Things that annoy you beyond reason...(Vol 4)
Discussion
yellowjack said:
As I said in my post. I played all of my hockey during my 25 years in the army. All kit provided, except shoes. No more than £2 per match in fees. I think I've obviously led a sheltered life in terms of paying for sport (although not so much in many other ways 
). Military sport is deemed as being 'on duty' so long as you're named on Part 1 Orders. So I even got my gum guard made for free by the army dentist.
What's annoying me isn't necessarily the cost overall. It's more the "It's accessible, it's affordable, join in" mantra that gets trotted out in the media whenever they do a story about how inactivity in the population is an "obesity timebomb". And it's far from £80/£130 per year. One of the clubs wants £40 a month which for 8 months is £320. A tenner a week, if you play regularly, could easily become another £150 to £200. Easily the thick end of £500, plus anything you feel obliged to spend on the social aspects of off the pitch club activities. £500 for folk on limited wages is a fair slice of the annual income. As such it shouldn't come as any surprise to the governing bodies of sports who have stated that participation has fallen that potential participants often feel priced out of sport.
So you were massively subsidised at taxpayers' expense when you were in the army and now that you are out of it and in a free market economy you are moaning that stuff is much more expensive than when it was subsidised? ). Military sport is deemed as being 'on duty' so long as you're named on Part 1 Orders. So I even got my gum guard made for free by the army dentist.What's annoying me isn't necessarily the cost overall. It's more the "It's accessible, it's affordable, join in" mantra that gets trotted out in the media whenever they do a story about how inactivity in the population is an "obesity timebomb". And it's far from £80/£130 per year. One of the clubs wants £40 a month which for 8 months is £320. A tenner a week, if you play regularly, could easily become another £150 to £200. Easily the thick end of £500, plus anything you feel obliged to spend on the social aspects of off the pitch club activities. £500 for folk on limited wages is a fair slice of the annual income. As such it shouldn't come as any surprise to the governing bodies of sports who have stated that participation has fallen that potential participants often feel priced out of sport.
Put these monthly costs in the context of the average monthly gym membership, or a half-decent Sky TV subscription / Virgin TV subscription, or an average mobile phone subscription, and it doesn't seem like an overly huge amount to me.
Obviously you are welcome to be annoyed beyond belief that stuff in the real world isn't as cheap as in the taxpayer-funded military, but I'm rather struggling for sympathy here.
Edited by ClockworkCupcake on Tuesday 25th October 21:47
Johnspex said:
WD39 said:
From 'Airplane' 1980. The funniest aviation movie ever, Shirley? Every viewing throws up fresh nuances and gags. All the leading actors playing parts that they usually play seriously in similar movies. 4 stars out of five.
Shirley is surely still relevant.
I know its origin.Shirley is surely still relevant.
Edited by WD39 on Tuesday 25th October 21:51
ClockworkCupcake said:
yellowjack said:
As I said in my post. I played all of my hockey during my 25 years in the army. All kit provided, except shoes. No more than £2 per match in fees. I think I've obviously led a sheltered life in terms of paying for sport (although not so much in many other ways ). Military sport is deemed as being 'on duty' so long as you're named on Part 1 Orders. So I even got my gum guard made for free by the army dentist.
What's annoying me isn't necessarily the cost overall. It's more the "It's accessible, it's affordable, join in" mantra that gets trotted out in the media whenever they do a story about how inactivity in the population is an "obesity timebomb". And it's far from £80/£130 per year. One of the clubs wants £40 a month which for 8 months is £320. A tenner a week, if you play regularly, could easily become another £150 to £200. Easily the thick end of £500, plus anything you feel obliged to spend on the social aspects of off the pitch club activities. £500 for folk on limited wages is a fair slice of the annual income. As such it shouldn't come as any surprise to the governing bodies of sports who have stated that participation has fallen that potential participants often feel priced out of sport.
So you were massively subsidised at taxpayers' expense when you were in the army and now that you are out of it and in a free market economy you are moaning that stuff is much more expensive than when it was subsidised? ). Military sport is deemed as being 'on duty' so long as you're named on Part 1 Orders. So I even got my gum guard made for free by the army dentist.What's annoying me isn't necessarily the cost overall. It's more the "It's accessible, it's affordable, join in" mantra that gets trotted out in the media whenever they do a story about how inactivity in the population is an "obesity timebomb". And it's far from £80/£130 per year. One of the clubs wants £40 a month which for 8 months is £320. A tenner a week, if you play regularly, could easily become another £150 to £200. Easily the thick end of £500, plus anything you feel obliged to spend on the social aspects of off the pitch club activities. £500 for folk on limited wages is a fair slice of the annual income. As such it shouldn't come as any surprise to the governing bodies of sports who have stated that participation has fallen that potential participants often feel priced out of sport.
Put these monthly costs in the context of the average monthly gym membership, or a half-decent Sky TV subscription / Virgin TV subscription, or an average mobile phone subscription, and it doesn't seem like an overly huge amount to me.
Obviously you are welcome to be annoyed beyond belief that stuff in the real world isn't as cheap as in the taxpayer-funded military, but I'm rather struggling for sympathy here.
