyboard.
But littering is not inbuilt in jeans!
ce

Posted by: Jayjay May 28 2012, 04:03 PM

and that will stop them dropping litter?

Posted by: andy1979uk May 28 2012, 04:04 PM

It will stop the wrong people having kids, so yes.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 28 2012, 04:06 PM

I'm not sure, the more impoverished a society is, the more kids they have it seems. Think Africa or Asia for examples.

Posted by: NORTHENDER May 28 2012, 04:06 PM

Do you get child benefit for that kid of yours by any chance?

Posted by: andy1979uk May 28 2012, 04:07 PM

Refere to my child in the correct tone and I may answer, until then I will ignore you.

Thanks

Posted by: stewiegriffin May 28 2012, 04:15 PM

I have no clue as to the ages of those littering the canal, but I strongly suspect they were under 25 or thereabouts. i.e. a generation younger than me.

And it does seem that this current younger generation in particular have been brought up to think the world owes them a living and that 'someone else' will be only too happy to clear up after them.

When I was a kid we spent huge amounts of time messing around by the canal, but never spread litter around or caused any meaningful damage. To say the least we were no angels but we did (mostly!) all grow up with a sense of responsibility. The yoof of today doesn't have that in them. And I'm sure that's not just my imagination.

I don't know if anyone from waterways ever patrols the canal looking for this kind of problem, or whether they have the resources, but it would seem increasingly necessary for them to do so.

Posted by: Penelope May 28 2012, 04:16 PM

I think what he meant to say was "do you get child benefit for that son of yours"

Posted by: x2lls May 28 2012, 04:17 PM

but didn't you display the same tone when you referred to council tenants?

Posted by: Jayjay May 28 2012, 04:20 PM

Have you ever been to the members enclosure at any race meeting? All the Bentley's, Aston Martins, even a Rolls or two in the car park,ladies and gents in designer wear. They have their champagne and caviar picnics in the car park and the aftermath remains there on the ground. Inside they place their bets and the used tickets and mounds of champagne bottles on the floor. On the other hand, look at some gypsy/traveller sites after the occupants have departed. Mounds of litter left for someone else to clear. Both rich and poor; young, middle aged and elderly; oxbridge educated and poorly educated; mansion house and council house occupants are capable of dropping litter.

Posted by: andy1979uk May 28 2012, 04:20 PM

At present child benefit is a universal benefit paid to parents of all children, and yes my son does qualify for it. We do not however need to rely on housing benefit, child tax credits, council tax benefit, free school meals etc etc. The benefits that people having large numbers of children seem to claim in large quantities. We can afford our child without any help, it would be a better country if everyone else could.

Posted by: Penelope May 28 2012, 04:20 PM

Yes, but he also said "do as I say, not as I do"

Posted by: Jayjay May 28 2012, 04:28 PM

Quite agree, it would be a much improved country if people all had jobs and salaries that paid a living wage for a working week. Sadly this is not the case at the present time and I cannot see that changing in the near future. You are very fortunate that you have a job that enables you to support your son without recourse to the welfare state. Lets hope you keep your job throughout the recession.

Posted by: andy1979uk May 28 2012, 04:31 PM

There is a difference between a working family receiving a small top up, to a family of six kids where neither parent has a full time job.

Posted by: Penelope May 28 2012, 04:33 PM

Yup, agreed.

Posted by: Jayjay May 28 2012, 04:40 PM

I never said there wasn't. I was agreeing with your comment 'We can afford our child without any help, it would be a better country if everyone else could.'

Posted by: x2lls May 28 2012, 04:40 PM

Andy,

That is very true, but unfortunately, the chances are not possible for everyone. Yes, there are a distinct number of rogues, but that is true of all groups. But I'm sure the vast majority of those in benefit would rather not be.

I for one, consider myself a very fortunate man, in that I can claim as you, I have achieved all have for me and mine, by me.
Have you by any chance got to where you are from a seriously deprived background?

Posted by: Strafin May 28 2012, 04:48 PM

How much is child benefit these days?

Posted by: x2lls May 28 2012, 04:49 PM

So there could be two people unable to find work.

Posted by: Jayjay May 28 2012, 04:56 PM

£20.30 for the first child and £13.40 for each additional child.

