Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Newbury Today Forum _ Newbury News _ Food-banks
Posted by: Petra Nov 8 2015, 09:40 AM
Here is a teaser for you all to answer. Are food banks necessary or just an instrument of abuse? And are people really suffering or just bad at managing their money? Or just very clever?
Food banks are now everywhere, which means that people who are short of money can redirect what they have got (to smart phones, satellite TV etc.) and away from the essentials (such as food) because food-banks supplies that need.
It will be interesting to see how people will come back on this one.
Yours,
Petra
Posted by: Cognosco Nov 8 2015, 02:46 PM
QUOTE (Petra @ Nov 8 2015, 09:40 AM) 
Here is a teaser for you all to answer. Are food banks necessary or just an instrument of abuse? And are people really suffering or just bad at managing their money? Or just very clever?
Food banks are now everywhere, which means that people who are short of money can redirect what they have got (to smart phones, satellite TV etc.) and away from the essentials (such as food) because food-banks supplies that need.
It will be interesting to see how people will come back on this one.
Yours,
Petra
Food banks are now everywhere, which means that people who are short of money can redirect what they have got (to smart phones, satellite TV etc.) and away from the essentials (such as food) because food-banks supplies that need.
It will be interesting to see how people will come back on this one.
Yours,
Petra
Someone who suffers because of destiny, or social conditions, or for other reasons, suffers most profoundly when they do not experience that somebody cares – indifference is immorality.”
Let's hope you or yours do not suffer a downturn in these austere times, some have and not found it pleasant!
Posted by: GMR Nov 8 2015, 04:27 PM
QUOTE (Cognosco @ Nov 8 2015, 02:46 PM)
Someone who suffers because of destiny, or social conditions, or for other reasons, suffers most profoundly when they do not experience that somebody cares – indifference is immorality." Let's hope you or yours do not suffer a downturn in these austere times, some have and not found it pleasant!
Unless I am misreading the main post; isn't she saying that it can be abused. And the way I see it, yes, it is being abused.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 8 2015, 05:04 PM
Take the Trussel Trust Food Banks for example: They only give food parcels on referral from a variety of professionals and then generally only for three weeks, so it's quite hard to abuse their system. The Trussel Trust did however attracted some significant criticism from the Conservative-Lib Dem alliance government because it was making their hideous welfare provision look, well hideous. The particular problem as I understand it is that the welfare state can take a long time to respond to a crisis, maybe six weeks, and a family can find itself in dire need in that time. The Trussel Trust appears to be particularly well run by ethical Christian chap and the success of their model has embarrassed the government because its growth has only been possible because of the Lib Dem and Conservative welfare policy.
The Daily Hail has also championed something of a campaign against the Trussel Trust, so it must be getting something right.
Posted by: GMR Nov 8 2015, 05:18 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Nov 8 2015, 05:04 PM)
Take the Trussel Trust Food Banks for example: They only give food parcels on referral from a variety of professionals and then generally only for three weeks, so it's quite hard to abuse their system. The Trussel Trust did however attracted some significant criticism from the Conservative-Lib Dem alliance government because it was making their hideous welfare provision look, well hideous. The particular problem as I understand it is that the welfare state can take a long time to respond to a crisis, maybe six weeks, and a family can find itself in dire need in that time. The Trussel Trust appears to be particularly well run by ethical Christian chap and the success of their model has embarrassed the government because its growth has only been possible because of the Lib Dem and Conservative welfare policy. The Daily Hail has also championed something of a campaign against the Trussel Trust, so it must be getting something right.
Yes, but it isn't hard to get a referral. All you need is Income support/ unemployed and say you are desperate. But what defines that person from another? That is another unemployed person?
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 8 2015, 06:17 PM
QUOTE (Petra @ Nov 8 2015, 09:40 AM)
Here is a teaser for you all to answer. Are food banks necessary or just an instrument of abuse? And are people really suffering or just bad at managing their money? Or just very clever?
Food banks are now everywhere, which means that people who are short of money can redirect what they have got (to smart phones, satellite TV etc.) and away from the essentials (such as food) because food-banks supplies that need.
It will be interesting to see how people will come back on this one.
Yours,
Petra
Food banks are now everywhere, which means that people who are short of money can redirect what they have got (to smart phones, satellite TV etc.) and away from the essentials (such as food) because food-banks supplies that need.
It will be interesting to see how people will come back on this one.
Yours,
Petra
It is also possible many people are short of money.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 8 2015, 06:24 PM
QUOTE (GMR @ Nov 8 2015, 05:18 PM)
Yes, but it isn't hard to get a referral. All you need is Income support/ unemployed and say you are desperate. But what defines that person from another? That is another unemployed person?
I see no evidence for that conclusion. The referrals are made by professionals so there is a degree of competent assessment of their acute crisis need to differentiate them from what you describe as "another unemployed person" - though in point of fact I don't believe every claimant is necessarily unemployed. Recipients are also limited to three weeks of support so there is very limited opportunity for those not in acute need to take advantage.
QUOTE (Chris Mould, Chief Executive Trussell Trust)
In the last year, we've seen things get worse, rather than better, for many people on low incomes.
Posted by: On the edge Nov 8 2015, 07:24 PM
The great thing about most Food Banks is that they are sourced and run totally independently. So, on that basis, what right have we got to criticise their validity? It does mean that the people who support them clearly feel our State welfare provision is inadequate in some areas and more, are prepared to do something positive themselves to mitigate the situation; apart from just political hand wringing.
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 8 2015, 07:32 PM
QUOTE (On the edge @ Nov 8 2015, 07:24 PM)
The great thing about most Food Banks is that they are sourced and run totally independently. So, on that basis, what right have we got to criticise their validity? It does mean that the people who support them clearly feel our State welfare provision is inadequate in some areas and more, are prepared to do something positive themselves to mitigate the situation; apart from just political hand wringing.
Hear, hear!
Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 8 2015, 07:54 PM
QUOTE (On the edge @ Nov 8 2015, 07:24 PM)
The great thing about most Food Banks is that they are sourced and run totally independently. So, on that basis, what right have we got to criticise their validity? It does mean that the people who support them clearly feel our State welfare provision is inadequate in some areas and more, are prepared to do something positive themselves to mitigate the situation; apart from just political hand wringing.
Yes, hear hear.
Posted by: GMR Nov 9 2015, 05:01 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Nov 8 2015, 06:24 PM)
I see no evidence for that conclusion. The referrals are made by professionals so there is a degree of competent assessment of their acute crisis need to differentiate them from what you describe as "another unemployed person" - though in point of fact I don't believe every claimant is necessarily unemployed. Recipients are also limited to three weeks of support so there is very limited opportunity for those not in acute need to take advantage.
"Competent assessment" only means that they work within a criteria. That means you must be on Income support and can’t manage. That could apply to anybody on Income support. The other point is; you've got two people, say, who are on the same money. One can't manage and the other can. So he goes to a food bank, the other, who is good with money, doesn't. Isn't the problem here the person who can't manage his money? He or she doesn't need a food bank but needs educating on how to use their money. The one who is good with money is going to quickly learn that being thrifty doesn't pay. All he needs to do is play the game to be treated equally. The other point is; a lot of those that are classified as "needy" have mobile phones, Satellites etc. Are they then really in need of a food bank support? I know people who use them and I can tell you that it is either being abused or people are in need, but in-need because they can’t manage their money. Whichever way you look at it they are being abused.
Posted by: GMR Nov 9 2015, 05:04 PM
QUOTE (On the edge @ Nov 8 2015, 07:24 PM)
The great thing about most Food Banks is that they are sourced and run totally independently. So, on that basis, what right have we got to criticise their validity? It does mean that the people who support them clearly feel our State welfare provision is inadequate in some areas and more, are prepared to do something positive themselves to mitigate the situation; apart from just political hand wringing.
I agree that those food banks are genuine and only wish is to help those in need. But how do we classify those in need? They all basically get the same money so why does one have needs and the other doesn't. Is the answer "thrift?" If the answer if thrift then food banks aren't the answer.
Posted by: HeatherW Nov 9 2015, 05:23 PM
I used to work for the social services in London so I still have contacts up there. Social services also deal with food banks. They refer people to them. The only criteria is that they must show they can't manage to get enough food to live on. This isn't hard to do. It is commonly said, but outside the jurisdiction of social services, that it isn't food banks they need, but educating on how to use the money they are getting. I agree that food banks are abused. Those that are good with their money manage without them. But this is also unfair so people are quickly learning how to manipulate the system so that they are included. It them becomes a vicious circle.
Food banks will always be needed. Anything that is free will always be needed and abused. That is a fact of life. The question is what to do about it? Once something like food banks become part of the fabric of society, it becomes ingrained and hard to be stopped. Because it becomes a way of life. 
Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 9 2015, 06:47 PM
QUOTE (GMR @ Nov 9 2015, 05:01 PM)
"Competent assessment" only means that they work within a criteria. That means you must be on Income support and can’t manage. That could apply to anybody on Income support. The other point is; you've got two people, say, who are on the same money. One can't manage and the other can. So he goes to a food bank, the other, who is good with money, doesn't. Isn't the problem here the person who can't manage his money? He or she doesn't need a food bank but needs educating on how to use their money. The one who is good with money is going to quickly learn that being thrifty doesn't pay. All he needs to do is play the game to be treated equally. The other point is; a lot of those that are classified as "needy" have mobile phones, Satellites etc. Are they then really in need of a food bank support? I know people who use them and I can tell you that it is either being abused or people are in need, but in-need because they can’t manage their money. Whichever way you look at it they are being abused.
This whole argument begs the question, starting from the position that anyone using a food bank is a scrounger and then proving that they're scroungers because they use food banks.
Posted by: Mr Brown Nov 9 2015, 06:49 PM
You'll always get people who manipulate the system. For instance I've known a good few 'honest and upright' who'll fatten an insurance claim with no qualms whatsoever - again, because it's so easy. That doesn't mean insurance is wrong because it discourages prudence!
Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 9 2015, 06:50 PM
QUOTE (GMR @ Nov 9 2015, 05:04 PM)
But how do we classify those in need?
Why would you want to do that?
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 9 2015, 07:45 PM
QUOTE (GMR @ Nov 9 2015, 05:01 PM)
"Competent assessment" only means that they work within a criteria. That means you must be on Income support and can’t manage. That could apply to anybody on Income support. The other point is; you've got two people, say, who are on the same money. One can't manage and the other can. So he goes to a food bank, the other, who is good with money, doesn't. Isn't the problem here the person who can't manage his money? He or she doesn't need a food bank but needs educating on how to use their money. The one who is good with money is going to quickly learn that being thrifty doesn't pay. All he needs to do is play the game to be treated equally. The other point is; a lot of those that are classified as "needy" have mobile phones, Satellites etc. Are they then really in need of a food bank support? I know people who use them and I can tell you that it is either being abused or people are in need, but in-need because they can’t manage their money. Whichever way you look at it they are being abused.
If food banks make their donations limited to 3 weeks then it will be a short lived method of cheating the system.
Personally, I couldn't really care if people are 'cheating' the system, in cash terms I suspect the biggest 'crimes' are being carried out by the wealthy.
Posted by: GMR Nov 9 2015, 07:46 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Nov 9 2015, 06:47 PM)
This whole argument begs the question, starting from the position that anyone using a food bank is a scrounger and then proving that they're scroungers because they use food banks.
I am talking about either abusing food banks. I also said that some people have problems with handling their money; is a food bank the answer?
Posted by: GMR Nov 9 2015, 07:49 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 9 2015, 07:45 PM)
If food banks make their donations limited to 3 weeks then it will be a short lived method of cheating the system. Personally.
But cheating nevertheless. Three weeks is still three weeks of free food.
QUOTE
I couldn't really care if people are 'cheating' the system, in cash terms I suspect the biggest 'crimes' are being carried out by the wealthy.
Because somebody else is cheating doesn't make the less cheater right.
By the way; I don't care either. Good luck to them, but that doesn't change my points.
Posted by: GMR Nov 9 2015, 07:50 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Nov 9 2015, 06:50 PM)
Why would you want to do that?
Doesn't society do that as a matter of course, anyway? Otherwise any Tom, **** or Harry will just claim Tax payers money.
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 9 2015, 07:50 PM
QUOTE (GMR @ Nov 9 2015, 07:46 PM)
I am talking about either abusing food banks. I also said that some people have problems with handling their money; is a food bank the answer?
They were originally set-up for people in crisis. Food banks are no-more an answer than an ambulance is an 'answer' to RTAs, but they are still necessary.
Posted by: GMR Nov 9 2015, 07:51 PM
QUOTE (Mr Brown @ Nov 9 2015, 06:49 PM)
You'll always get people who manipulate the system. For instance I've known a good few 'honest and upright' who'll fatten an insurance claim with no qualms whatsoever - again, because it's so easy. That doesn't mean insurance is wrong because it discourages prudence!
That maybe the case; but the question is do we need food banks or do we need to educate people on how to use the money they get.
Posted by: GMR Nov 9 2015, 07:53 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 9 2015, 07:50 PM)
They were originally set-up for people in crisis. Food banks are no-more an answer than an ambulance is an 'answer' to RTAs, but they are still necessary.
But are they though? Why do some people need it, while other don't (but in are the same situation; i.e. getting the same money).
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 9 2015, 07:53 PM
QUOTE (GMR @ Nov 9 2015, 07:51 PM)
That maybe the case; but the question is do we need food banks or do we need to educate people on how to use the money they get.
We will 'need' both.
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 9 2015, 07:54 PM
QUOTE (GMR @ Nov 9 2015, 07:53 PM)
But are they though? Why do some people need it, while other don't (but in are the same situation; i.e. getting the same money).
Because it is unlikely that two situations are identical. Often 'need' comes around when a change in circumstances occur.
Posted by: GMR Nov 9 2015, 07:55 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 9 2015, 07:53 PM)
We will 'need' both.
No; because one will cancel out the other. From talking to people who use them and don't use them it boils down to ability to handle money.
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 9 2015, 07:57 PM
QUOTE (GMR @ Nov 9 2015, 07:55 PM)
No; because one will cancel out the other. From talking to people who use them and don't use them it boils down to ability to handle money.
I refer you to my last comment.
Posted by: GMR Nov 9 2015, 07:58 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 9 2015, 07:54 PM)
Because it is unlikely that two situations are identical. Often 'need' comes around when a change in circumstances occur.
That is true; but that could be down to one person takes on more than another. By giving that person - who can't handle money - help with food disadvantages the ones that are thrifty. It isn't actually helping that person who needs help. Education is better than just giving willy-nilly.
Posted by: GMR Nov 9 2015, 07:59 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 9 2015, 07:57 PM)
I refer you to my last comment.
And I refer you to my last comment.
Posted by: On the edge Nov 9 2015, 08:02 PM
QUOTE (GMR @ Nov 9 2015, 07:46 PM)
I am talking about either abusing food banks. I also said that some people have problems with handling their money; is a food bank the answer?
That's a wholly separate question. It doesn't matter a fig if people are abusing Food Banks, because we, as a community, aren't paying for them. Put it this way, my neighbour cuts my hedge for nothing because he likes to keep the area neat. That actually 'encourages' me to be lazy and untidy - so should he stop?
Yes, some people do have problems handling money and the running of their households. But where is the standard? It's not only benefit claimants that have this issue of course. Are you suggesting we should take the 'feed my kids at school' policy of the Coalition a stage further and have dormitories at schools because some parents let their kids stay up too late, to the detriment if their education? If we do, guess who gets to pay!
Posted by: On the edge Nov 9 2015, 08:06 PM
I'm wholly with you on the education issue. We could actually make a start, in a small way by setting up training courses for corporate tax accountants on morality and integrity.....
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 9 2015, 08:10 PM
QUOTE (GMR @ Nov 9 2015, 07:58 PM)
That is true; but that could be down to one person takes on more than another. By giving that person - who can't handle money - help with food disadvantages the ones that are thrifty. It isn't actually helping that person who needs help. Education is better than just giving willy-nilly.
No-one suggests giving willy-nilly, but how does someone who can't handle money being given a dozens free tins of of blue stripe baked beans disadvantage the prudent one?
QUOTE (GMR @ Nov 9 2015, 07:59 PM)
And I refer you to my last comment.
Your contrived scenarios doesn't cover all eventualities. Of course some people need help with money management, but I also believe there are genuine people in need too. Two people on the same income doesn't guarantee that both have the same outgoings.
Posted by: GMR Nov 9 2015, 08:21 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 9 2015, 08:10 PM)
No-one suggests giving willy-nilly, but how does someone who can't handle money being given a dozens free tins of of blue stripe baked beans disadvantage the prudent one?
Of course it does. You are giving extra to the bad handler of money and nothing to the prudent one. The prudent one will quickly learn to play the game though. But in the long run does that achieve anything? As for a dozen free tins of beans; that isn't the issue here.
QUOTE
Your contrived scenarios doesn't cover all eventualities. Of course some people need help with money management, but I also believe there are genuine people in need too. Two people on the same income doesn't guarantee that both have the same outgoings.
I am not saying they aren't genuine. But genuine why? Genuine because they can't handle their money so need help with food banks?
Posted by: GMR Nov 9 2015, 08:22 PM
QUOTE (On the edge @ Nov 9 2015, 08:02 PM)
That's a wholly separate question. It doesn't matter a fig if people are abusing Food Banks, because we, as a community, aren't paying for them. Put it this way, my neighbour cuts my hedge for nothing because he likes to keep the area neat. That actually 'encourages' me to be lazy and untidy - so should he stop? Yes, some people do have problems handling money and the running of their households. But where is the standard? It's not only benefit claimants that have this issue of course. Are you suggesting we should take the 'feed my kids at school' policy of the Coalition a stage further and have dormitories at schools because some parents let their kids stay up too late, to the detriment if their education? If we do, guess who gets to pay!
I agree we aren't paying for them. But that wasn't my issue. And I also don't care if people use them for whatever reason. None of that was my point.
Posted by: Strafin Nov 9 2015, 08:39 PM
GMR have you never claimed any benefits? You have a daughter don't you? Correct me if I'm wrong though, but if you do, don't you want the best you can get for her? Would you compromise your morals and beliefs to give her a better life?
Posted by: On the edge Nov 9 2015, 08:56 PM
It's been niggling me for some time that we only have one way to help people with no income - benefits. That consequently focuses debate on the fecklessness or otherwise of those claiming. There are other things we could promote in tandem that might even make for a better and more balanced society. For instance, why can't our Banks be made to offer very cheap loans to help sole trader business start up. Our colleges offer easy access courses and mentoring to show how to turn ideas into business ventures. Our Councils offering 'social shop premises' for the same? We are a capitalist society, but seem to have little taste for growing capitalists!
Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 9 2015, 08:58 PM
QUOTE (GMR @ Nov 9 2015, 07:50 PM)
Doesn't society do that as a matter of course, anyway? Otherwise any Tom, **** or Harry will just claim Tax payers money.
No, why do you need to "classify those in need"? Are you running a food bank? As I understand it the professionals who make the referrals to the Trussell Trust food banks use their judgement to assess the acute crisis need on the evidence before them - I'm going to take a punt here and say that I doubt the possession of a mobile phone is one of the things they look for to assess that need. Actually they're very likely to have a mobile phone, most people do, and the thing about an acute welfare crisis, its main distinguishing feature, is that it's acute - sudden, unplanned, unexpected. There's little value in a mobile phone handset and it's generally impossible to terminate a phone contract without notice so even if they had no money at all for food I'd still expect them to have their phone and it's asinine to suggest that they're abusing the charity of strangers on that imagined "evidence" when all that we know about the Trussell method of only handing food on referral and then only for there weeks maximum assures us that their method is not open to abuse. My overwhelming concern is for the food bank claimants and the fact that the state welfare system is incapable of preventing, and quite possibly responsible for creating, the kind of desperate situation that no civilised society should ignore.
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 9 2015, 09:23 PM
QUOTE (GMR @ Nov 9 2015, 08:21 PM)
Of course it does. You are giving extra to the bad handler of money and nothing to the prudent one. The prudent one will quickly learn to play the game though. But in the long run does that achieve anything? As for a dozen free tins of beans; that isn't the issue here.
You said it disadvantages the prudent one; using your argument it doesn't.
QUOTE (GMR @ Nov 9 2015, 08:21 PM)
I am not saying they aren't genuine. But genuine why? Genuine because they can't handle their money so need help with food banks?
Or they don't have any money because their benefit claims are taking too long? Or have recently experienced a down-turn in luck.
I find in life a large chunk of 'prudent', 'skilled' and 'thrifty' people are so by a number of things and it is not always completely deserved: fortune has a lot to do with it too, and that includes who your parents are.
I'm not going to deny people food banks, even the ones that are stretching their entitlement. I would rather be where I am then theirs' any day, and there are much bigger villains of the piece than 'benefit scroungers'.
Posted by: JaneGibbs Nov 10 2015, 10:56 AM
I used to work in a food back a few years ago and the amount of people that came in and had smart phones and even came in a cars was mind blowing. Those that were genuine and actually needed help you found that they couldn't deal with their money properly used food banks more. But they could afford ciggies, drinks etc. From what I've witnessed and read about I do believe they are being abused. And as long as we have them, whatever the government pays in Jobseekers allowance, people will use them if they are there.
As for those still waiting for their dole money, as pointed out above, then I agree that is a legitimate reason. No amounts of education or care with their money will help here.
It has been shown that if you put something in place that is free you will always find takers. Take that away and people will always find ways to manage their affairs. Food banks have grown over many years and will continue to grow while they offer free goodies. This then allows those to redistribute their money to other sources.
Unemployment benefit should only be their for a halfway house until employment is found. Not used as a life style for those that don't want to work.
Posted by: Mr Brown Nov 10 2015, 11:41 AM
That's really sad Jane. One of the ladies we've just taken on needed a job in a hurry, because her partner walked out. As a consequence, she also lost her transport at the same time! Anyway, she felt the Food Bank was a family saver. By the way, most of our people here have mobile phones instead if fixed phones at home. Apparently, the Job Seeker people think that actually helps finding work; you are always contactable. I'm sure a few do abuse the system, as you say that's always the case. I still think most of us are pretty glad the safety net is in place and in reality, it isn't exactly generous.
Posted by: GMR Nov 10 2015, 05:40 PM
QUOTE (Strafin @ Nov 9 2015, 08:39 PM)
GMR have you never claimed any benefits?
Oh, I've claimed benefits, and I have no doubt that if I was claiming today I probably would visit the food banks.
QUOTE
You have a daughter don't you?
I have 4 children, and yes... including a daughter (actually 2 others).
QUOTE
Correct me if I'm wrong though, but if you do, don't you want the best you can get for her? Would you compromise your morals and beliefs to give her a better life?
I would do whatever I could, as you would. However, that doesn't change my query. And it is or was only a query (a discussion point, not a statement of intent).
Posted by: GMR Nov 10 2015, 05:45 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Nov 9 2015, 08:58 PM)
No, why do you need to "classify those in need"? Are you running a food bank? As I understand it the professionals who make the referrals to the Trussell Trust food banks use their judgement to assess the acute crisis need on the evidence before them - I'm going to take a punt here and say that I doubt the possession of a mobile phone is one of the things they look for to assess that need. Actually they're very likely to have a mobile phone, most people do, and the thing about an acute welfare crisis, its main distinguishing feature, is that it's acute - sudden, unplanned, unexpected. There's little value in a mobile phone handset and it's generally impossible to terminate a phone contract without notice so even if they had no money at all for food I'd still expect them to have their phone and it's asinine to suggest that they're abusing the charity of strangers on that imagined "evidence" when all that we know about the Trussell method of only handing food on referral and then only for there weeks maximum assures us that their method is not open to abuse. My overwhelming concern is for the food bank claimants and the fact that the state welfare system is incapable of preventing, and quite possibly responsible for creating, the kind of desperate situation that no civilised society should ignore.
Actually, the only reason I said what I said was to follow on from Petra's main post to create a debate. Nothing more, nothing less.
As for mobile phones. You are right, there is no value in a mobile phone, other than they have a contract or have to pay for it; and if they were that desperate they could use that money to help them out. Food money is more important than phone money or even satellite money.
My whole point was to create a discussion - following on from Petra's post - not a moral crusade.
Posted by: GMR Nov 10 2015, 05:47 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 9 2015, 09:23 PM)
You said it disadvantages the prudent one; using your argument it doesn't.
Which means it is being abused by those that don't really need it.
QUOTE
Or they don't have any money because their benefit claims are taking too long?
Now that is a good argument and a fair point.
QUOTE
Or have recently experienced a down-turn in luck. I find in life a large chunk of 'prudent', 'skilled' and 'thrifty' people are so by a number of things and it is not always completely deserved: fortune has a lot to do with it too, and that includes who your parents are. I'm not going to deny people food banks, even the ones that are stretching their entitlement. I would rather be where I am then theirs' any day, and there are much bigger villains of the piece than 'benefit scroungers'.
I am not even going to deny people food banks and probably would use one if I was in their position. But that doesn't change my point; for the sake of argument and debate.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 10 2015, 06:30 PM
QUOTE (GMR @ Nov 10 2015, 05:45 PM)
As for mobile phones. You are right, there is no value in a mobile phone, other than they have a contract or have to pay for it; and if they were that desperate they could use that money to help them out. Food money is more important than phone money or even satellite money.
Like I say, it's far from clear how you can know whether the users of a food bank have mobile phones so the posit that phone ownership is correlated with scrounging is at best ungrounded and the redemption value of a handset and contract is moot, but what the hey: if you have a phone contract and you find yourself in acute crisis need the best you could do is give your phone company notice to terminate the contract, but depending on the details if that wasn't actually to cost you money in termination charges the termination could take many months notice and you would still have the on-going liability until the contract terminated, by which time you would more than likely have sorted yourself out and then have the cost and inconvenience of taking out a new contract, having suffered the unnecessary inconvenience all that while of not having a phone at a time when you probably needed one more than ever. You might try and keep your bill down by minimising the use of the phone but you'd still have the phone and as your contract quite probably had free minutes you could still make a limited number of calls. Maybe you have a pay-as-you-go phone in which case you could not buy any more top-ups until you were out of trouble, but you couldn't get the money back on the minutes you'd already bought and so the phone would still be available to you.
Posted by: Blake Nov 11 2015, 12:17 AM
Food banks are a bad idea for a number of reasons. The last thing we need to foster is a state of dependency. The old saying of give man a fish and eats for a day, teach him HOW to fish and he eats for life comes to mind.
In addition, an outrageous level of food is wasted in Britain. Until we waste no food, no food banks should run.
Fortunately, with the return to an economic boom, I am sure they will be phased out by this time next year once people find work again.
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 11 2015, 12:42 AM
Modern society is 'a state of dependency'.
Posted by: On the edge Nov 11 2015, 07:32 AM
QUOTE (Blake @ Nov 11 2015, 12:17 AM)
Food banks are a bad idea for a number of reasons. The last thing we need to foster is a state of dependency. The old saying of give man a fish and eats for a day, teach him HOW to fish and he eats for life comes to mind.
In addition, an outrageous level of food is wasted in Britain. Until we waste no food, no food banks should run.
Fortunately, with the return to an economic boom, I am sure they will be phased out by this time next year once people find work again.
In addition, an outrageous level of food is wasted in Britain. Until we waste no food, no food banks should run.
Fortunately, with the return to an economic boom, I am sure they will be phased out by this time next year once people find work again.
Are you saying no charities should exist for exactly the same reason? I'm not so sure as it would mean rather a lot of empty shops on our High Streets. Still, I'm really pleased it will all be back under control this time next year. I must have missed that bit in the news.
Posted by: Spider Nov 11 2015, 09:51 AM
In between my job as a driver I worked in a food bank. Most people are voluntary there. I can tell you people come into the food banks for various reasons. Some people need food to tie them over, until they get their money. But most are referred. Those that are referred are referred by professionals, as stated, but they also must work under a fair criterion. But that criterion is a simple one and can easily bypassed. Over the years many of us have felt that the food banks have been jumped upon, shall we say, by people who want a slice of the cake. And of course this creates a vicious loop. There comes a point that people rely on it because it is there and once that happens it is hard to stop it.
An article in the Mail today explains more (see link below). I know some of you may dismiss the Mail as a scaremongering, but you talk to people who work within food banks and you will see a nod of agreement.
What is the criteria? You are struggling, you have no money, you are in a desperate situation etc. Most of these can be manipulated. Those professionals that have been mentioned probably know that they’ve been hoodwinked, but they can only follow the guidelines that have been set before them. They are not allowed to go around to one’s house and do a search to see if they are actually desperate. It boils down to, after being asked certain pointed questions, the word of the claimant.
As I said, give a helping hand, and it will end up being relied upon and before you know it, it becomes sewn into the fabric of society. Take it away and you will hear cries of cruelty or worse.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2608606/No-ID-no-checks-vouchers-sob-stories-The-truth-shock-food-bank-claims.html
As for whether people have mobile phones, satellite or other modern cons, well, that isn’t taken into consideration. Even though people do question whether people have got their priorities right. Somebody on £25,000 a year or more can struggle for various reasons. I suppose the questions is how do you define somebody who is poor and who isn’t? In today’s society somebody who is classified as poor is very wealthy compared to those deprived from the 30s or beyond. Whatever way you look at it they seem to be here to stay.
Posted by: The Hatter Nov 11 2015, 10:29 AM
We might as well get rid of other charities as well like Oxfam because all they do is feed people in other countries.
Posted by: HeatherW Nov 11 2015, 12:26 PM
I was going to comment further on some of the remarks that have been made on this thread, until I read Spiders post and the link he furbished. I don't think there is much more to be added, other than what is the next step. As I have said I have worked for the council in London and continue to work with the major services today and I think everybody agrees that the food banks are a growing problem, but not for the reason usually remarked upon. They were originally set up to help those in-need, but others have jumped on the bandwagon. Which has increased demand. As it has been stated above, offer something free and everybody wants a slice of it, whether they need it or not. And define somebody in desperation? I know of clients who live in large houses, and have assents. Nevertheless, they've claimed the need and have been given access to the food banks. The problem here is the word need. If you haven't got ready cash/ funds you could be described as somebody in desperate need.
Posted by: HeatherW Nov 11 2015, 12:29 PM
QUOTE (The Hatter @ Nov 11 2015, 10:29 AM)
We might as well get rid of other charities as well like Oxfam because all they do is feed people in other countries.
As far as I could tell nobody is saying get ride of anything. But that doesn't change the problems of abuse. Another point. If they decide to tighten up the checks it could trouble those that are really in need and educationally don't have the tools to take it further. Those that can bend the rules are more astute at getting what they want. That is abusing or bending the rules.
Posted by: HeatherW Nov 11 2015, 01:39 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 11 2015, 12:42 AM)
Modern society is 'a state of dependency'.
That is true, but are you saying that is a good thing or a bad thing? Create a state of dependency and people will use it to a point of it being a permanent crutch. In other words they reply on it too much. In my profession we are always to willing to run to anybody's aid that needs it. Then virtually take over and do what is necessary. In other words we create a rod for our own back.
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 11 2015, 01:46 PM
QUOTE (HeatherW @ Nov 11 2015, 01:39 PM)
That is true, but are you saying that is a good thing or a bad thing? Create a state of dependency and people will use it to a point of it being a permanent crutch. In other words they reply on it too much. In my profession we are always to willing to run to anybody's aid that needs it. Then virtually take over and do what is necessary. In other words we create a rod for our own back.
I think it is neither. Financial banks have created a huge dependency. Food banks in principle are simply a subset. The same above could be said for the NHS.
Whether it is a good or bad thing is not an easy question to answer: it is neither, or both; it is a symptom of modern society. I suggest it is better than what came before.
Posted by: The Hatter Nov 11 2015, 04:16 PM
Why don't we just scrap all benefits, if you don't work, don't eat.
Posted by: GMR Nov 11 2015, 05:09 PM
QUOTE (The Hatter @ Nov 11 2015, 04:16 PM)
Why don't we just scrap all benefits, if you don't work, don't eat.
Why would we scrap all benefits because some criticise or question Food banks? You seem to be saying all or nothing.
Posted by: GMR Nov 11 2015, 05:11 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Nov 10 2015, 06:30 PM)
Like I say, it's far from clear how you can know whether the users of a food bank have mobile phones so the posit that phone ownership is correlated with scrounging is at best ungrounded and the redemption value of a handset and contract is moot, but what the hey: if you have a phone contract and you find yourself in acute crisis need the best you could do is give your phone company notice to terminate the contract, but depending on the details if that wasn't actually to cost you money in termination charges the termination could take many months notice and you would still have the on-going liability until the contract terminated, by which time you would more than likely have sorted yourself out and then have the cost and inconvenience of taking out a new contract, having suffered the unnecessary inconvenience all that while of not having a phone at a time when you probably needed one more than ever. You might try and keep your bill down by minimising the use of the phone but you'd still have the phone and as your contract quite probably had free minutes you could still make a limited number of calls. Maybe you have a pay-as-you-go phone in which case you could not buy any more top-ups until you were out of trouble, but you couldn't get the money back on the minutes you'd already bought and so the phone would still be available to you.
This isn't about mobile phones or not, but is the system being abused or not. As for what I want; I am just playing the devils advocate here. As I said before; I am not really bothered.
Posted by: On the edge Nov 11 2015, 05:27 PM
Yes we could scrap the welfare state completely, after all, it's only been in existence for around 70 years, so it's not that old. Our grandparents demonstrably managed or we wouldn't be here today. There was some basic state aid, given on the basis that HeatherW suggests, robust means testing and training. Often delivered on a residential basis, in what were called work houses. As far as I can make out, no one then moaned about such things as bedroom taxes etc. They still had the 'do gooders'' like George Peabody and Doc Banardo, but you'll always get interfearers. Apparently a young Clem Attlee only became a socialist because the 'do gooder' he was helping in the East End used to deliberately burn the 'free' breakfast porridge they doled out to paupers in an attempt to discourage them. So be careful what you wish for, Corbyn is bad enough, we don't want another Attlee!
Posted by: GMR Nov 11 2015, 05:36 PM
QUOTE (On the edge @ Nov 11 2015, 05:27 PM)
Yes we could scrap the welfare state completely, after all, it's only been in existence for around 70 years, so it's not that old. Our grandparents demonstrably managed or we wouldn't be here today. There was some basic state aid, given on the basis that HeatherW suggests, robust means testing and training. Often delivered on a residential basis, in what were called work houses. As far as I can make out, no one then moaned about such things as bedroom taxes etc. They still had the 'do gooders'' like George Peabody and Doc Banardo, but you'll always get interfearers. Apparently a young Clem Attlee only became a socialist because the 'do gooder' he was helping in the East End used to deliberately burn the 'free' breakfast porridge they doled out to paupers in an attempt to discourage them. So be careful what you wish for, Corbyn is bad enough, we don't want another Attlee!
Why would you want to scrap the Welfare state when someone questions food banks? This debate has nothing to do with the welfare state or wishes for it to be scrapped.
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 11 2015, 05:47 PM
QUOTE (GMR @ Nov 11 2015, 05:36 PM)
Why would you want to scrap the Welfare state when someone questions food banks? This debate has nothing to do with the welfare state or wishes for it to be scrapped.
Perhaps there was a certain amount of irony in his post; a Devil's Advocate?
Posted by: GMR Nov 11 2015, 05:50 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 11 2015, 05:47 PM)
Perhaps there was a certain amount of irony in his post; a Devil's Advocate?
Probably you are right.
Posted by: Petra Nov 11 2015, 06:07 PM
To All,
A good discussion, but I do feel the welfare state does need a shake up. It also shows that you create something like a food bank, then all crawl out of the woodwork to get their free goodies. The welfare state is not on the agenda here, but food banks were created, not through state funds, but voluntary contributions and help so as it isn’t the tax payer who is footing the bill, just charitable people, then continue regardless. Nobody is really suffering and people are gaining, and usually the lower end of society, so putting on our compassionate masks we can wave the onslaught on and retire to our cosy world knowing our blindness is helping the desperate, dishonest and free-for-alls.
Yours,
Petra
Posted by: Don Nov 11 2015, 06:18 PM
Howdy all,
I must praise the food banks. My son got caught short and was directed towards them. The food banks helped and he could feed his family. But I must say, he didn't find it hard to be put on the food banks. He just told the authorities his needs and they gave him a chitty and he went down their and got his shopping. He did think though that there were people using the banks that didn't really need it. They took it though because it was on offer. Whatever reasons people have for using them, my son and I am grateful for them (on his behalf).
Posted by: On the edge Nov 11 2015, 06:53 PM
QUOTE (GMR @ Nov 11 2015, 05:36 PM)
Why would you want to scrap the Welfare state when someone questions food banks? This debate has nothing to do with the welfare state or wishes for it to be scrapped.
The whole tenor of the original post and the supporters of the proposition can be construed as an attack on the welfare state; or that some of the recipients are scroungers. Arguably, criticising food banks as a concept is pretty odd anyway, given that it's a charity and has no call on the public purse. The people who run and support the foodbanks are really the only ones with any real right to decide who gets the benefit.
Posted by: GMR Nov 11 2015, 06:58 PM
QUOTE (On the edge @ Nov 11 2015, 06:53 PM)
The whole tenor of the original post and the supporters of the proposition can be construed as an attack on the welfare state; or that some of the recipients are scroungers. Arguably, criticising food banks as a concept is pretty odd anyway, given that it's a charity and has no call on the public purse. The people who run and support the foodbanks are really the only ones with any real right to decide who gets the benefit.
Oh, I agree, whether it is being taken advantage of or not. As you said, and Petra said, it is not the tax payer footing the bill so it doesn't really matter.
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 11 2015, 07:12 PM
With very rare exception, all human beings are programmed to survive and up to now we have been very successful at it.
This discussion reminds me of other similar ones that go along the lines of fatties: they lack self control.
People who are industrious and have through good fortune, are intelligent, can manipulate people into providing them with more resources than is equitable. Other people lack this quality and live hand to mouth. These people manipulate human instinct for compassion and welfare.
It is easy to get sucked into 'Benefit Street' rage, but everyone is simply doing what they can to live.
I feel the hand-downs will become more and more needed as mechanisation takes over and human labour becomes redundant. In effect I think we will have to get used to the idea of something for nothing, unless we embark on some sort of culling program.
In effect I don't resent people, whether scrounging meth-heads or simply unfortunates (I see them as the same thing), I just see it as my duty to be the best I can before being concerned about other people and passing judgement upon them.
There but for the grace of God go I.
Posted by: GMR Nov 11 2015, 08:21 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 11 2015, 07:12 PM)
With very rare exception, all human beings are programmed to survive and up to now we have been very successful at it. This discussion reminds me of other similar ones that go along the lines of fatties: they lack self control. People who are industrious and have through good fortune, are intelligent, can manipulate people into providing them with more resources than is equitable. Other people lack this quality and live hand to mouth. These people manipulate human instinct for compassion and welfare. It is easy to get sucked into 'Benefit Street' rage, but everyone is simply doing what they can to live. I feel the hand-downs will become more and more needed as mechanisation takes over and human labour becomes redundant. In effect I think we will have to get used to the idea of something for nothing, unless we embark on some sort of culling program. In effect I don't resent people, whether scrounging meth-heads or simply unfortunates (I see them as the same thing), I just see it as my duty to be the best I can before being concerned about other people and passing judgement upon them. There but for the grace of God go I.