Posted by: Strafin May 28 2012, 05:03 PM

That's not much!

Posted by: JeffG May 28 2012, 06:26 PM

It's more than we ever got for our two.

Posted by: Jayjay May 28 2012, 06:42 PM

Child allowance (the forerunner of child benefit) never paid out for the first child, but you got 5s (25p) for each child after. When you take a brick layer was on about 2s (10p) an hour, child allowance was 2 1/2 times the average hourly wage.

Posted by: JeffG May 28 2012, 06:49 PM

Jayjay, your memory is failing you. A shilling was 5p, not 10p.

Posted by: Penelope May 28 2012, 06:54 PM

Ahh, thruppeny bits and half crowns, a proper currency.

Posted by: Jayjay May 28 2012, 06:55 PM

Oops have edited. Old age and the sun getting to me. I was remembering back to late 40's though.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 28 2012, 07:05 PM

Also, back then, I suggest that the average house-hold didn't 'need' a second wage coming in.

Posted by: Timbo May 28 2012, 07:37 PM

So you claim it or not?
You benefit claiming scum! *shakes fist*.



Sorry, I disagree. You are tarring an entire generation based on... what proof exactly?
The "yoof" of today just want to be treated, generally, with a bit of respect. It's so easy blaming the younger children these days, it's only ever young people who spit, litter and swear. I would think opening your eyes to what really goes on would help you understand that this isn't true. :-(

Posted by: andy1979uk May 28 2012, 08:05 PM

Not all but too many of the youth of today expect life handed to them on a plate, they come from a world were the counil give you a house, if you have a shortfall in money you get tax credits. If you get pregnant then your onto a gold mine, mainly thanks to Laour.

Posted by: NORTHENDER May 28 2012, 08:05 PM

You seem to forget that it is the Yoof of this country that are in uniform and getting shot at and blown up on a daily basis. Of course there are some that will fall through the net and never amount to much but do not paint them with the same brush. It is the youth of this country that are the first to go in times of trouble. Next time you see any old footage taken in WW1 or two and all the battles since, young men with old faces. I have four of my family in the military that were mere youths when they went in and I defy anyone to find better kids. All four have less than three years to do before retiring.

Posted by: andy1979uk May 28 2012, 08:09 PM

yes I have upmost respect for the armed forces, however you just see so many hanging round wasting their lives. The whole tax credits culture annoys, me that is for a nother debate.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 28 2012, 08:17 PM

I would not want to be a youngster these days. Having said that, the future for the more senior members of this country is not looking rosy either.

I'm not saying all youths are wasters, only that if there is an incident of antisocial behaviour, it is most likely to be a youth that is responsible.

Posted by: Timbo May 28 2012, 08:18 PM

Seriously, you are in the least appropriate position to comment here. Out of touch (completely) springs to mind. Livid and ill informed.
And seriously shut up banging on about Labour and how much you hate them. If you love the Conservatives so much, go hump David Cameron's leg like his little pitbull Nick Cleg does. No-one here really cares what your political views are.

You will find more young people actively looking for work than you do those in their middle ages. They are also more passionate. I recently accompanied a friend to their sign on at the job centre. They are very unsure of themselves, only 19 and never had been before. I went in and there were perhaps 2 people under 25, everyone else was (about 5 of them) I'd estimate, between 30 and 50.

I briefly heard one end of a conversation between one of the younger people and they were explaining how they had applied for <job> and had this interview and it was looking promising. To me they sounded keen and eager to have a job.
Step up to the plate someone in their mid 40's. Scruffy hair, manky polo top, tracksuits and some slip-on trainers.

They were not anywhere near as enthusiastic, didn't really have any answers to the relevant job-search-related questions they were asked and seemed like they did not want to get a job.
75-something percent of students achieve an A*-C rating in most schools. From my experience about 80-90% of those go onto higher education (college or apprenticeships) and then about 40% of those go onto University. Some drop out of school at 16, mostly as they had found smaller jobs eg in a supermarket. Some take a year off to travel (well you are allowed to be young once, you know) and, out of those 10-20% that did NOT go to further education, I'd say 50% of them had no job at time of leaving. So if you break it down that's about 5-10% of the taught population who leave school with no real qualifications and will to get a job......