Hear! hear! So we end this conversation in total agreement. Unless somebody else has something to add.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 11 2015, 10:42 PM
QUOTE (Petra @ Nov 11 2015, 06:07 PM)
A good discussion, but I do feel the welfare state does need a shake up. It also shows that you create something like a food bank, then all crawl out of the woodwork to get their free goodies.
No, that isn't what the discussion concluded at all. The discussion concluded that foodbanks were rescuing people in dire need and that this charitable niche existed because the welfare state was inadequate. The proposition that foodbanks are abused by the undeserving poor was substantiated on the basis that the undeserving poor are feckless scroungers, but there is no evidence for that and the argument is a circular one.
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 11 2015, 10:59 PM
I'm feckless; I haven't got a good feck in me anymore!
Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 11 2015, 11:05 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 11 2015, 10:59 PM)
I'm feckless; I haven't got a good feck in me anymore!
I've mislaid mine from time to time, but it generally turns up somewhere.
Posted by: Petra Nov 12 2015, 12:55 PM
Mr Kirby,
I totally agree with you that there are genuine claimants’ which need food banks. I will not argue there. But I think they are few and far between. The majority jump on a free bandwagon, thus obscuring the authentic ones. But that is neither here nor there, as this is not a tax funded operation. Therefore, should we concern ourselves with the ethics here. Obviously not.
The trouble with people like you is that you are reactionaries. Instead of thinking it through, your emotions snap into action, thus overriding your intelligence (if any should exist). If the government or an organisation gave away something free it is obvious that people would jump on the bandwagon and want something for nothing for themselves. If it didn’t exist, you wouldn’t mention it or claim about it. Food banks were created to help those that were really desperate. That is for those that have been accidentally fallen short. It was there to tie them over. That is a noble action. But by creating food banks they’ve created a Frankenstein Monster. Once resurrected never reburied. And of course we will always blame somebody for that creation and that is usually the government of the time. If we never had food banks, and at one time we didn’t then people would have managed and nobody would be blamed and everybody will have gone on their merry way.
No matter how much the government wishes to up people’s benefits it will never be enough to stop those food banks.
Maybe people should learn to stand on their own two feet and save for a rainy day. If they want more money then education, training and hard work will get it. I earn good wages, but I had to suffer to achieve my goal. That is living on handouts at times. No food banks when I was going through my training/ education/ university degree. Of course if they were around when I was living by hand to mouth I would have certainly jumped on the bandwagon and got my freebies. Which would mean more money for other little luxuries. But there is no doubt that society has created a Frankenstein Monster that now will never die, and if we want it to die we just blame the government of the time.
Yours
Petra
Posted by: Nothing Much Nov 12 2015, 02:30 PM
I dumped University,worked with Biggins and David Suchet. Swept the stage
Prompt corner ,lighting, sound desk. £2.00 a week. But I was living at home at nights.
It was fun. I have a cottage which has muntjac deer eating my shrubbery.
And the Georgian 4 floored pile is still mine.So basically I started out with nothing much.
And ended up OK.
ce
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 12 2015, 05:12 PM
QUOTE (Petra @ Nov 12 2015, 12:55 PM)
Mr Kirby,
I totally agree with you that there are genuine claimants’ which need food banks. I will not argue there. But I think they are few and far between. The majority jump on a free bandwagon, thus obscuring the authentic ones. But that is neither here nor there, as this is not a tax funded operation. Therefore, should we concern ourselves with the ethics here. Obviously not.
The trouble with people like you is that you are reactionaries. Instead of thinking it through, your emotions snap into action, thus overriding your intelligence (if any should exist). If the government or an organisation gave away something free it is obvious that people would jump on the bandwagon and want something for nothing for themselves. If it didn’t exist, you wouldn’t mention it or claim about it. Food banks were created to help those that were really desperate. That is for those that have been accidentally fallen short. It was there to tie them over. That is a noble action. But by creating food banks they’ve created a Frankenstein Monster. Once resurrected never reburied. And of course we will always blame somebody for that creation and that is usually the government of the time. If we never had food banks, and at one time we didn’t then people would have managed and nobody would be blamed and everybody will have gone on their merry way.
No matter how much the government wishes to up people’s benefits it will never be enough to stop those food banks.
Maybe people should learn to stand on their own two feet and save for a rainy day. If they want more money then education, training and hard work will get it. I earn good wages, but I had to suffer to achieve my goal. That is living on handouts at times. No food banks when I was going through my training/ education/ university degree. Of course if they were around when I was living by hand to mouth I would have certainly jumped on the bandwagon and got my freebies. Which would mean more money for other little luxuries. But there is no doubt that society has created a Frankenstein Monster that now will never die, and if we want it to die we just blame the government of the time.
Yours
Petra
I totally agree with you that there are genuine claimants’ which need food banks. I will not argue there. But I think they are few and far between. The majority jump on a free bandwagon, thus obscuring the authentic ones. But that is neither here nor there, as this is not a tax funded operation. Therefore, should we concern ourselves with the ethics here. Obviously not.
The trouble with people like you is that you are reactionaries. Instead of thinking it through, your emotions snap into action, thus overriding your intelligence (if any should exist). If the government or an organisation gave away something free it is obvious that people would jump on the bandwagon and want something for nothing for themselves. If it didn’t exist, you wouldn’t mention it or claim about it. Food banks were created to help those that were really desperate. That is for those that have been accidentally fallen short. It was there to tie them over. That is a noble action. But by creating food banks they’ve created a Frankenstein Monster. Once resurrected never reburied. And of course we will always blame somebody for that creation and that is usually the government of the time. If we never had food banks, and at one time we didn’t then people would have managed and nobody would be blamed and everybody will have gone on their merry way.
No matter how much the government wishes to up people’s benefits it will never be enough to stop those food banks.
Maybe people should learn to stand on their own two feet and save for a rainy day. If they want more money then education, training and hard work will get it. I earn good wages, but I had to suffer to achieve my goal. That is living on handouts at times. No food banks when I was going through my training/ education/ university degree. Of course if they were around when I was living by hand to mouth I would have certainly jumped on the bandwagon and got my freebies. Which would mean more money for other little luxuries. But there is no doubt that society has created a Frankenstein Monster that now will never die, and if we want it to die we just blame the government of the time.
Yours
Petra
I don't see any problem in donating food to people who are hard-up, even if they are not destitute. It is only a problem for me if people take from the hard-up; people like Osborne, or certain city bankers, etc.
Food banks are not a Frankenstein monster, they are just a symptom of modern society, and so what if they are used by the not so needy. We could always go back to the Victorian times where we had real slums and famine. A time where people got what they 'deserve'!
Posted by: GMR Nov 12 2015, 05:18 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 12 2015, 05:12 PM)
I don't see any problem in donating food to people who are hard-up, even if they are not destitute. It is only a problem for me if people take from the hard-up: people like Osborne, or certain city bankers, etc. Food banks are not a Frankenstein monster, they are just a symptom of modern society, and so what if they are used by the not so needy. We could always go back to the Victorian times where we had real slums and famine. A time where people got what they 'deserve'!
But we are not talking about people who donate their hard earnings to hard-up people. That is commendable. We are talking about people who abuse it and jump on the bandwagon.
I agree that food banks are not a Frankenstein monster, but I do understand what Petra means. I presume she means it was created to help those that are really in need, but it has grown beyond that. Abused by many, thus swamping those that really are in need. The article in the Mail shows you that.
Posted by: Blake Nov 12 2015, 05:20 PM
Perhaps the best thing is to phase them out gradually.
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 12 2015, 05:30 PM
QUOTE (GMR @ Nov 12 2015, 05:18 PM)
But we are not talking about people who donate their hard earnings to hard-up people. That is commendable. We are talking about people who abuse it and jump on the bandwagon.
I agree that food banks are not a Frankenstein monster, but I do understand what Petra means. I presume she means it was created to help those that are really in need, but it has grown beyond that. Abused by many, thus swamping those that really are in need. The article in the Mail shows you that.
I agree that food banks are not a Frankenstein monster, but I do understand what Petra means. I presume she means it was created to help those that are really in need, but it has grown beyond that. Abused by many, thus swamping those that really are in need. The article in the Mail shows you that.
This is a discussion that branches out and that is what I'm doing. I reject what I see as a narrow minded view of food banks that you and others have. The point is in an elitist society, we are bound to have these things, but I would rather donate a portion of my wage to the 'unemployable', than to see them out in the street robbing and mugging.
We don't need to phase out food banks, indeed, it could be argued that they are a better thing than cash benefits.
Posted by: On the edge Nov 12 2015, 05:37 PM
What criteria would we use to stop the abusers? Then policing the system is going to cost of course. Then you'll get all the wittering from the volunteers and charity givers claiming government interference.
So, OK, let's stop them. Question, how do you stop people setting up charities? Make them illegal? What criteria would you use to legislate? Of course, you could say that the Government agencies were not empowered to give people dockets to use them, but there are other quite simplistic ways the charity could use to 'determine need'.
Why stop there, should we also consider stopping Oxfam, which does the same sort of thing, albeit abroad, and must encourage a dependency culture? Similarly, all those once off appeals to aid apparently distressed areas after emergencies, because it discourages thrift and more importantly the need to insure. Ending this legalised begging industry would doubtless make for a more responsible and robust society - it would certainly end the distress caused by the Northbrook Street Chuggers.
It looks like these scroungers and freeloaders are Worldwide! String em up,it's the only language they understand.
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 12 2015, 05:49 PM
QUOTE (On the edge @ Nov 12 2015, 05:37 PM)
Ending this legalised begging industry would doubtless make for a more responsible and robust society - it would certainly end the distress caused by the Northbrook Street Chuggers.
Prohibition works well for stopping recreational drug use, so why not make charities illegal.
Posted by: On the edge Nov 12 2015, 05:54 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 12 2015, 05:49 PM)
Prohibition works well for stopping recreational drug use, so why not make charities illegal.
Absolutely! Old Bill would have a field (or should I say flag) day.
....OK son, I'm 'avin yew, possession of a Poppy and a used Big Issue'.....you'll go away a long time for that little lot....
Posted by: GMR Nov 12 2015, 06:16 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 12 2015, 05:30 PM)
This is a discussion that branches out and that is what I'm doing. I reject what I see as a narrow minded view of food banks that you and others have. The point is in an elitist society, we are bound to have these things, but I would rather donate a portion of my wage to the 'unemployable', than to see them out in the street robbing and mugging. We don't need to phase out food banks, indeed, it could be argued that they are a better thing than cash benefits.
I don't have a narrow view at all, I am just trying to stimulate debate. I am all for helping people and I have no doubt that people who jump on the bandwagon probably need it. I also agree with you about helping those in need and I certainly wouldn't want people on the street. We certainly have a better society than we had, say, seventy years ago. Remember; I've been in that situation so I am one of the last ones who would want to see it abolished. Stimulating debate doesn't mean you agree with what you are putting forward. By the say, it has been an interesting debate and it is nice to see the majority on here supporting it, no matter what.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 12 2015, 06:48 PM
QUOTE (Petra @ Nov 12 2015, 12:55 PM)
...your emotions snap into action, thus overriding your intelligence (if any should exist)...
So much for constructive debate then.
Can I suggest that it is generally better to address your comments to the argument and leave the contributor out of it, unless you actually mean to disrupt the thread.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 12 2015, 06:50 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 12 2015, 05:49 PM)
Prohibition works well for stopping recreational drug use, so why not make charities illegal.
The trouble with sarcasm on the internet is that it's never entirely clear whether a comment is actually meant seriously. You're not actually saying that recreational drug use is well managed by prohibition are you?
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 12 2015, 06:52 PM
QUOTE (GMR @ Nov 12 2015, 06:16 PM)
I don't have a narrow view at all, I am just trying to stimulate debate.
Narrow minded in so far as focusing on one aspect: "it's being abused". It would be a problem for me if those abusers were denying people in need, but I presume they are not.
Petra's view is that we should stop treating the symptom. That is valid, but the problem I see is there are ~1 to 3 million people we could do with not existing, they are 'useless' and not only that, they are hopeless.
What I find difficult is when people apply their own circumstance and use that as reasonable default: "my children were taught to respect people", "me and my wife went without for 10 years, now we are reaping the rewards", "we just need more education". "So and so started life poor and on the streets, they went on to become an international superstar. If they can do it, so can you!" Cobblers. They are an international superstar because in all likelihood you can't.
People that compare other's by their own standards are by definition being narrow minded. The way I see it is if everyone was as good or better than me, then it would be me in the shoite! Thank the Lord for idiots!
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 12 2015, 06:52 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Nov 12 2015, 06:50 PM)
The trouble with sarcasm on the internet is that it's never entirely clear whether a comment is actually meant seriously. You're not actually saying that recreational drug use is well managed by prohibition are you?
Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 12 2015, 06:54 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 12 2015, 06:52 PM)
I'll take that as a "no" then. Good. Sorry, you worried me for a moment there.
Posted by: Petra Nov 12 2015, 07:53 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Nov 12 2015, 06:48 PM)
So much for constructive debate then.
Can I suggest that it is generally better to address your comments to the argument and leave the contributor out of it, unless you actually mean to disrupt the thread.
Can I suggest that it is generally better to address your comments to the argument and leave the contributor out of it, unless you actually mean to disrupt the thread.
Mr Kirby,
Constructive debate is also about the person behind the pen. They are both intertwined. If I just directed my comments to the post and you thought that criticism has nothing to do with you then you are delusional. Like when people criticise my posts. The two can’t be separated. I am sorry that you have a thin skin. I would have thought your battles with West Berkshire authority would have taught you that when going into battle/ debate grow a thick skin.
Yours,
Petra
Posted by: Petra Nov 12 2015, 07:55 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Nov 12 2015, 06:54 PM)
I'll take that as a "no" then. Good. Sorry, you worried me for a moment there.
Mr Kirby,
you seem to be a person that worries very easily. Not a person that should be involved in robust debate, or taking on West Berkshire Council or whomever you took on and lost.
Yours,
Petra
Posted by: Petra Nov 12 2015, 07:59 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 12 2015, 06:52 PM)
Petra's view is that we should stop treating the symptom. That is valid, but the problem I see is there are ~1 to 3 million people we could do with not existing, they are 'useless' and not only that, they are hopeless.
And interesting thought, or proposition Mr Capp. Maybe one day it will come to that, the elimination of the many to save the few. But at the moment nothing as drastic as that should worry us. Our worries at the moment is to make sure we keep out the lunatic who currently runs the Labour party.
Yours,
Petra
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 12 2015, 08:06 PM
QUOTE (Petra @ Nov 12 2015, 07:53 PM)
Mr Kirby,
Constructive debate is also about the person behind the pen. They are both intertwined. If I just directed my comments to the post and you thought that criticism has nothing to do with you then you are delusional. Like when people criticise my posts. The two can’t be separated. I am sorry that you have a thin skin. I would have thought your battles with West Berkshire authority would have taught you that when going into battle/ debate grow a thick skin.
Yours,
Petra
Constructive debate is also about the person behind the pen. They are both intertwined. If I just directed my comments to the post and you thought that criticism has nothing to do with you then you are delusional. Like when people criticise my posts. The two can’t be separated. I am sorry that you have a thin skin. I would have thought your battles with West Berkshire authority would have taught you that when going into battle/ debate grow a thick skin.
Yours,
Petra
in my view, constructive debate is about the view posted; not the person posting. However, some people get personal to goad other's into a response, or perhaps simply to demonstrate a feeling of superiority. Either way, some of your points could have been just as well made without the 'unkind' comments.
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 12 2015, 08:08 PM
QUOTE (Petra @ Nov 12 2015, 07:59 PM)
And interesting thought, or proposition Mr Capp. Maybe one day it will come to that, the elimination of the many to save the few. But at the moment nothing as drastic as that should worry us. Our worries at the moment is to make sure we keep out the lunatic who currently runs the Labour party.
Yours,
Petra
Yours,
Petra
He doesn't stand a cat in hecks chance; however, usually elections are lost, not won.
Posted by: Petra Nov 12 2015, 08:14 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 12 2015, 08:06 PM)
in my view, constructive debate is about the view posted; not the person posting. However, some people get personal to goad other's into a response, or perhaps simply to demonstrate a feeling of superiority. Either way, some of your points could have been just as well made without the 'unkind' comments.
As you said Mr Capp, in your view, however, your view is not representative of the human race, but a very small portion of it. Nevertheless, if Mr Kirby, or even yourself are offended by a bit of robust debate then I apologize. Sadly, when debating, the weak and meek get dragged in and when one respond back then they feel intimidated, threatened or fearful. I must also add that you have also criticized me robustly Mr Capp, but I've never responded by crying into the curtains and asking for leniency. But I will heed your words Mr Capp and try to consider those of a weaker disposition.
yours,
Petra
Posted by: Petra Nov 12 2015, 08:15 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 12 2015, 08:08 PM)
He doesn't stand a cat in hecks chance; however, usually elections are lost, not won.
So true Mr Capp, so true. But that doesn't mean bolts from out of the blue don't happen on occasions, and that is what the nation should fear.
Yours,
petra
Posted by: Petra Nov 12 2015, 08:19 PM
QUOTE (GMR @ Nov 12 2015, 06:16 PM)
I don't have a narrow view at all, I am just trying to stimulate debate. I am all for helping people and I have no doubt that people who jump on the bandwagon probably need it. I also agree with you about helping those in need and I certainly wouldn't want people on the street. We certainly have a better society than we had, say, seventy years ago. Remember; I've been in that situation so I am one of the last ones who would want to see it abolished. Stimulating debate doesn't mean you agree with what you are putting forward. By the say, it has been an interesting debate and it is nice to see the majority on here supporting it, no matter what.
We all have narrow views in something or other Mr GMR. However, when one knows it then they should make sure they don't humiliate themselves by getting involved in something they don't truly understand.
yours,
Petra
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 12 2015, 08:23 PM
QUOTE (Petra @ Nov 12 2015, 08:14 PM)
As you said Mr Capp, in your view, however, your view is not representative of the human race, but a very small portion of it. Nevertheless, if Mr Kirby, or even yourself are offended by a bit of robust debate then I apologize. Sadly, when debating, the weak and meek get dragged in and when one respond back then they feel intimidated, threatened or fearful. I must also add that you have also criticized me robustly Mr Capp, but I've never responded by crying into the curtains and asking for leniency. But I will heed your words Mr Capp and try to consider those of a weaker disposition.
I say in my view, because that is all it is. I am not arrogant enough to believe that my view is certainly true; however, I think you are mistaken if you think Simon or I are 'hurt' by your method of debate.
I also realise there is more than one way to respond to an offensive comment or criticism. Some might indeed "responded by crying into the curtains and asking for leniency", but others when hurt or feel intimidate can respond in an aggressive way too.
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 12 2015, 08:26 PM
QUOTE (Petra @ Nov 12 2015, 08:19 PM)
We all have narrow views in something or other Mr GMR. However, when one knows it then they should make sure they don't humiliate themselves by getting involved in something they don't truly understand.
The problem here is that few people own-up to, or even realise they have a narrow mind.
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 12 2015, 08:41 PM
QUOTE (Petra @ Nov 12 2015, 08:19 PM)
We all have narrow views in something or other Mr GMR. However, when one knows it then they should make sure they don't humiliate themselves by getting involved in something they don't truly understand.
Again, I have to disagree, the best thing for a narrow mind would be to involve themselves in a debate that might 'broaden' their point of view. Others, of course, can be so entrenched in their view, that even when the fallacy of their view is exposed, will dig even deeper into their conviction. Again, that is also human nature and that is why it is better to 'find out, than suppose'.
Posted by: Cognosco Nov 12 2015, 09:28 PM
QUOTE (Petra @ Nov 12 2015, 08:19 PM)
We all have narrow views in something or other Mr GMR. However, when one knows it then they should make sure they don't humiliate themselves by getting involved in something they don't truly understand.
yours,
Petra
yours,
Petra
You are getting there! When the penny finally drops does that mean you won't be posting anything further?
Posted by: je suis Charlie Nov 12 2015, 09:37 PM
QUOTE (Cognosco @ Nov 12 2015, 10:28 PM)
You are getting there! When the penny finally drops does that mean you won't be posting anything further?
I doubt that, he / she is having far too much fun trying (and failing) to disrupt this forum. Sad really that some people are so diminished that this constitutes their entertainment.
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 12 2015, 09:43 PM
It reminds me of the Nastasi or McEnroe tennis matches. You know it isn't tennis, but you can't wait to get home from school and see them 'kick off'!
Posted by: Biker1 Nov 13 2015, 08:44 AM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 12 2015, 10:06 PM)
in my view, constructive debate is about the view posted; not the person posting. However, some people get personal to goad other's into a response, or perhaps simply to demonstrate a feeling of superiority. Either way, some of your points could have been just as well made without the 'unkind' comments.
But, from another thread.................
QUOTE (Biker1 @ Oct 8 2015, 05:12 PM) *
Another reason I do not buy any more.
Sensationalist headlines such as this........
"Two months of waterways hel| for Newbury boaters"
(The website software edited the word used in the headline!! laugh.gif )
This is not The Sun or Star or other trashy national, this is supposed to be a local paper reporting local news in what I would expect to be a non-hysterical, quality fashion.
This type of reporting is now used regularly in the NWN.
Can anyone think of a better headline for this story which would be more suited to a local news-sheet?? rolleyes.gif
AC's reply.................
"I think this is the real issue. "
Constructive debate?
I rest my case!!
Posted by: je suis Charlie Nov 13 2015, 09:31 AM
This!
http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/news/news/16414/A-fifth-of-West-Berkshire-smokers.html
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 13 2015, 10:17 AM
QUOTE (Biker1 @ Nov 13 2015, 08:44 AM)
But, from another thread.................
QUOTE (Biker1 @ Oct 8 2015, 05:12 PM) *
Another reason I do not buy any more.
Sensationalist headlines such as this........
"Two months of waterways hel| for Newbury boaters"
(The website software edited the word used in the headline!! laugh.gif )
This is not The Sun or Star or other trashy national, this is supposed to be a local paper reporting local news in what I would expect to be a non-hysterical, quality fashion.
This type of reporting is now used regularly in the NWN.
Can anyone think of a better headline for this story which would be more suited to a local news-sheet?? rolleyes.gif
AC's reply.................
"I think this is the real issue. "
Constructive debate?
I rest my case!!
QUOTE (Biker1 @ Oct 8 2015, 05:12 PM) *
Another reason I do not buy any more.
Sensationalist headlines such as this........
"Two months of waterways hel| for Newbury boaters"
(The website software edited the word used in the headline!! laugh.gif )
This is not The Sun or Star or other trashy national, this is supposed to be a local paper reporting local news in what I would expect to be a non-hysterical, quality fashion.
This type of reporting is now used regularly in the NWN.
Can anyone think of a better headline for this story which would be more suited to a local news-sheet?? rolleyes.gif
AC's reply.................
"I think this is the real issue. "
Constructive debate?
I rest my case!!
I see nothing wrong in suggesting that the problem is with your expectations rather than a genuine complaint; however, I wasn't the one suggesting we should only indulge in sober debate; I merely refuted Petra's notion of what constitutes a constructive debate.
No house points; you have to try harder!
Posted by: Cognosco Nov 13 2015, 11:23 AM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 13 2015, 10:17 AM)
I see nothing wrong in suggesting that the problem is with your expectations rather than a genuine complaint; however, I wasn't the one suggesting we should only indulge in sober debate; I merely refuted Petra's notion of what constitutes a constructive debate.
No house points; you have to try harder!
No house points; you have to try harder!
He is already trying enough already?
Posted by: Biker1 Nov 13 2015, 11:39 AM
QUOTE (Cognosco @ Nov 13 2015, 01:23 PM)
He is already trying enough already?
Another of Andy's comments..................
"However, some people get personal to goad other's into a response, or perhaps simply to demonstrate a feeling of superiority."
Another case rested C.
Posted by: je suis Charlie Nov 13 2015, 11:44 AM
I'm off to fetch the popcorn!
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 13 2015, 12:39 PM
QUOTE (Biker1 @ Nov 13 2015, 11:39 AM)
Another of Andy's comments..................
"However, some people get personal to goad other's into a response, or perhaps simply to demonstrate a feeling of superiority."
Another case rested C.
"However, some people get personal to goad other's into a response, or perhaps simply to demonstrate a feeling of superiority."
Another case rested C.
I'm sorry, I have no idea what your point is.
Not only that, it is poor debating form to take isolated comments out of context, which is what I think you are doing here. Also, my making a statement doesn't mean I concur, that is to say, I might propose that Pavarotti was the best opera singer of all time, but that doesn't mean I like listening to him.Unless I am posting in jest, I only get 'personal' when I am provoked; however, I fail to see how one can get personal when I hardly know anyone personally on this forum!
Any time I have apparently 'got personal', I can reasonably justify it, and that includes Biker1
Posted by: HeatherW Nov 13 2015, 01:08 PM
QUOTE (je suis Charlie @ Nov 12 2015, 09:37 PM)
I doubt that, he / she is having far too much fun trying (and failing) to disrupt this forum. Sad really that some people are so diminished that this constitutes their entertainment.
Why do you do that? Every time a woman comes on this forum and gives as good as she gets the first thing you men come back with is the insult “he or she”. As if it is beyond belief that a woman has the intelligence to challenge any man of authority on here. You never hear the opposite. That is when you know it is a man you never try the insult them with “he or she”. I’ve never heard anybody refer to Andy Capp, Biker or even GMR as he or she. Because they are men so it is acceptable that they can hold their own and stand up for themselves. That is why I also think Petra is attacked so much, because they couldn’t accept a woman could have the balls to stand up for themselves.
Reading the posts on here I thought she did very well batting against you lot. Even though I don’t agree with a lot she says I am glad that she stands up for herself in this, what is becoming, a misogynist forum. Agree with her, don’t agree with her, but don’t belittle her sex. And before somebody says anything about her tone, I’ve read a lot worse from you guys on here. If you say you are not misogynists then criticise her by all means, but don’t follow through with “he or she”. I have no doubt now that I will be accused of being a man because I dare to criticise your chaps.
Posted by: HeatherW Nov 13 2015, 01:09 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 13 2015, 12:39 PM)
I'm sorry, I have no idea what your point is. Not only that, it is poor debating form to take isolated comments out of context, which is what I think you are doing here. Also, my making a statement doesn't mean I concur, that is to say, I might propose that Pavarotti was the best opera singer of all time, but that doesn't mean I like listening to him.
Unless I am posting in jest, I only get 'personal' when I am provoked; however, I fail to see how one can get personal when I hardly know anyone personally on this forum!
Any time I have apparently 'got personal', I can reasonably justify it, and that includes Biker1
Not only that, it is poor debating form to take isolated comments out of context, which is what I think you are doing here. Also, my making a statement doesn't mean I concur, that is to say, I might propose that Pavarotti was the best opera singer of all time, but that doesn't mean I like listening to him.Unless I am posting in jest, I only get 'personal' when I am provoked; however, I fail to see how one can get personal when I hardly know anyone personally on this forum!
Any time I have apparently 'got personal', I can reasonably justify it, and that includes Biker1
Everybody can justify it, that is the problem.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 13 2015, 01:15 PM
QUOTE (je suis Charlie @ Nov 13 2015, 09:31 AM)
This!
http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/news/news/16414/A-fifth-of-West-Berkshire-smokers.html
http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/news/news/16414/A-fifth-of-West-Berkshire-smokers.html
A peach of Conservative values: tax an unhealthy addictive habit so heavily that it pushes 20% of the smoking population into poverty, and then sneer at the feckless plebs for being poor. Sure, smoking is not terribly healthy, but if the tax on it is pushing 20% of the population into poverty then cut the tax, eh?
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 13 2015, 01:38 PM
QUOTE (HeatherW @ Nov 13 2015, 01:08 PM)
Why do you do that? Every time a woman comes on this forum and gives as good as she gets the first thing you men come back with is the insult “he or she”. As if it is beyond belief that a woman has the intelligence to challenge any man of authority on here. You never hear the opposite. That is when you know it is a man you never try the insult them with “he or she”. I’ve never heard anybody refer to Andy Capp, Biker or even GMR as he or she. Because they are men so it is acceptable that they can hold their own and stand up for themselves. That is why I also think Petra is attacked so much, because they couldn’t accept a woman could have the balls to stand up for themselves.
Reading the posts on here I thought she did very well batting against you lot. Even though I don’t agree with a lot she says I am glad that she stands up for herself in this, what is becoming, a misogynist forum. Agree with her, don’t agree with her, but don’t belittle her sex. And before somebody says anything about her tone, I’ve read a lot worse from you guys on here. If you say you are not misogynists then criticise her by all means, but don’t follow through with “he or she”. I have no doubt now that I will be accused of being a man because I dare to criticise your chaps.
Reading the posts on here I thought she did very well batting against you lot. Even though I don’t agree with a lot she says I am glad that she stands up for herself in this, what is becoming, a misogynist forum. Agree with her, don’t agree with her, but don’t belittle her sex. And before somebody says anything about her tone, I’ve read a lot worse from you guys on here. If you say you are not misogynists then criticise her by all means, but don’t follow through with “he or she”. I have no doubt now that I will be accused of being a man because I dare to criticise your chaps.
Petra posts an unreasonably ugly argument: nothing from you. It understandably causes a reaction from the regulars, then you issue the sexists card. It is both cheap, unfounded and wrong.
Petra gets a reaction because Petra posts ugly arguments; nothing to do with sex, that is in fact a lie. Indeed, I doubt Petra is a woman. I certainly doubt the sincerity of what Petra posts.
The problem I see with Petra allegedly standing up for themselves, is that in my view, Petra just comes across as stupid and this is because their argument is flawed, not because Petra might be female.
Paraphrasing what I said yesterday: Petra could have made the point intended without the vitriol and insults slung at Simon Kirby.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 13 2015, 01:57 PM
QUOTE (HeatherW @ Nov 13 2015, 01:08 PM)
Why do you do that? Every time a woman comes on this forum and gives as good as she gets...
Is that what happened? As I saw it we were debating the poorly-argued position of the OP, and then Petra posts:
QUOTE (Petra @ Nov 12 2015, 12:55 PM)
...your emotions snap into action, thus overriding your intelligence (if any should exist)...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y.
Posted by: Nothing Much Nov 13 2015, 02:06 PM
I don't really know about all this sexist mysagony.
It's all Greek to me.
ce
Ps Mrs ce when involved had real trouble with certain attitudes.
She worked at Millbank Tower from 1980 to 2004. It was to do with Electrical Engineering to begin with.
She continued to retirement with NJUG...streetworks issues. The blokes were not happy.
But she was brighter. And in charge of the company credit card
Posted by: HeatherW Nov 13 2015, 02:33 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 13 2015, 01:38 PM)
Petra posts an unreasonably ugly argument: nothing from you. It understandably causes a reaction from the regulars, then you issue the sexists card. It is both cheap, unfounded and wrong.
Petra gets a reaction because Petra posts ugly arguments; nothing to do with sex, that is in fact a lie. Indeed, I doubt Petra is a woman. I certainly doubt the sincerity of what Petra posts.
The problem I see with Petra allegedly standing up for themselves, is that in my view, Petra just comes across as stupid and this is because their argument is flawed, not because Petra might be female.
Paraphrasing what I said yesterday: Petra could have made the point intended without the vitriol and insults slung at Simon Kirby.
Petra gets a reaction because Petra posts ugly arguments; nothing to do with sex, that is in fact a lie. Indeed, I doubt Petra is a woman. I certainly doubt the sincerity of what Petra posts.
The problem I see with Petra allegedly standing up for themselves, is that in my view, Petra just comes across as stupid and this is because their argument is flawed, not because Petra might be female.
Paraphrasing what I said yesterday: Petra could have made the point intended without the vitriol and insults slung at Simon Kirby.
I certainly wouldn't say it was unfounded. But what do I know, I am only a woman.
You defend Kirby over Petra, but I've read over the years some of your strong stuff. No doubt you are never wrong, just the others.
Posted by: HeatherW Nov 13 2015, 02:39 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Nov 13 2015, 01:57 PM)
Is that what happened? As I saw it we were debating the poorly-argued position of the OP, and then Petra posts:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y.
God, you men are wimps. Because of our sex, that is mild compared to what we have to put up with. A woman uses strong language and you buckle. But we have to put up with it all the times. Calls of rape, abuse and everything else you can think of we are called it. Some woman uses mild language you and you start crying. But dish it out yourself and it is acceptable. I think you crying here has more to do with that you've got no answer so accusations is the best form of defence. Grow up.
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 13 2015, 03:48 PM
QUOTE (HeatherW @ Nov 13 2015, 02:39 PM)
God, you men are wimps. Because of our sex, that is mild compared to what we have to put up with. A woman uses strong language and you buckle. But we have to put up with it all the times. Calls of rape, abuse and everything else you can think of we are called it. Some woman uses mild language you and you start crying. But dish it out yourself and it is acceptable. I think you crying here has more to do with that you've got no answer so accusations is the best form of defence. Grow up.
The trouble with people like you is that you are reactionaries. Instead of thinking it through, your emotions snap into action, thus overriding your intelligence (if any should exist).
Posted by: je suis Charlie Nov 13 2015, 03:52 PM
Hence the 'he / she' bit, now that is hardly sexist is it? I like many others suspect that shall we call it it? Is merely another forum member "aving a laff" but whatever the gender (and I really don't care) the posts themselves are so overblown with self righteous poposity they lose all sense and direction. Insulting? Yes. Entertaining? No, informative? No. Who ever it is can post all they want, it is a public forum after all but the question is, will they be taken seriously? No. Definitely not. Not with that attitude.
Posted by: je suis Charlie Nov 13 2015, 03:58 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Nov 13 2015, 02:15 PM)
A peach of Conservative values: tax an unhealthy addictive habit so heavily that it pushes 20% of the smoking population into poverty, and then sneer at the feckless plebs for being poor. Sure, smoking is not terribly healthy, but if the tax on it is pushing 20% of the population into poverty then cut the tax, eh?
Not terribly healthy? Get away! You reckon? The Tory government didn't force people to smoke, or perhaps it did, I wonder? Perhaps Mr Corbin is going to rewrite the history books? Uncle Joe did.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 13 2015, 04:20 PM
QUOTE (je suis Charlie @ Nov 13 2015, 03:58 PM)
Not terribly healthy? Get away! You reckon? The Tory government didn't force people to smoke, or perhaps it did, I wonder? Perhaps Mr Corbin is going to rewrite the history books? Uncle Joe did.
It's not about whether smoking is healthy, it isn't particularly, the point is whether it's better to judge the families in poverty for indulging their habit despite its cost, or whether it would be better to cut the tobacco tax and end the poverty.
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 13 2015, 05:05 PM
QUOTE (HeatherW @ Nov 13 2015, 02:33 PM)
I certainly wouldn't say it was unfounded. But what do I know, I am only a woman.
You defend Kirby over Petra, but I've read over the years some of your strong stuff. No doubt you are never wrong, just the others.
You defend Kirby over Petra, but I've read over the years some of your strong stuff. No doubt you are never wrong, just the others.
I defended no-one. I saw something wrong and challenged it. I have been fairly robust with Simon Kirby in the past too.
Personally I see very little merit on what Petra posts. I sometimes find Petra's posts funny and when they are not funny, they are as easy to pick apart. Petra just makes a fool of themselves.
Posted by: GMR Nov 13 2015, 05:22 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 13 2015, 03:48 PM)
The trouble with people like you is that you are reactionaries. Instead of thinking it through, your emotions snap into action, thus overriding your intelligence (if any should exist).
And you criticise Petra and come out with the same insults. I think she is right. I think she thought it through and you don't like your kingdom being challenged. You are a sexist.
Posted by: GMR Nov 13 2015, 05:23 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 13 2015, 05:05 PM)
I defended no-one. I saw something wrong and challenged it. I have been fairly robust with Simon Kirby in the past too. Personally I see very little merit on what Petra posts. I sometimes find Petra's posts funny and when they are not funny, they are as easy to pick apart. Petra just makes a fool of themselves.
I think you see little merit to anybody who stands up to you and challenges, more so if it is a woman.
Posted by: GMR Nov 13 2015, 05:24 PM
QUOTE (je suis Charlie @ Nov 13 2015, 03:52 PM)
Hence the 'he / she' bit, now that is hardly sexist is it? I like many others suspect that shall we call it it? Is merely another forum member "aving a laff" but whatever the gender (and I really don't care) the posts themselves are so overblown with self righteous poposity they lose all sense and direction. Insulting? Yes. Entertaining? No, informative? No. Who ever it is can post all they want, it is a public forum after all but the question is, will they be taken seriously? No. Definitely not. Not with that attitude.
You say it isn't sexist, but I've never heard you accuse a man of being he or a she.
As you are not taken seriously with your attitude.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 13 2015, 05:29 PM
QUOTE (GMR @ Nov 13 2015, 05:22 PM)
And you criticise Petra and come out with the same insults.
Oh for the love of Cleese, do you not get irony?
Posted by: Spider Nov 13 2015, 05:32 PM
I thought the remarks against Petra where sexist and the comments towards Heather were belittling, but to be honest it isn't really surprising. There is an air of superior arrogance. This forum used to have many members of both sexes, but a few have highjacked it. If people like Petra come along and people don't agree, or have a strong vocabulary they are marginalised and belittled. What this forum needs is an administrator to take charge when things get out of control.
Posted by: GMR Nov 13 2015, 05:34 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Nov 13 2015, 05:29 PM)
Oh for the love of Cleese, do you not get irony?
Of course it is irony, it is always is when somebody is put on the rack. You could use the same argument when Petra made the comments against you, but you didn't see it and her being a woman condemned her. Oh, sorry, Irony is a man's domain. Silly me!
Posted by: Spider Nov 13 2015, 05:35 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Nov 13 2015, 05:29 PM)
Oh for the love of Cleese, do you not get irony?
Really? I thought what the women said was irony, but no, it couldn't be, could it?
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 13 2015, 05:40 PM
QUOTE (GMR @ Nov 13 2015, 05:22 PM)
And you criticise Petra and come out with the same insults. I think she is right. I think she thought it through and you don't like your kingdom being challenged. You are a sexist.
So when Petra posts this, it isn't an issue and it isn't sexist, but when I copy and paste what they wrote, it is and I am?What nonsense.
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 13 2015, 05:42 PM
QUOTE (GMR @ Nov 13 2015, 05:23 PM)
I think you see little merit to anybody who stands up to you and challenges, more so if it is a woman.
Believe what you want, but you will live in ignorance.
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 13 2015, 05:43 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Nov 13 2015, 05:29 PM)
Oh for the love of Cleese, do you not get irony?
No he doesn't.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 13 2015, 05:46 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 13 2015, 05:43 PM)
No he doesn't.
Which is actually quite ironic.
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 13 2015, 05:46 PM
QUOTE (Spider @ Nov 13 2015, 05:32 PM)
I thought the remarks against Petra where sexist and the comments towards Heather were belittling, but to be honest it isn't really surprising. There is an air of superior arrogance. This forum used to have many members of both sexes, but a few have highjacked it. If people like Petra come along and people don't agree, or have a strong vocabulary they are marginalised and belittled. What this forum needs is an administrator to take charge when things get out of control.
What do you think of the remarks Petra made towards Simon? A thread that was up to then peaceful and measured?
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 13 2015, 05:50 PM
Spider, GMR, and HeatherW are clearly from another forum. They follow the same pattern, offering the same hackneyed and false arguments....
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 13 2015, 05:53 PM
..."Come on everyone; they're having a go at Petra again!"