Do you really think that those people are not willing to work, most of them work part time jobs and want nothing more than to have a job in their chosen careers and be on the property ladder.

On a different note, how come your style of writing changes. In your idiotic posts, you fail to comprehend the basic spoken word, but in a few other posts I've seen, where you actually contribute, you are fluent and well written.
Troll springs to mind.

Posted by: andy1979uk May 28 2012, 08:21 PM

I stopped reading at the insults, if you don't like my opinion then fine but at least be adult about it.

Posted by: NORTHENDER May 28 2012, 08:23 PM

Hanging around on the streets and causing a bit of hassle is a young persons game. You do not see many that are well into their twenties hanging around, why, because they have found jobs most of them and have better things to do. Did you not have a group of mates that you hung around with at some time be it at the youth club or the local rec. I think in the main the kids of today are great. Nothing Much know that I deal with kids from all walks of life, council estate kids and kids that live in houses that cost millions and have ponies in the paddock. There is very little if anything between any of them. It does not matter where they come from but where they end up.

Posted by: andy1979uk May 28 2012, 08:24 PM

I guess it depends on how hurried I am in writing, I have read your post now and agree I would not want to be part of the youth of today. It perhaps is'nt all their fault, alot have been let down by education or oppertunites but I do find alot of younger people that are suprised when things like the EMA were stopped or upset that you don't get £500 for every child if you are on income support.

Posted by: x2lls May 28 2012, 08:26 PM

So, attempting back on track.

I've given my views on those that make our precious land an eyesore. What can be done to fight it?

Hmmm, all those nice little asboee's can be sent out to tidy the countryside as opposed ironing second hand trousers in a charity shop! Unless it's already done?

Posted by: Timbo May 28 2012, 08:27 PM

EMA being stopped was very hard on students. Parents deemed them too "old" for pocket money, normally you received £120 a month* to help cover college bills, although for most, they recieved it for doing on work experience for at least 16 hours a week. "unpaid" work experience is fine if you're there for, perhaps a fortnight, or month at most, but too many companies are relying on work experience to support their workforce, which is wrong.

Posted by: andy1979uk May 28 2012, 08:30 PM

You could use young offenders to pick up litter or people who are on job seakers but have turned down a job ?

Posted by: Strafin May 28 2012, 08:38 PM

Rubbish! It was only around for a few years, why are people so against a part time job these days??

Posted by: andy1979uk May 28 2012, 08:59 PM

A study found most students used EMA to go out drinking, anyone who thoght they should be paid to goto college is I'm afraid in lala land.

Posted by: x2lls May 28 2012, 08:59 PM

You could use older offenders too.

Those that commit a crime should clear up after fellow criminals.

Posted by: Timbo May 28 2012, 10:54 PM

Do you have a link to this study?
And in balance, what is wrong with going out, if that's what they want. You are given the money to spend on equipment, trips etc, if you then choose to spend it on something else that's their choice. Like Tax Credits, if you don't need them why do you still receive them? They are not forced upon you.


@ Strafin:

Because it's not as easy being a student as it sounds. Not to patronise, I'm sure you were there at one point or another. But over the last 10 or so years, things have became exponentially more difficult for the younger adult in todays world.
Most students unfortunately do not have a car, unless they either had a chunk of money saved up or given to them (and no, before certain people go "oh they should work for it" - sometimes you need to help out your children, myself I would probably gift a car as an 18th or 21st birthday, depending on their situation, driving license, etc)

Anyway, as I said most do not have cars. So they have to bus everywhere. Even at Student rates, a bus ticket can be £15 or £20 a week. More if you have to go to a place like Basingstoke, or Reading. So straight away, that may/may not be a big chunk of what was the £30 they are given. You need to buy food or drinks when you are at college, believe it or not many run canteens but rather than providing value meals and snacks for learners, it's all about profit and even here a bottle of Fizzy Pop is £1, maybe more. In comparison it's no cheaper than a supermarket.