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 13 2015, 05:58 PM
QUOTE (GMR @ Nov 13 2015, 05:34 PM)
Of course it is irony, it is always is when somebody is put on the rack. You could use the same argument when Petra made the comments against you, but you didn't see it and her being a woman condemned her. Oh, sorry, Irony is a man's domain. Silly me!
I copied and pasted what Petra wrote, but it is only offensive if I post it, not when Petra does it seems.
Posted by: On the edge Nov 13 2015, 06:00 PM
And we were taught that civilisation gradually gets better!
I used to believe that democracy was best served when a community could properly debate the issues of the day and that would reveal the will of the people....
Umm, the only thing that can be said, is it seems even worse elsewhere.
Posted by: GMR Nov 13 2015, 06:00 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 13 2015, 05:40 PM)
So when Petra posts this, it isn't an issue and it isn't sexist, but when I copy and paste what they wrote, it is and I am? What nonsense.I think she gives as good as she gets and you don't like it. You obviously have a think about her. I wonder if you know her personally, say from WBC.
Posted by: GMR Nov 13 2015, 06:01 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 13 2015, 05:53 PM)
..."Come on everyone; they're having a go at Petra again!"
No, I think they/ we are having a go at you and you don't like it.
Posted by: GMR Nov 13 2015, 06:02 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 13 2015, 05:50 PM)
Spider, GMR, and HeatherW are clearly from another forum. They follow the same pattern, offering the same hackneyed and false arguments....
Of course we must be from the same forum; same old crap when caught out.
Posted by: GMR Nov 13 2015, 06:02 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 13 2015, 05:43 PM)
No he doesn't.
Nor do you, it seems.
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 13 2015, 06:20 PM
QUOTE (GMR @ Nov 13 2015, 06:00 PM)
I think she gives as good as she gets and you don't like it. You obviously have a think about her. I wonder if you know her personally, say from WBC.
Like I said, when Petra posts it; silence. I copy and paste it and it all kicks off!
I think it is quite obvious what is going on here.
Posted by: Cognosco Nov 13 2015, 06:35 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 13 2015, 06:20 PM)
Like I said, Petra posts it: silence. I copy and paste it and it all kicks off!
I think it is quite obvious what is going on here.
I think it is quite obvious what is going on here.
They got to Simon. They got to RUP. Who will be next I wonder?
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 13 2015, 06:49 PM
Andy Capp: "Me? When I'm not boozing, I'm chasing that Petra about; fascinating creature!"
Posted by: je suis Charlie Nov 13 2015, 09:51 PM
Andy Capp? And Petra? In a forum? On their own? Surely not!
Posted by: Biker1 Nov 14 2015, 08:31 AM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 13 2015, 02:39 PM)
I'm sorry, I have no idea what your point is.
This one was aimed at our local council fan Cognosco.
He / she was doing exactly that which you criticised in your post.
Posted by: spartacus Nov 14 2015, 09:41 AM
GMR and Heather either need to top up on their HRT treatment (assuming they're menopausal and having a mood swing and hot flush moment as they bash away at their keyboards) or they need to keep away from the drinks cabinet on a Friday night. Several posts in quick succession related to some form of 'blatant sexism' the girls seem to have picked up by reading between the lines of posts from other members. As a transgender person I have an excuse coming on here and typing bollox.
QUOTE (GMR @ Nov 13 2015, 05:34 PM)
Oh, sorry, Irony is a man's domain. Silly me!
No, definitely a woman's domain... They seem to enjoy the process of transforming a pile of crumpled shirts and trousers into something that you can wear to work. Therapeutic apparently.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 14 2015, 09:55 AM
QUOTE (spartacus @ Nov 14 2015, 09:41 AM)
No, definitely a woman's domain... They seem to enjoy the process of transforming a pile of crumpled shirts and trousers into something that you can wear to work. Therapeutic apparently.
Sweet.
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 14 2015, 11:48 AM
QUOTE (Biker1 @ Nov 14 2015, 08:31 AM)
This one was aimed at our local council fan Cognosco.
He / she was doing exactly that which you criticised in your post.
He / she was doing exactly that which you criticised in your post.
Sorry, I still don't get your point and how it relates to me, if that was ever your intention that is.
TBH - I didn't understand Cognosco's point either.
Posted by: Nothing Much Nov 14 2015, 03:03 PM
Bohemian ? Moi?
ce.
& I disagree with the jpeg as well
Posted by: Nothing Much Nov 14 2015, 03:27 PM
I like flowers. I have bought them for 40 years now. I always did the window box.
Daffs in the spring, Iris, small roses. I usually chuck them in a vase.
Lira from Romania who has started changing things as a cleaner.......
has a female touch for flower things and moves things around !
....Married sadly (shut up ce)
Posted by: Cognosco Nov 14 2015, 03:35 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 14 2015, 11:48 AM)
Sorry, I still don't get your point and how it relates to me, if that was ever your intention that is.
TBH - I didn't understand Cognosco's point either.
TBH - I didn't understand Cognosco's point either.
Hint -Keep stum they are out to get you!
Posted by: Cognosco Nov 14 2015, 03:43 PM
QUOTE (Biker1 @ Nov 14 2015, 08:31 AM)
This one was aimed at our local council fan Cognosco.
He / she was doing exactly that which you criticised in your post.
He / she was doing exactly that which you criticised in your post.
Depends what mood I am in!
This ensures I can view the debates impartially and see the point from both genders without prejudice.
I must say that some do take offense quite easily and I have to scratch my head to understand why sometimes?
Posted by: On the edge Nov 14 2015, 04:49 PM
QUOTE (Cognosco @ Nov 14 2015, 03:43 PM)
Depends what mood I am in!
This ensures I can view the debates impartially and see the point from both genders without prejudice.
I must say that some do take offense quite easily and I have to scratch my head to understand why sometimes?
This ensures I can view the debates impartially and see the point from both genders without prejudice.
I must say that some do take offense quite easily and I have to scratch my head to understand why sometimes?
Does this suggest you have more than the rest of us to scratch C?
Posted by: GMR Nov 15 2015, 05:06 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 13 2015, 06:20 PM)
Like I said, when Petra posts it; silence. I copy and paste it and it all kicks off! I think it is quite obvious what is going on here.
I think it is quite obvious what is going on here. I think it is quite obvious what is going on in your mind. If you can't accept the obvious then leap to conspiracy theories. That is paranoia.
What is going on then? We are all texting each other to say the same things? Have you ever heard od Occam's razor? More things should not be used than are necessary In other words the easiest explanation is probably the correct one.
Posted by: GMR Nov 15 2015, 05:08 PM
QUOTE (Cognosco @ Nov 13 2015, 06:35 PM)
They got to Simon. They got to RUP. Who will be next I wonder?
Only a psychiatrist can answer that.
Posted by: Cognosco Nov 15 2015, 08:02 PM
QUOTE (GMR @ Nov 15 2015, 05:08 PM)
Only a psychiatrist can answer that.
Perhaps next time you are on the couch you could run it by him then?
Posted by: GMR Nov 15 2015, 08:14 PM
QUOTE (Cognosco @ Nov 15 2015, 08:02 PM)
Perhaps next time you are on the couch you could run it by him then?
I already had.
Posted by: Mr Brown Nov 15 2015, 08:57 PM
I hadn't realised there was a Food Bank in Newbury. There is one where I live right now which is well supported where my g/f helps out now and again. She's quite convinced that the people coming in and out are all pretty genuine. A few have even come back with donations when they've sorted themselves.
Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Nov 15 2015, 09:11 PM
QUOTE (Mr Brown @ Nov 15 2015, 08:57 PM)
I hadn't realised there was a Food Bank in Newbury. There is one where I live right now which is well supported where my g/f helps out now and again. She's quite convinced that the people coming in and out are all pretty genuine. A few have even come back with donations when they've sorted themselves.
How do you work out is someone is genuine from a brief chat whilst they collect free food? Just wondering...
Posted by: Mr Brown Nov 15 2015, 09:37 PM
QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ Nov 15 2015, 09:11 PM)
How do you work out is someone is genuine from a brief chat whilst they collect free food? Just wondering...
I didn't mention how long she chatted did I?
Posted by: The Hatter Nov 15 2015, 09:53 PM
Yes there is one in Newbury, I think it's at the Salvation Army place in Northcroft Lane.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 15 2015, 10:10 PM
QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ Nov 15 2015, 09:11 PM)
How do you work out is someone is genuine from a brief chat whilst they collect free food? Just wondering...
Perhaps they should be made to swear on the Daily Mail.
Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Nov 15 2015, 10:13 PM
Why the Daily Mail?
Posted by: je suis Charlie Nov 15 2015, 11:39 PM
QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ Nov 15 2015, 11:13 PM)
Why the Daily Mail?
White Trash Times.
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 16 2015, 02:16 AM
QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ Nov 15 2015, 10:13 PM)
Why the Daily Mail?
It's the 'Swivel-eyed' Bible.
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 16 2015, 02:20 AM
QUOTE (GMR @ Nov 15 2015, 05:06 PM)
I think it is quite obvious what is going on in your mind. If you can't accept the obvious then leap to conspiracy theories. That is paranoia.
What is going on then? We are all texting each other to say the same things? Have you ever heard od Occam's razor? More things should not be used than are necessary In other words the easiest explanation is probably the correct one.
What is going on then? We are all texting each other to say the same things? Have you ever heard od Occam's razor? More things should not be used than are necessary In other words the easiest explanation is probably the correct one.
What is obvious is your opinion is not based on impartial objective research.
Posted by: GMR Nov 16 2015, 04:09 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 16 2015, 02:20 AM)
What is obvious is your opinion is not based on impartial objective research.
"Obvious" to some one who is paranoid.
Posted by: je suis Charlie Nov 16 2015, 05:16 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 16 2015, 03:20 AM)
What is obvious is your opinion is not based on impartial objective research.
Swivel eyed.
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 16 2015, 05:17 PM
QUOTE (GMR @ Nov 16 2015, 04:09 PM)
"Obvious" to some one who is paranoid.
So why is the sentence seemingly only offensive if I post it? Why no criticism of the original poster? I'm not paranoid and your misuse of words like paranoia, sexist and misogyny do not help nor reinforce your arguments.
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 16 2015, 05:17 PM
QUOTE (je suis Charlie @ Nov 16 2015, 05:16 PM)
Swivel eyed.
What is your point? The Daily Mail being the home of the 'swivel-eyed' is a common knowledge and not one I have bestowed it. I am also sure that it is what Simon Kirby means. I could be wrong of course.
Posted by: GMR Nov 16 2015, 05:43 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 16 2015, 05:17 PM)
So why is the sentence seemingly only offensive if I post it? Why no criticism of the original poster? I'm not paranoid and your misuse of words like paranoia, sexist and misogyny do not help nor reinforce your arguments.
They may not reinforce my arguments, but nevertheless are true. I go my the evidence.
I commented on the post I saw (i.e. I didn't read them all), nevertheless, I am sure if the original writer saw it would have noticed that it was also directed at him.
Posted by: GMR Nov 16 2015, 05:44 PM
QUOTE (je suis Charlie @ Nov 16 2015, 05:16 PM)
Swivel eyed.
But swivelling where?
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 16 2015, 06:21 PM
QUOTE (GMR @ Nov 16 2015, 05:43 PM)
They may not reinforce my arguments, but nevertheless are true. I go my the evidence.
I don't think it fair or reasonable to accuse me of being sexist, paranoid or a misogynist unless you know me does it? I see little evidence to support your case.
QUOTE (GMR @ Nov 16 2015, 05:43 PM)
I commented on the post I saw (i.e. I didn't read them all), nevertheless, I am sure if the original writer saw it would have noticed that it was also directed at him.
I copied and pasted text originally penned by Petra and applied it to a reply from me to HeatherW, so I don't really understand you.
Posted by: GMR Nov 16 2015, 06:25 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 16 2015, 06:21 PM)
I don't think it fair or reasonable to accuse me of being sexist, paranoid or a misogynist unless you know me does it? I see little evidence to support your case.
You judge me on what I write, as I judge you by what you write. Neither of us know each other so we have to take our evidence from other places.
QUOTE
I copied and pasted text originally penned by Petra and applied it to a reply from me to HeatherW, so I don't really understand you.
Actually, I was thinking about something else you wrote. The trouble is when something gets long there are many examples you could have been talking about.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 16 2015, 07:27 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 16 2015, 05:17 PM)
What is your point? The Daily Mail being the home of the 'swivel-eyed' is a common knowledge and not one I have bestowed it. I am also sure that it is what Simon Kirby means. I could be wrong of course.
As it happens I don't see the Daily Mail as the home of swivel-eyed loons, my problem with the Daily Mail is that it encourages hate and fear.
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 16 2015, 07:38 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Nov 16 2015, 07:27 PM)
As it happens I don't see the Daily Mail as the home of swivel-eyed loons, my problem with the Daily Mail is that it encourages hate and fear.
Which is what I was on about!
Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 16 2015, 07:42 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 16 2015, 07:38 PM)
Which is what I was on about!
Blimey, I'm glad one of us is following this.
Posted by: user23 Nov 16 2015, 08:07 PM
Here's all you need to know about the Daily Mail in one cutting. On the right it's calling a satirical programme on the hysteria around paedophiles "sick", fair enough it's that's their view, but then on the left it's referring to a 15 year old minor as a "big girl now". Make you own mind up about their intent.
Posted by: Mr Brown Nov 16 2015, 10:06 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Nov 16 2015, 07:27 PM)
As it happens I don't see the Daily Mail as the home of swivel-eyed loons, my problem with the Daily Mail is that it encourages hate and fear.
I'd have to agree with that; simply playing up popular prejudice, easy profits.
Posted by: Biker1 Nov 17 2015, 08:58 AM
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/nrs-daily-mail-most-popular-uk-newspaper-print-and-online-23m-readers-month-0
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 17 2015, 09:12 AM
QUOTE (Biker1 @ Nov 17 2015, 08:58 AM)
http://www.statista.com/statistics/246077/reach-of-selected-national-newspapers-in-the-uk/
????
Posted by: Biker1 Nov 17 2015, 12:03 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 17 2015, 11:12 AM)
????
Sorry, it didn't do that when I tried it.................now edited.
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 17 2015, 01:34 PM
Sorry, I can't see anything meaningful.
There's an advert that obscures a bar chart, but do see the text:
From July 2014 to June 2015. The Daily Mail (including the Daily Mail on Sunday) print title and its website dailymail.co.uk reached 19.2 million individuals through both its print and digital formats.
Posted by: je suis Charlie Nov 17 2015, 04:48 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 17 2015, 02:34 PM)
Sorry, I can't see anything meaningful.
There's an advert that obscures a bar chart, but do see the text:
From July 2014 to June 2015. The Daily Mail (including the Daily Mail on Sunday) print title and its website dailymail.co.uk reached 19.2 million individuals through both its print and digital formats.
There's an advert that obscures a bar chart, but do see the text:
From July 2014 to June 2015. The Daily Mail (including the Daily Mail on Sunday) print title and its website dailymail.co.uk reached 19.2 million individuals through both its print and digital formats.
And that is as you like to remind us, a heckuva bunch of swivel eyed loons. Wonder if they vote? Just think 19.2 million votes for Ukip! Shurrly shum mishtake?
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 17 2015, 05:22 PM
QUOTE (je suis Charlie @ Nov 17 2015, 04:48 PM)
And that is as you like to remind us, a heckuva bunch of swivel eyed loons. Wonder if they vote? Just think 19.2 million votes for Ukip! Shurrly shum mishtake?
I don't understand the stats (not that it makes any differenced of course). I very much doubt ~30% of the country bought the Daily Mail, so I presume it is saying it averages 5.2 million readers a day.
Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Nov 17 2015, 08:47 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 17 2015, 05:22 PM)
I don't understand the stats (not that it makes any differenced of course). I very much doubt ~30% of the country bought the Daily Mail, so I presume it is saying it averages 5.2 million readers a day.
Lot's of swivel eyed loon's in this country. Basically anyone who is not on message with the PC police.
Being PC all the time is hard work. Sometimes it's best to say what YOU think rather that what you think other people want too hear.
Having an opinion. It counts. Voice it and never EVER let anyone shout you down.
Posted by: user23 Nov 17 2015, 09:30 PM
I wonder if the swivel eyed loons who were watching England vs France play football tonight sung La Marseillaise through gritted teeth?
How does standing together against terrorism square with their agenda to isolate our little islands from the rest of Europe?
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 17 2015, 09:31 PM
I believe that is simply a left-wing eye swivel way of putting it. Brexit doesn't necessarily mean isolation.
Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Nov 17 2015, 09:38 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 17 2015, 09:31 PM)
I believe that is simply a left-wing eye swivel way of putting it. Brexit doesn't necessarily mean isolation.
Quite. Swivel eyed loons (anyone who disagrees with a United States of Europe) can't be compassionate. How dare they have moral's of any sort?
Posted by: user23 Nov 17 2015, 09:49 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 17 2015, 09:31 PM)
I believe that is simply a left-wing eye swivel way of putting it. Brexit doesn't necessarily mean isolation.
I'm pretty sure isolating ourselves from the rest of Europe, means isolation.I know you like an argument, but you're just being silly now.
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 17 2015, 09:54 PM
QUOTE (user23 @ Nov 17 2015, 09:49 PM)
I'm pretty sure isolating ourselves from the rest of Europe, means isolation.
I know you like an argument, but you're just being silly now.
I know you like an argument, but you're just being silly now.
Brexit won't isolate us from the rest of Europe. That is just the typical cobblers Unionists peddle. We will still trade and integrate on our terms rather than Germany's. However, it is mute because in my view we wont exit.
Posted by: user23 Nov 17 2015, 09:58 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 17 2015, 09:54 PM)
If people weren't as dumb as you I wouldn't need to post so much.
How rude. No wonder very few people post on here nowdays.
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 17 2015, 09:58 PM
QUOTE (user23 @ Nov 17 2015, 09:58 PM)
How rude. No wonder very few people post on here nowdays.
Call it ethnic cleansing!
I'm generally more polite if people don't mug me off.
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 17 2015, 10:06 PM
QUOTE (user23 @ Nov 17 2015, 09:58 PM)
How rude. No wonder very few people post on here nowdays.
However, yes you're right, that was a little stiff, so I apologise for that.
Posted by: Turin Machine Nov 17 2015, 10:28 PM
QUOTE (user23 @ Nov 17 2015, 09:49 PM)
I'm pretty sure isolating ourselves from the rest of Europe, means isolation.
I know you like an argument, but you're just being silly now.
I know you like an argument, but you're just being silly now.
Norway's not doing too bad though! Fourth highest per capita income in the world.
Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Nov 17 2015, 11:09 PM
QUOTE (Turin Machine @ Nov 17 2015, 10:28 PM)
Norway's not doing too bad though! Fourth highest per capita income in the world.
Does not compute. Does not compute. Error. Error.
That's how some will see it!
Posted by: HeatherW Nov 18 2015, 08:56 AM
QUOTE
(Andy Capp @ Nov 17 2015, 09:54 PM) *
If people weren't as dumb as you I wouldn't need to post so much.
If people weren't as dumb as you I wouldn't need to post so much.
Didn't you have a go at Petra for her tone against Mr Kirby? I think this is called hypocrisy. You have the habit of taking the moral high ground when you are being criticised, but when it suits you, you can be just as obnoxious as your friend Petra.
I am starting to wonder if you are not Petra. You both have the same over the top tone.
Posted by: The Hatter Nov 18 2015, 10:32 AM
It is a bit odd. It might just be a sign of the times where people refuse to change opinion, no matter what, so they then have a go at the person.
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 18 2015, 11:27 AM
QUOTE (HeatherW @ Nov 18 2015, 08:56 AM)
Didn't you have a go at Petra for her tone against Mr Kirby? I think this is called hypocrisy. You have the habit of taking the moral high ground when you are being criticised, but when it suits you, you can be just as obnoxious as your friend Petra.
I am starting to wonder if you are not Petra. You both have the same over the top tone.
I am starting to wonder if you are not Petra. You both have the same over the top tone.
It was in reply to a cheeky post in the first place; Petra's posts are often unwarranted, BUT I had the decency to apologies afterwards too. I suppose you will ignore that?
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 18 2015, 01:09 PM
QUOTE (The Hatter @ Nov 18 2015, 10:32 AM)
It is a bit odd. It might just be a sign of the times where people refuse to change opinion, no matter what, so they then have a go at the person.
Except it isn't always true, but people tend to make their minds up, then look for proof, rather than the other way round. Both HeatherW and GMR have had a go at me without doing their homework first. That tells me all I need to know.
Posted by: HeatherW Nov 18 2015, 01:16 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 18 2015, 11:27 AM)
It was in reply to a cheeky post in the first place; Petra's posts are often unwarranted, BUT I had the decency to apologies afterwards too. I suppose you will ignore that?
Actually User was offended, as Mr Kirby was by Petra's post. Your comments were unwarranted and now you are trying to wriggle out of it. You think that having an answer for everything exonerates you, it doesn't. You are still a hypocrite. You throw your toys out of the pram if something upsets you, then get offended if somebody does exactly what you do.
Posted by: HeatherW Nov 18 2015, 01:18 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 18 2015, 01:09 PM)
Except it isn't always true, but people tend to make their minds up, then look for proof, rather than the other way round. Both HeatherW and GMR have had a go at me without doing their homework first. That tells me all I need to know.
Actually, I did my homework and you don't like it. And what actually tells the reader what they need to know is by seeing what you say, and what you do. You think because you are the forum headmaster you can say what you like. Do as you say, not as you do.
You can wriggle as much as you want, but the facts are there for all to see.
Posted by: HeatherW Nov 18 2015, 01:19 PM
QUOTE (The Hatter @ Nov 18 2015, 10:32 AM)
It is a bit odd. It might just be a sign of the times where people refuse to change opinion, no matter what, so they then have a go at the person.
Too right! I think it is clear to all who read Mr Capps posts that he is a Janus figure.
Posted by: HeatherW Nov 18 2015, 01:21 PM
QUOTE (user23 @ Nov 17 2015, 09:58 PM)
How rude. No wonder very few people post on here nowdays.
Spot On User23. Mr Capp can dish it out, but when it is thrown back into his face he has all manner of excuses. Those that read the posts will see that he has shown his true spots.
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 18 2015, 01:26 PM
QUOTE (HeatherW @ Nov 18 2015, 01:21 PM)
Spot On User23. Mr Capp can dish it out, but when it is thrown back into his face he has all manner of excuses. Those that read the posts will see that he has shown his true spots.
I dish it out when it is thrown in my face in the first place, but when someone like you is biased there is no telling you.
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 18 2015, 01:31 PM
QUOTE (HeatherW @ Nov 18 2015, 01:16 PM)
Actually User was offended, as Mr Kirby was by Petra's post. Your comments were unwarranted and now you are trying to wriggle out of it. You think that having an answer for everything exonerates you, it doesn't. You are still a hypocrite. You throw your toys out of the pram if something upsets you, then get offended if somebody does exactly what you do.
They are unwarranted because you are biased. User23 was cheeky to me FIRST and I replied in kind, but blinkered people like you wont see it.
I'm not trying to wriggle out of anything: I did something then apologised (more than most do on here). I'm not offended, I just stand up for myself when someone takes forum liberties.
In my view, if the many that don't post are of the debating standard and quality of you, then good riddance.
PS: it seems you and a few others are more interested in having a row and taking pot shots (mainly at me) than actually having anything meaningful to say or debate.
Posted by: HeatherW Nov 18 2015, 01:43 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 18 2015, 01:26 PM)
I dish it out when it is thrown in my face in the first place, but when someone like you is biased there is no telling you.
Of course, everybody else is wrong but the goody Mr Capp. He is the high and mighty goodness of this forum. I think it is pretty obvious to people what is what. The Hatter and I are probably one of many who wouldn't agree with you. I imagine there is a silent majority who read these posts and see the obnoxiousness of certain forum posters.
Posted by: HeatherW Nov 18 2015, 01:46 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 18 2015, 01:31 PM)
They are unwarranted because you are biased. User23 was cheeky to me FIRST and I replied in kind, but blinkered people like you wont see it.
I'm not trying to wriggle out of anything: I did something then apologised (more than most do on here). I'm not offended, I just stand up for myself when someone takes forum liberties.
In my view, if the many that don't post are of the debating standard and quality of you, then good riddance.
PS: it seems you and a few others are more interested in having a row and taking pot shots (mainly at me) than actually having anything meaningful to say or debate.
I'm not trying to wriggle out of anything: I did something then apologised (more than most do on here). I'm not offended, I just stand up for myself when someone takes forum liberties.
In my view, if the many that don't post are of the debating standard and quality of you, then good riddance.
PS: it seems you and a few others are more interested in having a row and taking pot shots (mainly at me) than actually having anything meaningful to say or debate.
If you put yourself in the firing line then people will take pot shots. Like you and others take pot shots at Petra or anybody else that gets in your way.
Of course I am biased, everybody is biased that stands up to you and the likes of you.
What you don't like about me and one or two others is that we stand up to you. I won't be bullied by you or anybody.
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 18 2015, 01:47 PM
QUOTE (HeatherW @ Nov 18 2015, 01:43 PM)
Of course, everybody else is wrong but the goody Mr Capp. He is the high and mighty goodness of this forum. I think it is pretty obvious to people what is what. The Hatter and I are probably one of many who wouldn't agree with you. I imagine there is a silent majority who read these posts and see the obnoxiousness of certain forum posters.
I get under people's skin; I'm bound to with the topics discussed, but like I said: few people appologise (I do), but that gets ignored.
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 18 2015, 01:50 PM
QUOTE (HeatherW @ Nov 18 2015, 01:46 PM)
If you put yourself in the firing line then people will take pot shots. Like you and others take pot shots at Petra or anybody else that gets in your way.
Of course I am biased, everybody is biased that stands up to you and the likes of you.
What you don't like about me and one or two others is that we stand up to you. I won't be bullied by you or anybody.
Of course I am biased, everybody is biased that stands up to you and the likes of you.
What you don't like about me and one or two others is that we stand up to you. I won't be bullied by you or anybody.
I like you and others posting having a go at me, so you are wrong there too. And while people goad and abuse me FIRST, I will often (but not always) retaliate.
Bullying. How can I bully on an anonymous forum? However, it is true I have been threatened.
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 18 2015, 01:51 PM
All together children:
"Sticks and stones will break my bones
But words will never harm me."
Posted by: HeatherW Nov 18 2015, 02:10 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 18 2015, 01:50 PM)
I like you and others posting having a go at me, so you are wrong there too. And while people goad and abuse me FIRST, I will often (but not always) retaliate.
You have a sneaky way about you. You twist things that suit yourself.
QUOTE
Bullying. How can I bully on an anonymous forum? However, it is true I have been threatened.
What are you talking about you silly man. Have you never heard of cyber bullying? People have committed suicide because they've been bullied on 'anonymous forums'. And they are only anonymous because people like you hide behind fictitious names. I use my own name, and that is because I have nothing to hide.
Posted by: HeatherW Nov 18 2015, 02:10 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 18 2015, 01:51 PM)
All together children:
"Sticks and stones will break my bones
But words will never harm me."
"Sticks and stones will break my bones
But words will never harm me."
That's trivialise your attacks on others. So childish.
Posted by: HeatherW Nov 18 2015, 02:13 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 18 2015, 01:47 PM)
I get under people's skin; I'm bound to with the topics discussed, but like I said: few people appologise (I do), but that gets ignored.
The discussion here isn't about you getting under peoples skin, even though you do on a regular bases. No, this is about you being a hypocrite. Attacking others for what you do yourself.
Apologising doesn't always excuse hypocrisy.
Posted by: JaneGibbs Nov 18 2015, 02:41 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 18 2015, 01:50 PM)
I like you and others posting having a go at me, so you are wrong there too. And while people goad and abuse me FIRST, I will often (but not always) retaliate.
Bullying. How can I bully on an anonymous forum? However, it is true I have been threatened.
Bullying. How can I bully on an anonymous forum? However, it is true I have been threatened.
A colleague contacted me concerning your words about anonymous forums. I had a friend who committed suicide because she was bullied on the net. It is only anonymous because people hide behind masks so that they can abuse others and think they are free of any moral obligation. They are not. They are just freighted little people acting big behind those masks. They think they are untouchable. Abuse is abuse Mr Capp, whatever form you stake, and two wrongs don’t make a right. It is irrelevant what Petra did or didn’t do, but Heather is right, that attacking her for using certain language and then using it yourself is beyond the pale.
Cyber pulling is a serious social issue and shouldn’t be mocked or belittled.
Posted by: JaneGibbs Nov 18 2015, 02:42 PM
QUOTE (HeatherW @ Nov 18 2015, 02:13 PM)
The discussion here isn't about you getting under peoples skin, even though you do on a regular bases. No, this is about you being a hypocrite. Attacking others for what you do yourself.
Apologising doesn't always excuse hypocrisy.
Apologising doesn't always excuse hypocrisy.
You are right, apologising is all well and good, but if you use the same language as those you criticise then that is being two faced.
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 18 2015, 02:57 PM
QUOTE (HeatherW @ Nov 18 2015, 02:10 PM)
You have a sneaky way about you. You twist things that suit yourself.
Twist!!! I'm talking the bleedin TRUTH!! Go back and look.
QUOTE (HeatherW @ Nov 18 2015, 02:10 PM)
What are you talking about you silly man. Have you never heard of cyber bullying? People have committed suicide because they've been bullied on 'anonymous forums'. And they are only anonymous because people like you hide behind fictitious names. I use my own name, and that is because I have nothing to hide.
Cyberbullying (which most often happens when people are known to each other and happens over a protracted time) and me calling people like User23 dumb (in retaliation to a cheaky post by him first), to which I apologised is hardly the same thing!!!
Please give me examples of me bullying?
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 18 2015, 03:01 PM
QUOTE (JaneGibbs @ Nov 18 2015, 02:41 PM)
A colleague contacted me concerning your words about anonymous forums. I had a friend who committed suicide because she was bullied on the net. It is only anonymous because people hide behind masks so that they can abuse others and think they are free of any moral obligation. They are not. They are just freighted little people acting big behind those masks. They think they are untouchable. Abuse is abuse Mr Capp, whatever form you stake, and two wrongs don’t make a right. It is irrelevant what Petra did or didn’t do, but Heather is right, that attacking her for using certain language and then using it yourself is beyond the pale.
Cyber pulling is a serious social issue and shouldn't be mocked or belittled.
Cyber pulling is a serious social issue and shouldn't be mocked or belittled.
Where did I mock or belittle cyberbullying? I see a big difference between occasional rude exchanges on an anonymous forum and cyberbullying.
I await your chastising of Petra, if they ever show up again. After all two wrongs don't make a right, do they. I also wont forget the accusations by more than one person for me being a sexist and a misogynist. Strong words to call someone for just arguing with other anonymous people.
Posted by: HeatherW Nov 18 2015, 03:08 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 18 2015, 02:57 PM)
Twist!!! I'm talking the bleedin TRUTH!! Go back and look.
Cyberbullying (which most often happens when people are known to each other and happens over a protracted time) and me calling people like User23 dumb (in retaliation to a cheaky post by him first), to which I apologised is hardly the same thing!!!
Give me examples of me bullying?
Cyberbullying (which most often happens when people are known to each other and happens over a protracted time) and me calling people like User23 dumb (in retaliation to a cheaky post by him first), to which I apologised is hardly the same thing!!!
Give me examples of me bullying?
Any psychiatrist will tell you that bullying comes in many forms. Including calling people names. And bullying isn’t just done by known people. I have worked for social services and believe me when I tell you that people from all walks of life bully behind closed doors (that is on the Internet). Bullying can be defined by tone, words and many other ways.
Calling User 23 dumb is not far off what Petra called Kirby. You now only use the term ‘cheeky’ because you were pulled up over it. But there was nothing cheeky about what you said, so much so that User 23 pulled you up over it and was obviously offended.
So far others have joined this discussion concerning how you appropriate yourself, and you come back as the poor little bullied boy. And that everybody is wrong except yourself.
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 18 2015, 03:08 PM
QUOTE (HeatherW @ Nov 18 2015, 02:13 PM)
The discussion here isn't about you getting under peoples skin, even though you do on a regular bases. No, this is about you being a hypocrite. Attacking others for what you do yourself.
Apologising doesn't always excuse hypocrisy.
Apologising doesn't always excuse hypocrisy.
It's better than what most get on here!
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 18 2015, 03:09 PM
QUOTE (HeatherW @ Nov 18 2015, 03:08 PM)
Any psychiatrist will tell you that bullying comes in many forms. Including calling people names. And bullying isn’t just done by known people. I have worked for social services and believe me when I tell you that people from all walks of life bully behind closed doors (that is on the Internet). Bullying can be defined by tone, words and many other ways.
Calling User 23 dumb is not far off what Petra called Kirby. You now only use the term ‘cheeky’ because you were pulled up over it. But there was nothing cheeky about what you said, so much so that User 23 pulled you up over it and was obviously offended.
So far others have joined this discussion concerning how you appropriate yourself, and you come back as the poor little bullied boy. And that everybody is wrong except yourself.
Calling User 23 dumb is not far off what Petra called Kirby. You now only use the term ‘cheeky’ because you were pulled up over it. But there was nothing cheeky about what you said, so much so that User 23 pulled you up over it and was obviously offended.
So far others have joined this discussion concerning how you appropriate yourself, and you come back as the poor little bullied boy. And that everybody is wrong except yourself.
Cheeky is what User23 was to me!!!
Nothing about being right or wrong, just justify your accusations.
Answer this seriously: do you think I am a cyberbully?
Posted by: HeatherW Nov 18 2015, 03:10 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 18 2015, 03:01 PM)
Where did I mock or belittle cyberbullying? I see a big difference between occasional rude exchanges on an anonymous forum and cyberbullying.
I await your chastising of Petra, if they ever show up again. After all two wrongs don't make a right, do they. I also wont forget the accusations by more than one person for me being a sexist and a misogynist. Strong words to call someone for just arguing with other anonymous people.
I await your chastising of Petra, if they ever show up again. After all two wrongs don't make a right, do they. I also wont forget the accusations by more than one person for me being a sexist and a misogynist. Strong words to call someone for just arguing with other anonymous people.
I know you are not replying to me, however, I would like to answer here. You mocked by belittling cyber bullying, by saying, or suggesting that no such bullying could occur on an anonymous forum.
Posted by: HeatherW Nov 18 2015, 03:12 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 18 2015, 03:09 PM)
Cheeky is what User23 was to me!!!
And I am sure Petra was just being cheeky to Kirby.
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 18 2015, 03:15 PM
QUOTE (HeatherW @ Nov 18 2015, 03:10 PM)
I know you are not replying to me, however, I would like to answer here. You mocked by belittling cyber bullying, by saying, or suggesting that no such bullying could occur on an anonymous forum.
That is not mocking, I said how could I bully someone? I suppose if I started PMing people over a sustained period that might, be a start, but I don't. I have never done that.
Have I bullied you or JaneGibbs? If so when?
I repeat, I only engage with people that dish it, never the timid. In fact I hate bullying which is why this is bad thing to be accused of.
Posted by: HeatherW Nov 18 2015, 03:16 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 18 2015, 03:09 PM)
Answer this seriously: do you think I am a cyberbully?
I think you and Petra are cut from the same cloth and if she did wrong then so did you. I also think she is as much a 'troll,' your words, as you are. The whole point of my chastising of you was because you called Petra a troll and criticised her for doing what you did to User 23.
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 18 2015, 03:17 PM
QUOTE (HeatherW @ Nov 18 2015, 03:12 PM)
And I am sure Petra was just being cheeky to Kirby.
So what? Simon was still offended, but my post to Petra was measured and nothing bad. I just said that the point could have been made without the unkindness.
Posted by: HeatherW Nov 18 2015, 03:19 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 18 2015, 03:15 PM)
That is not mocking, I said how could I bully someone? I suppose if I started PMing people over a sustained period that might, be a start, but I don't. I have never done that.
Have I bullied you or JaneGibbs? If so when?
I repeat, I only engage with people that dish it, never the timid. In fact I hate bullying which is why this is bad thing to be accused of.
Have I bullied you or JaneGibbs? If so when?
I repeat, I only engage with people that dish it, never the timid. In fact I hate bullying which is why this is bad thing to be accused of.
You still don't know what cyber bullying is. PMing is only part of it. The rest is done on open forums such as this, Facebook and others. And also cyber bullying can be done by just one post or even one word. Your ignorance on the subject is amazing. More so as you give the impression of being wise, or trying to be wise. And as I said, I've worked in social services and council offices.
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 18 2015, 03:20 PM
QUOTE (HeatherW @ Nov 18 2015, 03:16 PM)
I think you and Petra are cut from the same cloth and if she did wrong then so did you. I also think she is as much a 'troll,' your words, as you are. The whole point of my chastising of you was because you called Petra a troll and criticised her for doing what you did to User 23.
I called Petra a troll because of sustained behaviour. Refusing to engage with the debate and using inflammatory language without anything to back it up. User23 was cheeky to me FIRST and I then replied. That's all. And I bleeding apologised AND I deleted my post too!
Posted by: HeatherW Nov 18 2015, 03:21 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 18 2015, 03:17 PM)
So what? Simon was still offended, but my post to Petra was measured and nothing bad. I just said that the point could have been made without the unkindness.
You mean the same sort of unkindness that you used against User 23. And User 23 was offended. Can you spot the similarity here?
Posted by: HeatherW Nov 18 2015, 03:22 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 18 2015, 03:20 PM)
I called Petra a troll because of sustained behaviour. Refusing to engage with the debate and using inflammatory language without anything to back it up. User23 was cheeky to me FIRST and I then replied. That's all. And I bleeding apologised AND I deleted my post too!
It is not the first time you've belittled User 23 on here.
So if I called you all the names under the sun, apologised and removed the post then we will become bosom pals and it will make it ok.
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 18 2015, 03:24 PM
QUOTE (HeatherW @ Nov 18 2015, 03:19 PM)
You still don't know what cyber bullying is. PMing is only part of it. The rest is done on open forums such as this, Facebook and others. And also cyber bullying can be done by just one post or even one word. Your ignorance on the subject is amazing. More so as you give the impression of being wise, or trying to be wise. And as I said, I've worked in social services and council offices.
Why is my ignorance amazing? You have inserted the 'personal friend' card which obviously makes my ability to be objective difficult without looking callous.
What I will say is have you got examples of my bulling anyone on here? A far as I'm concerned everyone I have engaged with has been up for it. I would never 'pick' on anyone.
Posted by: HeatherW Nov 18 2015, 03:25 PM
This is going around in circles and I've wasted too much time on this already. I don't have your luxury of idleness, so carry on defending yourself. I am sure others will be amused by your contradictions.
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 18 2015, 03:26 PM
QUOTE (HeatherW @ Nov 18 2015, 03:22 PM)
It is not the first time you've belittled User 23 on here.
So? He is not adverse to snide comment either. As he was to me FIRST.
QUOTE (HeatherW @ Nov 18 2015, 03:22 PM)
User23 is frequently snide.So if I called you all the names under the sun, apologised and removed the post then we will become bosom pals and it will make it ok.
Why not? How could that be a bad thing? Notwithstanding I didn't call User23 all the names under the sun.
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 18 2015, 03:27 PM
QUOTE (HeatherW @ Nov 18 2015, 03:25 PM)
This is going around in circles and I've wasted too much time on this already. I don't have your luxury of idleness, so carry on defending yourself. I am sure others will be amused by your contradictions.
Bye.
Which window now everyone!