It's reasonable to want a mobile phone, as most young people have social lifes, something I feel many of the older ones are rather envious of (hence why the young people are "hanging around on the street corner", tell me just how do you know? Evenings and weekends, no-one is working anyway and if you saw them during the day, why aren't you at work? All the people who aren't "youths" are just at home, sat indoors on a sofa watching daytime TV, out of sight, out of mind for you?) and so a reasonable expense is to have a contract for their phones at £20-£30 a month.
In addition, it's reasonable to want to go out with your friends, whether that's bowling, cinema, or to the pub. I do not drink much personally, but I gather most of you do, and probably happily waste £20 down your local each time you visit.

If you are a full time student, that is often 9-4/4:30 followed by at least 2 or 3 hours of coursework per night. Do you know how I know, because I've set it in the past. Some days you finish college earlier but that's not a given.

In a way people can understand, how would you like to be at work for 9, and get home at 5, only to then have to go out to another job for another 3 or 4 hours? Not only that but, when you get home from THAT job, you have to beaver away on some assignment at an ungodly hour, without yet having time to eat, or shower, and by the time you finish what work you need to complete that evening, it's 2 or 3am, where you get a terrible night sleep and repeat the process all over again.

What is the big rush these days with expecting 16-18 year olds who are in full time education to ALSO have a job. Mr ****, headmaster at Kennet School, once said to me while we were having a discussion on how to try and tackle a problem, when I was there, about a large proportion of students who would come into school tired every day. Following on from that, in an upper years assembly (god how I don't miss those), he said something which has stuck with me since. I can't remember exactly, word for word, but it was something along the lines of

"So you may work in the evenings and at weekends, for a little bit of money now, but what's important is the future - the time and energy you use working for, frankly pennies in the real world, will account for nothing when you come to your examinations".

Obviously some people on here think that students are nothing more than programmed machines, who are able to stay up 24 hours a day and who have no need for a social life, personal time, or any time to eat, wash or sleep.
Some of you who sit there in your comfortable chair in your house, fully paid but bought when you could buy a 5 bedroom detached house for 20p, would not be able to last a day in the life of most students. That I would bet!

Posted by: On the edge May 29 2012, 05:43 AM

A pretty good synopsys Timbo! Most of the reaction comes from my generation. The wrinklies. After our schooling - which in spite of the myths perpetuated was little different in any state school, save for the paper they gave you at the end, we had great choice. Schooling then didn't teach you to think; just remember rules by rote. You also learned you were always right - free expression. We were able to go to university for nothing and in those days it was little more than a three year break. Even the lecturers were lobbing bricks at anti war demos. Those of us who didn't realise this was an option could get full time well paid work; indeed a career. That, even in the gthen small private sector included a good pension - which even then caused complaints about the miniscule amounts deducted to pay for it. We didn't need council houses; not when a small flat or terrace cost just about three times your annual pay. We weren't satisfied with any of this so we sold it at the free market! In effect, just like the big bosses - our generation we sold out. So was it better in the old days - yes it really was but we were living on the deposit account. That's all gon e now. So rather than moaniong - we should be apologising.

Posted by: NORTHENDER May 29 2012, 07:16 AM

Timbo, Edge. Thank you for some reality on this thread.

Posted by: Strafin May 29 2012, 07:17 AM

I see where you are coming from, but don't lessons stop at Kennet School after 15:30? Also why do they "have" to buy food and drink from a contract caterer?

Posted by: Bloggo May 29 2012, 07:32 AM

Anyone got any ideas how to stop morons littering?

Posted by: andy1979uk May 29 2012, 07:46 AM

I used to take pack lunches to school and college, also I used to work evening shifts in a DIY store. Never has a problem with being tired.

Posted by: NORTHENDER May 29 2012, 07:50 AM

Its all to do with the mind set people have. In this country its chuck it down let someone else pick it up. In some other countries people seem to have a different mind set about litter IE they do not do it. The answer must be education from a very early age that stays with you throughout life. I even think people who throw fag ends down in the street should be hauled in front of the beak for littering. It must be instilled in people not to do it. May take a couple of generations but it can be rectified over time.

Posted by: andy1979uk May 29 2012, 07:52 AM

People that dump fag ends often don't class it as litter, same for people who throw them out the window.

Posted by: Bloggo May 29 2012, 08:02 AM

The problem is that there are sections of society that just don't give a da*m and there is no meaningful deterent to make them.
Which means that those that want to litter will continue to do so and others will continue to pick up after them.
That's the way it is until a decision is made to do something about it like enforcing the law. Or is that just to radical?

Posted by: Timbo May 29 2012, 08:13 AM

I was referring more to a someone who was in college or University, than Kennet (or any secondary school). Kennets Lessons do finish at 15:30 last time I checked but this is primarily for students below the age range we're mainly discussing.

And of course food and drink is not a necessity but it's a partly social occasion, and partly practical and easy.

Posted by: andy1979uk May 29 2012, 08:15 AM

Do you have a link to this study?'ng out, if that's what they want. You are given the money to spend on equipment, trips etc, if you then choose to spend it on something else that's their choice. Like Tax Credits, if you don't need them why do you still receive them? They are not forced upon you. '

We don't receive tax credits, the whole tax system is wasteful and allows people to work part time and still continue having children. It needs a major overhaul.

Scrapping the EMA was a very obvious and sensible cut.

Posted by: Timbo May 29 2012, 08:22 AM

I'm pretty sure before you said you got them but that you didn't rely on them?
We obviously have differing opinions, I've made my points why it was a shame to scrap EMA, I will leave it at that.

Posted by: andy1979uk May 29 2012, 08:30 AM

Am all for supporting students who want to try for disadvantaged backgrounds, sadly EMA was given to far too many people and largely wasted. I get child benefit, well my son does.

Posted by: Timbo May 29 2012, 09:04 AM

EMA was only awarded to students who's family household income was less than £28k or something. It was then £15 per week up to around £35k. Roughly, that is.
Believe it or not, not all families support their children financially.

You said it was largely wasted, and there was a study; yet I've still not been shown this study you speak of?
Can you expand on your statements, you seem to say things without given examples or reasons to back them up. As for your child benefit, let's face it, the kid doesn't go out spending it does he?

Posted by: andy1979uk May 29 2012, 09:08 AM

It was on the BBC news website, it was ineffective. A large percentage of the population were in favour of scrapping it due to the fact you should not need to be paid to goto school. My sons child benefit is saved, he will use it when he is older.

Posted by: Timbo May 29 2012, 09:13 AM

You are not paid to go to College. The money is for covering the cost of equipment, trips and travel to and from;.
I do not think you should be paid to go to school but £120 a month is barely £1400 a year - a nominal amount, and is fair (in my opinion) for students who are going to College and University - which is not school!

If a student CHOOSES to work part time, then obviously they would get more money (as you're being paid, and not receiving EMA) but it depends on what each student can manage in terms of hours and levels of work.

Posted by: andy1979uk May 29 2012, 09:17 AM

We never had it before and somehow I survived by working evening shifts, cost of travel? What is wrong with a bike ? Students these days really do want the moon on a stick.

Posted by: blackdog May 29 2012, 09:38 AM

Forgive my ignorance but I thought EMA was paid to children going to school or sixth form college (ie school) aged 16-18, not university.

Posted by: Timbo May 29 2012, 09:45 AM

Yes, you're correct Blackdog. I meant to clarify that Uni students had grants and some allowances. My mistake.

No, students don't want the moon on a stick. Most are quite happy with learning and getting an education. You are so single minded, probably on purpose; but I know of 3 people who go to College in Reading (2) and Basingstoke (1). Are they going to bicycle up the A4, 40 mile round trip every day? Sorry I was late to dinner, Mum, I was cycling down the A339. C

Even Newbury, if you live at the far side of Newbury or Thatcham it's still a 5 or 6 mile ride each way, and regardless of what way you go, you have to go up long, steep inclines. It is not practical. You often have project work which you have to carry, along with a backpack full of books etc. How about you try doing that? Oh wait, I bet you rode to school, carrying your worldly belongings with you.

But then again you are not a practical person. Children are there to work, be seen and never heard, and heaven forbid they have an easy life.

Posted by: andy1979uk May 29 2012, 09:50 AM

Am guessing you are somewhat younger than me Timbo and received EMA ? It is upto the parents to support their children using benefits they would recieve if already on a low income.

Posted by: andy1979uk May 29 2012, 09:53 AM

I think you will find very few people supported EMA, apart from the students who received it. It was only in place a few years and will not be missed. Along with the stupid child trust funds, scrapped before the first budjet by the Tories.