Posted by: GMR Nov 18 2015, 04:19 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 18 2015, 03:27 PM)
Bye. Which window now everyone!
Yes, which window? Still paranoid. It can only be a group conspiracy; I suppose you are trying to ease your mind, or conscience.
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 18 2015, 04:52 PM
QUOTE (GMR @ Nov 18 2015, 04:19 PM)
Yes, which window? Still paranoid. It can only be a group conspiracy; I suppose you are trying to ease your mind, or conscience.
I was wondering when you would turn-up.
Posted by: GMR Nov 18 2015, 04:53 PM
QUOTE (Petra @ Nov 12 2015, 12:55 PM) http://forum.newburytoday.co.uk/index.php?act=findpost&pid=106440
...your emotions snap into action, thus overriding your intelligence (if any should exist)...
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 17 2015, 09:54 PM) http://forum.newburytoday.co.uk/index.php?act=findpost&pid=106730
If people weren't as dumb as you I wouldn't need to post so much.
Spot the similarities. I didn't make it up, but no doubt Andy Capp will look through his windows to get his answers.
Posted by: GMR Nov 18 2015, 04:54 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 18 2015, 04:52 PM)
I was wondering when you would turn-up.
Did you? That is weird as I normally come on the same time; unless I've got an appointment.
Posted by: GMR Nov 18 2015, 04:56 PM
QUOTE (GMR @ Nov 18 2015, 04:53 PM)
QUOTE (Petra @ Nov 12 2015, 12:55 PM) http://forum.newburytoday.co.uk/index.php?act=findpost&pid=106440
...your emotions snap into action, thus overriding your intelligence (if any should exist)...
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 17 2015, 09:54 PM) http://forum.newburytoday.co.uk/index.php?act=findpost&pid=106730
If people weren't as dumb as you I wouldn't need to post so much.
Spot the similarities. I didn't make it up, but no doubt Andy Capp will look through his windows to get his answers.Reading both insults it is interesting that both use "intelligence" to attack. Maybe they are twins, of not the same person.
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 18 2015, 04:59 PM
QUOTE (GMR @ Nov 18 2015, 04:53 PM)
QUOTE (Petra @ Nov 12 2015, 12:55 PM) http://forum.newburytoday.co.uk/index.php?act=findpost&pid=106440
...your emotions snap into action, thus overriding your intelligence (if any should exist)...
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 17 2015, 09:54 PM) http://forum.newburytoday.co.uk/index.php?act=findpost&pid=106730
If people weren't as dumb as you I wouldn't need to post so much.
Spot the similarities. I didn't make it up, but no doubt Andy Capp will look through his windows to get his answers.
I'll tell you the difference: My quote, for which I apologised for, was provoked; Petra's quote wasn't.
HOWERVER, I never said Petra shouldn't post insults, I just pointed it out to them that the point could be made without the unkindness.
So calling me a hypocrite is an abuse of the word.
Posted by: GMR Nov 18 2015, 05:16 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 18 2015, 04:59 PM)
I'll tell you the difference: My quote, for which I apologised for, was provoked; Petra's quote wasn't.
You said your comment was cheeky, now you are saying your were provoked. And I can't see any difference between what you both said. And I am not the only one.
QUOTE
HOWERVER, I never said Petra shouldn't post insults, I just pointed it out to them that the point could be made without the unkindness.
As your point could have done.
QUOTE
So calling me a hypocrite is an abuse of the word.
That is your opinion.
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 18 2015, 05:31 PM
QUOTE (GMR @ Nov 18 2015, 05:16 PM)
You said your comment was cheeky, now you are saying your were provoked. And I can't see any difference between what you both said. And I am not the only one.
My comment was cheeky, but it was also provoked. I see nothing contradictory here?
QUOTE (GMR @ Nov 18 2015, 05:16 PM)
As your point could have done.
Yes I could have done, and that is why I apologised.
Posted by: GMR Nov 18 2015, 05:42 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 18 2015, 05:31 PM)
My comment was cheeky, but it was also provoked. I see nothing contradictory here?
Of course you don't, and that is the sadness of all this.
QUOTE
Yes I could have done, and that is why I apologised.
But it isn't about apologising. I've been on forums long enough not to get worried about strong language. I don't even care if you called User 23 dumb; I am sure he is old enough to look after himself, as I am. No, this is about you criticising somebody for what you did yourself. Question: if Petra or somebody else does what you did again are you going to take the moral high ground again? Have you ever heard the expression; "people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones"?
Also; allow others to defend themselves. Simon is intelligent enough to stand up for himself. What got you into trouble was sticking your nose into other people's abusing.
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 18 2015, 06:16 PM
QUOTE (GMR @ Nov 18 2015, 05:42 PM)
Of course you don't, and that is the sadness of all this.
Why sad? You are making no sense.
QUOTE (GMR @ Nov 18 2015, 05:42 PM)
...this is about you criticising somebody for what you did yourself.
Something you are completely guilt free from? Like I said, my comment which I apologised for was provoked.
QUOTE (GMR @ Nov 18 2015, 05:42 PM)
Question: if Petra or somebody else does what you did again are you going to take the moral high ground again?
I didn't take the moral high-ground, so your point is moot.
QUOTE (GMR @ Nov 18 2015, 05:42 PM)
Have you ever heard the expression; "people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones"?
Have you heard the one: "Whoever is without sin among you, let him be the first to cast a stone at her."
The error in your argument, as is in HeatherW's is to presume I think people shouldn't posts rude comments; I couldn't care, so long as they are in context and are not designed to spoil threads or shout people down (or bully). Mine weren't, while Petra's were (in my view).
Moreover, I think Petra's were worse as Petra is anonymous, but Simon Kirby (presumably) is not, where as User23 and Petra are not known to me.
QUOTE (GMR @ Nov 18 2015, 05:42 PM)
Also; allow others to defend themselves. Simon is intelligent enough to stand up for himself. What got you into trouble was sticking your nose into other people's abusing.
So presumably your reason for posting this and other related posts is that you think Petra and User23 are unable to defend themselves? Otherwise, why are you 'sticking your nose into other people's abusing'?
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 18 2015, 06:26 PM
Anyway GMR, HeatherW and JaneGibbs, thank you all for your insightful contribution to today's debates on Food Banks. I'm not sure we would have covered so much ground without them.
Posted by: GMR Nov 18 2015, 06:35 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 18 2015, 06:16 PM)
Why sad? You are making no sense.
No, I do make sense, but you choose not to acknowledge it.
QUOTE
Something you are completely guilt free from? Like I said, my comment which I apologised for was provoked.
I never said I was guilty free, and this thread, or at least part of it, is about you being a hypocrite.
QUOTE
Yes. Who wouldn't?
Those that throw stones shouldn't.
QUOTE
Have you heard the one: "Whoever is without sin among you, let him be the first to cast a stone at her."
Yes I have, but I am not doing what I had a go at somebody else for doing.
QUOTE
The error in your argument, as is in HeatherW's is to presume I think people shouldn't posts rude comments; I couldn't care, so long as they are in context and are not designed to spoil threads or shout people down.
Well, it is nice to hear you are the forum administrator doing your part.
QUOTE
Mine weren't, while Petra's were (in my view). Moreover, I think Petra's were worse as Petra is anonymous, where as Simon Kirby (presumably) is not anonymous, where as User23 and Petra are not known to me.
"In your view". And are you anonymous?
QUOTE
So presumably your reason for posting this and other related posts is that the think Petra and User23 are unable to defend themselves? Otherwise, why are you 'sticking your nose into other people's abusing'?
Because this is a free forum, which means anybody can comment on anybody else's posts. More so when that person takes a superior path. As you do.
I am sure that Petra, User 23 and most others can look after themselves.
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 18 2015, 06:46 PM
QUOTE (GMR @ Nov 18 2015, 06:35 PM)
No, I do make sense, but you choose not to acknowledge it.
You are making no sense; hence you are not explaining.
QUOTE (GMR @ Nov 18 2015, 06:35 PM)
I never said I was guilty free, and this thread, or at least part of it, is about you being a hypocrite.
And I am now moving it into another direction, as is my entitlement, so by definition you are no better than me?
QUOTE (GMR @ Nov 18 2015, 06:35 PM)
Those that throw stones shouldn't.
As I explained I am not throwing stones. As is your erroneous assertion.
QUOTE (GMR @ Nov 18 2015, 06:35 PM)
Yes I have, but I am not doing what I had a go at somebody else for doing.
Oh yes you have, you just did it with your sticking your nose in comment.
QUOTE (GMR @ Nov 18 2015, 06:35 PM)
Well, it is nice to hear you are the forum administrator doing your part.
I'm a forum member just posting my thoughts.
QUOTE (GMR @ Nov 18 2015, 06:35 PM)
"In your view". And are you anonymous?
Are you saying I am not?
QUOTE (GMR @ Nov 18 2015, 06:35 PM)
Because this is a free forum, which means anybody can comment on anybody else's posts. More so when that person takes a superior path. As you do.
QUOTE (GMR @ Nov 18 2015, 05:42 PM)
Also; allow others to defend themselves. Simon is intelligent enough to stand up for himself. What got you into trouble was sticking your nose into other people's abusing.
Hypocrite.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 18 2015, 06:58 PM
QUOTE (user23 @ Nov 17 2015, 09:30 PM)
I wonder if the swivel eyed loons who were watching England vs France play football tonight sung La Marseillaise through gritted teeth?
How does standing together against terrorism square with their agenda to isolate our little islands from the rest of Europe?
How does standing together against terrorism square with their agenda to isolate our little islands from the rest of Europe?
I'm not so sure that I understand the solidarity being expressed with the French as an outpouring of liberty, equality, fraternity as much as it is an expression of contempt for a common enemy - La Marseillaise is even more than our own National Anthem a battle hymn, rousing the mob to hate on the enemy. I am sure that there are some who are expressing their common resolve not to be cowed by terror, but at best I would suggest that a display of solidarity with the France is ambiguous.
BTW, do you suppose the English footie fans actually sang La Marseillaise? It's a challenging lyric for a choir more used to "you're going home in a fu@#ing ambuance la la la la...".
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 18 2015, 07:03 PM
Yes. At first I thought the 'gesture' was somewhat hypocritical, but then of course, on one level the EU is a political issue, where as terror atrocities are on a human level, so to conflate the two is somewhat crass of User23.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 18 2015, 07:30 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 18 2015, 07:03 PM)
Yes. At first I thought the 'gesture' was somewhat hypocritical, but then of course, on one level the EU is a political issue, where as terror atrocities are on a human level, so to conflate the two is somewhat crass of User23.
I didn't see it as crass, I thought it was a reasonable observation, but I don't think solidarity with the French means the same to everyone.
There is http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/news/home/16459/Solidarity-march-planned-for-Newbury-after.html for example organised by Newbury's ethnic minority support network www.all2gether.org.uk an endorsed by anti-Sandleford activist Peter Norman, though it is far from clear what the marchers are expressing solidarity with - I cannot myself express anything but despair at the French response to the terrorist outrage in bombing the frigg out of the Syrians.
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 18 2015, 07:32 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Nov 18 2015, 07:30 PM)
I didn't see it was crass, I thought it was a reasonable observation, but I don't think solidarity with the French means the same to everyone.
There is http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/news/home/16459/Solidarity-march-planned-for-Newbury-after.html for example organised by Newbury's ethnic minority support network www.all2gether.org.uk an endorsed by anti-Sandleford activist Peter Norman, though it is far from clear what the marchers are expressing solidarity with - I cannot myself express anything but despair at the French response to the terrorist outrage in bombing the frigg out of the Syrians.
There is http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/news/home/16459/Solidarity-march-planned-for-Newbury-after.html for example organised by Newbury's ethnic minority support network www.all2gether.org.uk an endorsed by anti-Sandleford activist Peter Norman, though it is far from clear what the marchers are expressing solidarity with - I cannot myself express anything but despair at the French response to the terrorist outrage in bombing the frigg out of the Syrians.
I saw it as somewhat crass because he was attempting to make a political point about people expressing a humane response.
I agree on the second point: Murder + murder.
Posted by: je suis Charlie Nov 18 2015, 07:58 PM
You burn out a wasps nest. If we had jumped on Hitler a bit quicker we would have saved 6.5 million Jewish lives.
Posted by: GMR Nov 18 2015, 08:02 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 18 2015, 06:46 PM)
You are making no sense; hence you are not explaining.
Actually I am making sense, you just want to be obtuse.
QUOTE
And I am now moving it into another direction, as is my entitlement, so by definition you are no better than me?
So, we are brothers now.
QUOTE
As I explained I am not throwing stones. As is your erroneous assertion.
I disagree, and I am not the only one to share that view.
QUOTE
Oh yes you have, you just did it with your sticking your nose in comment.
Actually I was referring to something else. But nice try.
QUOTE
I'm a forum member just posting my thoughts. Are you saying I am not?
What you have been accused of is criticising somebody for doing what you do yourself.
QUOTE
Hypocrite.
Ah, you've discovered a new word (which was used against you) and you thought you would try it out.
Posted by: user23 Nov 18 2015, 08:04 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Nov 18 2015, 06:58 PM)
I'm not so sure that I understand the solidarity being expressed with the French as an outpouring of liberty, equality, fraternity as much as it is an expression of contempt for a common enemy - La Marseillaise is even more than our own National Anthem a battle hymn, rousing the mob to hate on the enemy. I am sure that there are some who are expressing their common resolve not to be cowed by terror, but at best I would suggest that a display of solidarity with the France is ambiguous.
It's definitely not ambiguous if you listened to any of the fans being interviewed before the match.The trouble for the loons is, when you hate almost everyone but the enemy of your enemy is your friend, it starts to become really hard to decide who to hate.
Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Nov 18 2015, 08:10 PM
Is this the playground? Sticks and stones and all that.......
Come on people. Man up.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 18 2015, 08:10 PM
QUOTE (user23 @ Nov 18 2015, 08:04 PM)
It's definitely not ambiguous if you listened to any of the fans being interviewed before the match.
The trouble for the loons is, when you hate almost everyone but the enemy of your enemy is your friend, it starts to become really hard to decide who to hate.
The trouble for the loons is, when you hate almost everyone but the enemy of your enemy is your friend, it starts to become really hard to decide who to hate.
Quite agree.
Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Nov 18 2015, 08:17 PM
QUOTE (user23 @ Nov 18 2015, 08:04 PM)
It's definitely not ambiguous if you listened to any of the fans being interviewed before the match.
The trouble for the loons is, when you hate almost everyone but the enemy of your enemy is your friend, it starts to become really hard to decide who to hate.
The trouble for the loons is, when you hate almost everyone but the enemy of your enemy is your friend, it starts to become really hard to decide who to hate.
I'm probably one of these loons you talk about. Its not to difficult. Suicide bombers and indiscriminate killers of innocent people. I hate them.
As for the middle east. My grandfather said 70 Years ago when he got back from fighting Rommel in North Africa that their would NEVER be peace in this region. Even back then the Tommie's had to sleep on there boots and gun as they'd be nicked if you did not. We should wash our hand of the region and Reestablish proper border controls.
Posted by: user23 Nov 18 2015, 08:45 PM
QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ Nov 18 2015, 08:17 PM)
I'm probably one of these loons you talk about. Its not to difficult. Suicide bombers and indiscriminate killers of innocent people. I hate them.
As for the middle east. My grandfather said 70 Years ago when he got back from fighting Rommel in North Africa that their would NEVER be peace in this region. Even back then the Tommie's had to sleep on there boots and gun as they'd be nicked if you did not. We should wash our hand of the region and Reestablish proper border controls.
You think we don't have "proper border controls" with people from North Africa?
As for the middle east. My grandfather said 70 Years ago when he got back from fighting Rommel in North Africa that their would NEVER be peace in this region. Even back then the Tommie's had to sleep on there boots and gun as they'd be nicked if you did not. We should wash our hand of the region and Reestablish proper border controls.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 18 2015, 08:47 PM
QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ Nov 18 2015, 08:17 PM)
I'm probably one of these loons you talk about. Its not to difficult. Suicide bombers and indiscriminate killers of innocent people. I hate them.
As for the middle east. My grandfather said 70 Years ago when he got back from fighting Rommel in North Africa that their would NEVER be peace in this region. Even back then the Tommie's had to sleep on there boots and gun as they'd be nicked if you did not. We should wash our hand of the region and Reestablish proper border controls.
As for the middle east. My grandfather said 70 Years ago when he got back from fighting Rommel in North Africa that their would NEVER be peace in this region. Even back then the Tommie's had to sleep on there boots and gun as they'd be nicked if you did not. We should wash our hand of the region and Reestablish proper border controls.
I don't doubt it. Hate is so mainstream, you're practically a revolutionary if you advocate peace, yet peace is what we need - I wouldn't go as far as saying love, that's all a bit too John Lennon for me, but hope certainly.
From yesterday's Hate Mail:
My grandpa served in North Africa too, driving Scammels and having a nice rest from grandma I understand.
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 18 2015, 08:53 PM
QUOTE (user23 @ Nov 18 2015, 08:04 PM)
It's definitely not ambiguous if you listened to any of the fans being interviewed before the match.
The trouble for the loons is, when you hate almost everyone but the enemy of your enemy is your friend, it starts to become really hard to decide who to hate.
The trouble for the loons is, when you hate almost everyone but the enemy of your enemy is your friend, it starts to become really hard to decide who to hate.
Perhaps then 'hate' is the wrong word, but being a cynic doesn't make one a 'loon'.
Where I saw an hypocrisy is from football fans who are some of the most passionate bigots I have seen; yet 'stood shoulder to shoulder' with France, but if course, this is more than about football or borders. This is about humanity.
But a one-sided humanity.
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 18 2015, 08:58 PM
QUOTE (GMR @ Nov 18 2015, 08:02 PM)
Ah, you've discovered a new word (which was used against you) and you thought you would try it out.
I'm just demonstrating a more appropriate use of the word. Indeed, even your reply is hypocritical considering the times you try to refute comments by simply repeating back what others say to you.
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 18 2015, 09:01 PM
Darlings ... I think we have swapped threads!!! This thread was just a honey trap for idiots like me and GMR, HeatherW, etc, to squabble!
Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Nov 18 2015, 09:05 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Nov 18 2015, 08:47 PM)
I don't doubt it. Hate is so mainstream, you're practically a revolutionary if you advocate peace, yet peace is what we need - I wouldn't go as far as saying love, that's all a bit too John Lennon for me, but hope certainly.
From yesterday's Hate Mail:
My grandpa served in North Africa too, driving Scammels and having a nice rest from grandma I understand.
From yesterday's Hate Mail:
My grandpa served in North Africa too, driving Scammels and having a nice rest from grandma I understand.
I doubt your grandpa saw it that way!!. As for the mail. It has a place and is read by a lot of the older generation. You may mock it in the same way I would mock anyone who voted for corbyn. I would not want it stopped from printing what it liked, within reason. The same principle applies to the morning star and charlie ebdou.
Once we stop the free press we are on a rocky road.
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 18 2015, 09:13 PM
'Free' press has become a new front on decency I feel. Focusing on what they think people want to read, rather than what they should be told.
Posted by: spartacus Nov 18 2015, 09:16 PM
QUOTE (HeatherW @ Nov 18 2015, 02:10 PM)
........I use my own name, and that is because I have nothing to hide.
....errr. ....yes.. so says Heather 'W'
Mind sharing what the 'W' stands for if there's nothing to hide?
Posted by: spartacus Nov 18 2015, 09:20 PM
QUOTE (JaneGibbs @ Nov 18 2015, 02:41 PM)
A colleague contacted me concerning your words about anonymous forums. I had a friend who committed suicide because she was bullied on the net.
Don't make up stories about imaginary friends you have and them committing suicide because of anonymous cyber bullying. What rubbish.
Facebook or those many other social media sites where youngsters give away all their names and personal details and photos and videos for anyone to see, that's different. But an anonymous forum? Don't pretend it was related to that, if it even happened..
Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Nov 18 2015, 09:21 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 18 2015, 09:13 PM)
'Free' press has become a new front on decency I feel. Focusing on what they think people want to read, rather than what they should be told.
That's a right can if worms. I was on the tube earlier in the week. A young Asian man with said rucksack was sat opposite me with a tee shirt on which said "Your time is nearly up". Not in my opinion decent. BUT here's the rub.. Would I have been decent to challenge him about it or would I be racist and would I be misinterpreting him?
Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 18 2015, 09:31 PM
QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ Nov 18 2015, 09:05 PM)
I doubt your grandpa saw it that way!!. As for the mail. It has a place and is read by a lot of the older generation. You may mock it in the same way I would mock anyone who voted for corbyn. I would not want it stopped from printing what it liked, within reason. The same principle applies to the morning star and charlie ebdou.
Once we stop the free press we are on a rocky road.
Once we stop the free press we are on a rocky road.
I couldn't agree more (not about grandpa though, he really did have a good time) - and while I support press freedom and free speech I also think that Charlie Hebdo is racist, ignorant, and gratuitously offensive.
With the Daily Mail its insidious drip drip of middle-class self-satisfied prurient judgemental bile turns reasonable people into haters; timid distrustful sneering supercilious reactionary phobic curtain-twitching haters. Hope, trust and joy positively pains its readers, it's like some frigging vampire sucking the love out of everything and leaving the dry old husk behind to hate on everyone who still retains their humanity.
Posted by: user23 Nov 18 2015, 09:31 PM
We seem to have strayed from the topic of food banks.
Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Nov 18 2015, 09:36 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Nov 18 2015, 09:31 PM)
I couldn't agree more (not about grandpa though, he really did have a good time) - and while I support press freedom and free speech I also think that Charlie Hebdo is racist, ignorant, and gratuitously offensive.
With the Daily Mail its insidious drip drip of middle-class self-satisfied prurient judgemental bile turns reasonable people into haters; timid distrustful sneering supercilious reactionary phobic curtain-twitching haters. Hope, trust and joy positively pains its readers, it's like some frigging vampire sucking the love out of everything and leaving the dry old husk behind to hate on everyone who still retains their humanity.
With the Daily Mail its insidious drip drip of middle-class self-satisfied prurient judgemental bile turns reasonable people into haters; timid distrustful sneering supercilious reactionary phobic curtain-twitching haters. Hope, trust and joy positively pains its readers, it's like some frigging vampire sucking the love out of everything and leaving the dry old husk behind to hate on everyone who still retains their humanity.
Not your favourite paper then! I'm going to see them soon. That is no joke either. (Work related) Any message you wish me to convey?
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 18 2015, 09:38 PM
QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ Nov 18 2015, 09:21 PM)
That's a right can if worms. I was on the tube earlier in the week. A young Asian man with said rucksack was sat opposite me with a tee shirt on which said "Your time is nearly up". Not in my opinion decent. BUT here's the rub.. Would I have been decent to challenge him about it or would I be racist and would I be misinterpreting him?
I know what you mean. I frequently mix with Asians, including friends; however, due to recent events, even my superior intellectual eyes are starting to swivel. I feel uncomfortable in the company of people speaking a foreign language too.
Sad times, but one shouldn't hope for a easy life I suppose, you will only be disappointed.
Bring back dictators and despots and the iron curtain. It was easy to see who your enemy was back then and we could trust our governments with those big shiny weapons, being constantly reminded by Hollywood how superior we are.
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 18 2015, 09:46 PM
Shouldn't we take this to the Paris thread? Just sayin'
Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Nov 18 2015, 09:50 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 18 2015, 09:46 PM)
Shouldn't we take this to the Paris thread? Just sayin'
Nah. Food banks and terrorism are linked.
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 18 2015, 09:55 PM
Especially if you call someone on here dumb!
Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 18 2015, 09:55 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 18 2015, 09:38 PM)
Bring back dictators and despots and the iron curtain. It was easy to see who your enemy was back then and we could trust our governments with those big shiny weapons, being constantly reminded by Hollywood how superior we are.
It's a very uncomfortable reality that the world would appear to have been a more peaceful place before the fall of all these dictators and despots. I don't know what the answer is, but toppling dictators doesn't always create a peaceful stable society - that seems kind of obvious really as you'd expect chaos if you suddenly let loose all the repressed internecine tensions that had been held in check by a repressive regime, though that's precisely what we did with Iraq.
Posted by: CharlieF Nov 19 2015, 11:38 AM
It's easy enough to get referrals for all manner of things once you are in the system. But the delay in getting processed can leave people with nothing until the wheels of the system have whirred into action. However, even once you are in the system it can all go belly up for the most spurious reasons. I give you http://stupidsanctions.tumblr.com/ all of which are taken from national newspapers and generally legit sources. Food banks fill that gap.
Posted by: JaneGibbs Nov 19 2015, 12:42 PM
QUOTE (spartacus @ Nov 18 2015, 09:20 PM)
Don't make up stories about imaginary friends you have and them committing suicide because of anonymous cyber bullying. What rubbish.
Facebook or those many other social media sites where youngsters give away all their names and personal details and photos and videos for anyone to see, that's different. But an anonymous forum? Don't pretend it was related to that, if it even happened..
Facebook or those many other social media sites where youngsters give away all their names and personal details and photos and videos for anyone to see, that's different. But an anonymous forum? Don't pretend it was related to that, if it even happened..
And you know this how? Don’t tell me, you’ve been playing with your crystal balls. You don’t know anything about me so don’t come out with crap statements like that. What I said was the truth. Calling somebody a liar when you haven’t got a clue is nasty and hurtful.
And I said my friend was bullied on the net. I did not specify exactly which medium I was talking about. And you are totally naïve and stupid if you don’t or can’t believe that people can’t be bullied on anonymous forums. If you could engage your brain for a second, instead of making hurtful comments, you could have done your own research, and if you had, you would have found out that, yes, people can and are bullied on anonymous forums. Probably by morons just like you.
Posted by: je suis Charlie Nov 19 2015, 01:11 PM
And now you are using the words "stupid" and "moron", not what I expect from you.
Posted by: JaneGibbs Nov 19 2015, 01:26 PM
QUOTE (je suis Charlie @ Nov 19 2015, 01:11 PM)
And now you are using the words "stupid" and "moron", not what I expect from you.
You are right to rebuke me as it is not the sort of language I like using, but when somebody questions my integrity without evening knowing me, is it really surprising I, or anybody, saw red. This Spartacus fellow doesn’t even know me, and by the sound of it doesn’t even know anything about cyber abuse. There are too many idiots on anonymous forums, such as this, spouting their drivel, and drivel that can hurt. As I said I lost a friend to cyber bullying and to be accused of making it up his very hurtful.
As I said, you were right to rebuke me for my language, at the same time it would have been nice if you had scolded the person I criticised for making such hurtful comments. Either that or ask him to back up his claims that I was making it all up.
I apologise for using such language and sorry if I offended.
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 19 2015, 01:56 PM
QUOTE (JaneGibbs @ Nov 19 2015, 01:26 PM)
You are right to rebuke me as it is not the sort of language I like using, but when somebody questions my integrity without evening knowing me, is it really surprising I, or anybody, saw red. This Spartacus fellow doesn’t even know me, and by the sound of it doesn’t even know anything about cyber abuse. There are too many idiots on anonymous forums, such as this, spouting their drivel, and drivel that can hurt. As I said I lost a friend to cyber bullying and to be accused of making it up his very hurtful.
As I said, you were right to rebuke me for my language, at the same time it would have been nice if you had scolded the person I criticised for making such hurtful comments. Either that or ask him to back up his claims that I was making it all up.
I apologise for using such language and sorry if I offended.
As I said, you were right to rebuke me for my language, at the same time it would have been nice if you had scolded the person I criticised for making such hurtful comments. Either that or ask him to back up his claims that I was making it all up.
I apologise for using such language and sorry if I offended.
I know how you feel: I'm a sexist misogynist bully according to people that 'know me' on here.
Posted by: JaneGibbs Nov 19 2015, 02:09 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 19 2015, 01:56 PM)
I know how you feel: I'm a sexist misogynist bully according to people that 'know me' on here.
That is totally different. You were judged on what you wrote. If you say you are a different person off the forum, then that is down to you for giving the wrong impression. I gave no impression other than what I said was the truth. If anybody believes otherwise, then they should show this forum the facts to say that I had lied. People made their conclusions about you by what you wrote, nothing more. And it seems it wasn’t just one person drawing that conclusion.
Posted by: je suis Charlie Nov 19 2015, 02:13 PM
QUOTE (JaneGibbs @ Nov 19 2015, 01:26 PM)
You are right to rebuke me as it is not the sort of language I like using, but when somebody questions my integrity without evening knowing me, is it really surprising I, or anybody, saw red. This Spartacus fellow doesn’t even know me, and by the sound of it doesn’t even know anything about cyber abuse. There are too many idiots on anonymous forums, such as this, spouting their drivel, and drivel that can hurt. As I said I lost a friend to cyber bullying and to be accused of making it up his very hurtful.
As I said, you were right to rebuke me for my language, at the same time it would have been nice if you had scolded the person I criticised for making such hurtful comments. Either that or ask him to back up his claims that I was making it all up.
I apologise for using such language and sorry if I offended.
As I said, you were right to rebuke me for my language, at the same time it would have been nice if you had scolded the person I criticised for making such hurtful comments. Either that or ask him to back up his claims that I was making it all up.
I apologise for using such language and sorry if I offended.
No need to apologize to me, I have a remarkably thick skin. I just thought I didn't want to see you open to abuse because of it. I myself am a lost cause I am afraid!
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 19 2015, 02:46 PM
QUOTE (JaneGibbs @ Nov 19 2015, 02:09 PM)
That is totally different. You were judged on what you wrote. If you say you are a different person off the forum, then that is down to you for giving the wrong impression. I gave no impression other than what I said was the truth. If anybody believes otherwise, then they should show this forum the facts to say that I had lied. People made their conclusions about you by what you wrote, nothing more. And it seems it wasn’t just one person drawing that conclusion.
It is not that different, even if more than one person thinks so.
If you say I wrote a sexist thing, that is different to an emphatic 'you are a sexist'. You and others have prejudicial thoughts about me and didn't care that you yourself wanted to say unkind things back at me (as you all say: two wrongs don't make a right). You made allegations that I cannot see you being able to back up, just arguing: 'yes you did' and 'I'm not the only one who thought so' is trail by lynch mob mentality and proves nothing.
Posted by: JaneGibbs Nov 19 2015, 02:57 PM
QUOTE (je suis Charlie @ Nov 19 2015, 02:13 PM)
No need to apologize to me, I have a remarkably thick skin. I just thought I didn't want to see you open to abuse because of it. I myself am a lost cause I am afraid!
Yes, I am afraid that there is need to apologise. One moment of fury can spark something untended.
Nobody is a lost cause, unless they are on the brink of death, and even then miracles can happen.
Posted by: JaneGibbs Nov 19 2015, 02:59 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 19 2015, 02:46 PM)
It is not that different, even if more than one person thinks so.
If you say I wrote a sexist thing, that is different to an emphatic 'you are a sexist'. You and others have prejudicial thoughts about me and didn't care that you yourself wanted to say unkind things back at me (as you all say: two wrongs don't make a right). You made allegations that I cannot see you being able to back up, just arguing: 'yes you did' and 'I'm not the only one who thought so' is trail by lynch mob mentality and proves nothing.
If you say I wrote a sexist thing, that is different to an emphatic 'you are a sexist'. You and others have prejudicial thoughts about me and didn't care that you yourself wanted to say unkind things back at me (as you all say: two wrongs don't make a right). You made allegations that I cannot see you being able to back up, just arguing: 'yes you did' and 'I'm not the only one who thought so' is trail by lynch mob mentality and proves nothing.
It is very much different.
If somebody uses the word sexist, then it is because that person did something that was construed as sexist. I see no difference with the two examples you give.
You may not see something, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t there.
I doubt you will be lynched for saying something, according to you, that was seen wrong. I suggest that in future you are careful how you write something. We women are too many times the butt of male humour or mis-word here or there.
Posted by: GMR Nov 19 2015, 04:05 PM
QUOTE (spartacus @ Nov 18 2015, 09:20 PM)
Don't make up stories about imaginary friends you have and them committing suicide because of anonymous cyber bullying. What rubbish. Facebook or those many other social media sites where youngsters give away all their names and personal details and photos and videos for anyone to see, that's different. But an anonymous forum? Don't pretend it was related to that, if it even happened..
I agree with Jane's comments about you. I have run many forums and been on many others and I can tell you that cyber bullying on anonymous forums is rife. More on so open forums because it is anonymous. People don't have to know your name to bully you.
As for Jane lying; where is your evidence? Or are you just speaking out of where the sun doesn't shine?
Posted by: GMR Nov 19 2015, 04:07 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 19 2015, 01:56 PM)
I know how you feel: I'm a sexist misogynist bully according to people that 'know me' on here.
But people do know you on here, even if it is only by your AndyCapp persona.
Posted by: On the edge Nov 19 2015, 04:09 PM
QUOTE (CharlieF @ Nov 19 2015, 11:38 AM)
It's easy enough to get referrals for all manner of things once you are in the system. But the delay in getting processed can leave people with nothing until the wheels of the system have whirred into action. However, even once you are in the system it can all go belly up for the most spurious reasons. I give you http://stupidsanctions.tumblr.com/ all of which are taken from national newspapers and generally legit sources. Food banks fill that gap.
Weird isn't it, these people have great difficulty making the system work fairly and properly, yet others seem able to walk in from the EU, collect the keys to their Council House and nip down to the Job Centre to collect their wadge of notes before they start their overpaid Carer job! No justice is there; those people who support this outrage by giving to Food Banks should give to proper charities instead; like the ones supporting private schools.
Posted by: GMR Nov 19 2015, 04:10 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 18 2015, 09:01 PM)
Darlings ... I think we have swapped threads!!! This thread was just a honey trap for idiots like me and GMR, HeatherW, etc, to squabble!
Being selective here, are we
Posted by: GMR Nov 19 2015, 04:11 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 18 2015, 08:58 PM)
I'm just demonstrating a more appropriate use of the word. Indeed, even your reply is hypocritical considering the times you try to refute comments by simply repeating back what others say to you.
Is that all you could come up with? Desperate times creates desperate responses I suppose
Posted by: On the edge Nov 19 2015, 04:13 PM
Folks, why not continue the squabble in the Job Centre, you might just get sanctioned and then you could report back to say what a Food Bank was really like!
Posted by: GMR Nov 19 2015, 04:17 PM
QUOTE (On the edge @ Nov 19 2015, 04:13 PM)
Folks, why not continue the squabble in the Job Centre, you might just get sanctioned and then you could report back to say what a Food Bank was really like!
Exactly... I am with you here.
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 19 2015, 04:35 PM
QUOTE (JaneGibbs @ Nov 19 2015, 02:59 PM)
If somebody uses the word sexist, then it is because that person did something that was construed as sexist. I see no difference with the two examples you give.
There is a clear difference:
1 Making a sexist comment doesn't mean that the person saying it is a sexist. It is possible the audience misunderstood the meaning, or as is the case I fear with you and others, are sensitive to comments. As would be the case with a misandrist. There is also the case that someone is saying something sexist but is being ironic.
2 A sexist is a sexist whether they say something sexist or not.
QUOTE (JaneGibbs @ Nov 19 2015, 02:59 PM)
I doubt you will be lynched for saying something, according to you, that was seen wrong. I suggest that in future you are careful how you write something. We women are too many times the butt of male humour or mis-word here or there.
I suggest that this is at very least a border line sexist thing to say too!
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 19 2015, 04:38 PM
QUOTE (GMR @ Nov 19 2015, 04:07 PM)
But people do know you on here, even if it is only by your AndyCapp persona.
Unless you are lying, people don't know me on here. They certainly don'y have any proof that I am a sexist, a misogynist and a bully.
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 19 2015, 04:41 PM
QUOTE (On the edge @ Nov 19 2015, 04:13 PM)
Folks, why not continue the squabble in the Job Centre, you might just get sanctioned and then you could report back to say what a Food Bank was really like!
I'm sorry, I didn't see this until I had spat my bile just know, but you are right.
Posted by: GMR Nov 19 2015, 04:51 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 19 2015, 04:38 PM)
Unless you are lying, people don't know me on here. They certainly don'y have any proof that I am a sexist, a misogynist and a bully.
Didn't you understand what I wrote? I said they knew you by your persona, if not personally.
Posted by: Spider Nov 19 2015, 05:26 PM
I thought the food bank debate was interesting so let us get back to that top gentleman and just agree to disagree.
Food banks have helped people and that is was is important. If it is abused then shame on those that abuse it.
Posted by: On the edge Nov 19 2015, 06:44 PM
I'd say Food Banks are actually a very good example of 'big society'. A number of people have seen an issue, which they realise will take ages to solve, and have done something practical to mitigate the worst effects. Whatever the reasons for people using food banks, they are making no judgement and simply relieving distress. If you have an issue with that, then there is an obvious answer; make the benefits system pay a living sum on an easily understood and fair basis.
Posted by: Don Nov 19 2015, 07:55 PM
QUOTE (On the edge @ Nov 19 2015, 06:44 PM)
I'd say Food Banks are actually a very good example of 'big society'. A number of people have seen an issue, which they realise will take ages to solve, and have done something practical to mitigate the worst effects. Whatever the reasons for people using food banks, they are making no judgement and simply relieving distress. If you have an issue with that, then there is an obvious answer; make the benefits system pay a living sum on an easily understood and fair basis.
Howdy On the Edge,
I agree with you, as I said earlier it helped my son out. Food banks help where government can't. I can't praise those banks enough.
Posted by: spartacus Nov 19 2015, 09:46 PM
QUOTE (GMR @ Nov 19 2015, 04:05 PM)
I agree with Jane's comments about you. I have run many forums and been on many others and I can tell you that cyber bullying on anonymous forums is rife. More on so open forums because it is anonymous. People don't have to know your name to bully you.
In that case they're perhaps being a tad sensitive and need to remove themselves from that sort of environment.
QUOTE (GMR @ Nov 19 2015, 04:05 PM)
As for Jane lying; where is your evidence? Or are you just speaking out of where the sun doesn't shine?
I have no more evidence to support my statement than Jane has to support hers...but you're taking her word as gospel. ....perhaps she's typing out her alimentary canal?
Anyway... moving on...food banks...
Posted by: GMR Nov 20 2015, 04:42 PM
QUOTE (spartacus @ Nov 19 2015, 09:46 PM)
In that case they're perhaps being a tad sensitive and need to remove themselves from that sort of environment.
Why? Whether sensitive or not people have a right to be on forums, without the fear of being subjective to such abuse that it tips them over. Anyway, all that doesn't change what I said.
QUOTE
I have no more evidence to support my statement than Jane has to support hers...but you're taking her word as gospel. ....perhaps she's typing out her alimentary canal? Anyway... moving on...food banks...
On such forums as this we take a certain amount on faith. The Greenmeanie has said that he is a Traffic Warden (or something like that) and others have said they are this or that. None of that can be proved, so we take it on faith. Like you, I haven't got a clue whether JaneGibbs is telling the truth, but on such an admission, we take such comments at face value. And why not? What you said - calling her liar - without proof is dangerous and stupid, without mentioning hurtful.
If, on a forum such as this, you call everybody a liar, because they claim something, you are not going to get very far. Besides, unless you know otherwise, you are just going to look like an idiot, and a spiteful one at that.
Posted by: Mr Brown Nov 21 2015, 08:10 AM
This is a pretty sad thread which slags off people who are using their own time and money to help the needy, then starts slagging off each other. What does that say about Newbury? Reading this lot makes me glad I took the opportunity to move!
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)