Posted by: Timbo May 29 2012, 09:57 AM

You guess wrong! I'm not what you'd call "young" and I never recieved EMA. Infact it wasn't even around when I was going to school and college.
Unfortunately it's, again, not as simple as expecting parents to support a child, if there's a college trip for £50, that's a large amount of money for a low income family to give away. Where as with EMA it would be covered.

Everyone who I've spoken to, students and parents, found that it helped and also was another thing to help students maintain good performance and attendance. If you missed a day or behaved very badly, you lost your money for that week.
That's fair I'd say, and as I said helps cover trips and equipment.

Posted by: andy1979uk May 29 2012, 10:03 AM

Thats interesting as everyone I have spoken to thought it was abit of a joke, if you can't afford the trip you don't go. Like I said low income families are already supported with tax credits, the money to support them should come from that. There is only a limited amount of money you can give to each family, its simple economics.

I'll admit I would rather see taxes go on EMA than some other stupid benefits though.

Posted by: Timbo May 29 2012, 10:30 AM

I guess the people we speak to have different views. Many of the trips, especially in more practical jokes such as Geology, some Sciences, and Creative Media/Arts, and Mechanics, are basically compulsory attendance as they offer vital insights into key areas of the topics being studied.

I think if the tax and benefit structure was restructured, EMA could perhaps be brought back in while retaining an overall cost saving. That would be a win win.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 29 2012, 10:31 AM

At a time of austerity, I think we should reconsider who receives child benefit. In your case it could be perceived as a form of EMA in advance. Should people be getting child allowance who can 'afford' to save?

Posted by: andy1979uk May 29 2012, 10:34 AM

It has already been done, as of next year families where one person earns over 50k will have the benefit reduced and cut off by the time they get to 60k. If you rely on £20 a week you should consider if you can afford a child.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 29 2012, 10:35 AM

In all these 'Daily Mail' arguments, what nearly always gets ignored, are those incidents where welfare works; whether it is benefits or NHS, etc. While there are cheats and idleness, benefits, I am sure, has help save people from a life of crime or are still alive thanks the the welfare system.

Posted by: Bloggo May 29 2012, 10:50 AM

Benefits should be means tested for everybody and those that don't qualify should do what the rest of us do like cut back on what we can't afford.

Posted by: stewiegriffin May 29 2012, 10:51 AM

Hardly a nominal amount is it? £1400 a year is roughly the entire income tax contribution made by someone earning £16000. It would require a lot of people in private sector employment to pay for all of those £1400 allowances. And meanwhile they would not be paying nurses/police/fire service salaries.

Those are the priorities, not giving 16yr olds money to attend college. There have to be limits to what a dwindling private sector tax revenue can reasonably be expected to provide for.

Either way, none of this is getting rid of the litter on the canal.

Posted by: Timbo May 29 2012, 10:54 AM

Shall we stop talking about what the topic has morphed into and sit here quietly waiting for someone to talk about the milky bar wrapper that's on the floor?

Posted by: Bloggo May 29 2012, 10:56 AM

Quite right too.

Posted by: Bloggo May 29 2012, 10:57 AM

Well that was the spirit of the original post and not an unfair comment to suggest returning to it.

Posted by: andy1979uk May 29 2012, 10:58 AM

Well said, some people are unrealistic as to what the government should provide for.

Posted by: stewiegriffin May 29 2012, 11:00 AM

Yes, that would be good.

Or better still, start another topic entitled 'why ESA should be brought back' Then anyone not interested can safely ignore it.

Posted by: Strafin May 29 2012, 11:03 AM

Really? The people receiving free money, found that free money helped them??

Posted by: Timbo May 29 2012, 11:11 AM

I know, a remarkable thing to have happen!!

Posted by: andy1979uk May 29 2012, 11:15 AM

It's just not viable in this current climate to give £1400 a year to students for staying on at school. people have to learn to provide for themselves. It is not the job of the government to pick up the bill all the time.

Posted by: Bloggo May 29 2012, 11:22 AM

As a society we seem to have drifted into a "me first, I'm more important, something for nothing" culture.
It needs to change and people need to take more responsibility for their own actions and future.

Posted by: andy1979uk May 29 2012, 11:24 AM

That is why the country needed a conservative government, Thatcher was the first PM to say 'look if you dont ogot work you are not going to have much', Blair and his clowns gave people a lifestyle they should never have had propped up on benefits.

Posted by: Timbo May 29 2012, 11:37 AM

I do agree but a little help at certain times is something we all deserve.

And this has nothing to do with politics.

Posted by: Bloggo May 29 2012, 11:41 AM

I disagree, not everyone deserves to be helped. Particularly those that commit crimes against us and who defraud a pressurised benefits system designed to help those that really need support.

Posted by: andy1979uk May 29 2012, 11:42 AM

I agree also, but welfare spending increased hugely under labour. Some families were getting more than a little help, I know a family who has 4 kids and one parent works part time by choice, the rest of their income is benefits.

Posted by: Timbo May 29 2012, 11:44 AM

What, students? Yeah they are criminals.



That is wrong and is a huge strain on the system, but things such as EMA for students helps what will be the future tax payers. It is not the be all and end all though. There are other things.

Posted by: Bloggo May 29 2012, 11:48 AM

I didn't mention students. Why are you so defensive about them. There are good ones and bad ones.
I was referring to those people who consiously rip off the benefits system and us, the tax payers, in the process.

Posted by: andy1979uk May 29 2012, 11:51 AM

There are some who think that it is a way of life now, if you can work abit then thats extra money but the main income is from welfare.

Posted by: andy1979uk May 29 2012, 11:52 AM

There was that father of 17 who lost 6 in a fire, he did'nt work yet had child after child. Its trajic what happened of course and he will never get over it, but he should take some responsibility.

Posted by: Timbo May 29 2012, 12:00 PM

I just figured, since we were in general talking about students. I am defensive about young people in general because I'm old enough to not have to deal with people saying "you have no life experience" but (almost) young enough to remember what it's like to grow up in the current climate.

The bolded section I agree.

Posted by: Bloggo May 29 2012, 12:00 PM

He and his wife I presume (the news report says the parents but could have been his mistress) have just been arrested for murder.

Posted by: andy1979uk May 29 2012, 12:02 PM

Yep just read that, very sad story indeed. Despite his lifestyle choices the children did not deserve to die.

Posted by: Bloggo May 29 2012, 12:08 PM

Unlike him if found guilty. I would hang him for this atrosity.

Posted by: Nothing Much May 29 2012, 12:10 PM

That was a terrible story of the deaths of children. 17 is quite a lot though.
Even Henry V111 and his wives only managed a couple.
Whilst Victoria provided Europe with Kings and Queens.
ce.

Posted by: andy1979uk May 29 2012, 12:11 PM

There is alot that does'nt add up. He said he was woken by the smoke alarm as they were asleep downstairs, rubbish as the fire started downstairs he would have been able to go up and get the kids. Also why did the police have to stop him getting back in, if he was in the house already ? It will all come out in the wash sooner or later.

Posted by: stewiegriffin May 29 2012, 12:21 PM

Could we maybe get him to pick up some litter by the canal before administering the 100000 volts?

Posted by: On the edge May 29 2012, 01:44 PM

Someone asked this morning how we could stop people littering?

Yes, it is an education thing, but its also a morals matter. If you are lead to believe that you are the most important thing in the Universe and no one should ever say no to you - then why shouldn't you leave litter? Nothing to do with University education or anything else - simply one's moral compass. We've lost that haven't we?

The counter argument is that it creates employment and without these low level crimes, wouldn't road sweepers and Policemen out of work? Indeed aren't the Police neglecting their duty by treating this as low level unimportant crime? By the by, can you imagine the squealing that would go on when a WBC warden doles out the first £50 fine!!!

Even so, Society can still be self regulating. When did any of us last challenge someone dropping litter? When did we point out to someone that they've dropped a fag end? Yes, I have and been roundly abused. Ironically, by someone (must have been aged about 60) who was in the process of thanking me for having a go at a militant cyclist on a pavement!

I can claim to have been brought up for a period by Grandparents who lived in some poverty in the rough end of a big city. They kept themselves respectable and littering would have been an anathma - it certainly went on, fag ends and the like, but as my Grandmother would say by people who had poor personal habits; vis wouldn't want to do their laundry.

Posted by: Bloggo May 29 2012, 01:48 PM

Nicely put OtE.