Edited by ClockworkCupcake on Tuesday 25th October 21:47
ClockworkCupcake said:
So you were massively subsidised at taxpayers' expense when you were in the army and now that you are out of it and in a free market economy you are moaning that stuff is much more expensive than when it was subsidised?
Put these monthly costs in the context of the average monthly gym membership, or a half-decent Sky TV subscription / Virgin TV subscription, or an average mobile phone subscription, and it doesn't seem like an overly huge amount to me.
Obviously you are welcome to be annoyed beyond belief that stuff in the real world isn't as cheap as in the taxpayer-funded military, but I'm rather struggling for sympathy here.
Wow! Easy tiger. Sport in the military is not funded by the fPut these monthly costs in the context of the average monthly gym membership, or a half-decent Sky TV subscription / Virgin TV subscription, or an average mobile phone subscription, and it doesn't seem like an overly huge amount to me.
Obviously you are welcome to be annoyed beyond belief that stuff in the real world isn't as cheap as in the taxpayer-funded military, but I'm rather struggling for sympathy here.
king taxpayer. And even if it were, bear in mind that I was paying tax too! "The taxpayer" funds a whole load of st that I don't benefit from, but other people do. It's due to the unique way in which public services are funded.You want to know who funds sport in the army? In the main soldiers do. It's called 'Regimental Subscriptions' and is paid as a portion of your mess bill, or directly to the Squadron Sergeant Major by rank & file Bills. It goes into a Non Public Fund and individual sports officers can draw on it to pay for kit and travel expenses, etc. It works in just the same way as the NHS, etc. Everyone pays, and the system works (ish) because not everyone is hammering down the doors to get something out of said system. So lazy scrotes who retreat to their rooms to play XBox on a Wednesday afternoon are subsidising those with a bit of get-up-and-go who want to play hockey, or try a triathlon on one of the regimental sports store's bikes. Yes, some money does come from central funds, for use by the CO, but all of it, public money or not, is subject to close scrutiny when spent and must be accounted for at every step. It all benefits the army, and YOU, the population of the UK, because sport maintains physical fitness, fosters teamwork, and can be used to identify potential leaders of men. I'm presuming that, since you are paying for it (whether you want one or not), you want your army to be fit, efficient, and well led?
I don't have a phone subscription, nor Sky TV, and a gym membership? Don't make me laugh. #outsideisfree Gym memberships on the whole seem to be more about bragging about how much you pay, and sitting on gym equipment uploading selfies to Facebook, than it is about getting/staying fit.
And yet again, the point has been missed, so I'll repeat...
It is 'sort of' about the cost, but my moan is more with the 'movers and shakers' who are regularly wheeled out on TV to tell us all that 'x' sport is fun, accessible, and affordable. It isn't affordable for folk on low incomes. And by definition that means it's not accessible to them. Wealthier individuals tend to be able to afford Tennis clubs, gym memberships, etc, if they want them. And if they are fat lazy f
kers, it's probably through choosing to spend their spare cash on wine and fine dining or driving around the golf course on a glorified mobility scooter. My point was more about sport governing bodies bemoaning the fact that people aren't participating in sufficient numbers to breed new generations of players from which to develop talent, yet there are people like me, keen to get back into sport, who cannot because it costs too much to contemplate.And, as you're clearly finding basic comprehension difficult, Mr Chocolate Starfish, I'll remind you that in a previous post I clearly stated that "I'm not seeking sympathy". Clearly you have a very large chip on your powerfully built shoulder about publicly funded services. Perhaps I, and gentlemen like me, ought not to have voluntarily served and kept ungrateful turds safe from harm. One way or another, any sensible government we elect will maintain a standing army. Either it's staffed by volunteers, or conscription to National Service returns. God help us if that happens, because we'll end up with the likes of you manning the bloody ramparts...
ClockworkCupcake in his own profile page said:
Pretty easy-going and try to see the best in people, and try to debate from a position of knowledge. Although sometimes I fail.
You got that last bit right in a great deal of your post. Now if you pinky-swear to play nice, I'll leave this subject well alone from now on. After all, it has rather hijacked the thread a bit and I'm sure we'd all far rather hear about some other minor annoyance that has "annoyed you beyond reason"...Edited for a spelling mistake. Doh!
Edited by yellowjack on Wednesday 26th October 00:02
yellowjack said:
ClockworkCupcake said:
So you were massively subsidised at taxpayers' expense when you were in the army and now that you are out of it and in a free market economy you are moaning that stuff is much more expensive than when it was subsidised?
Put these monthly costs in the context of the average monthly gym membership, or a half-decent Sky TV subscription / Virgin TV subscription, or an average mobile phone subscription, and it doesn't seem like an overly huge amount to me.
Obviously you are welcome to be annoyed beyond belief that stuff in the real world isn't as cheap as in the taxpayer-funded military, but I'm rather struggling for sympathy here.
Wow! Easy tiger. Sport in the military is not funded by the fPut these monthly costs in the context of the average monthly gym membership, or a half-decent Sky TV subscription / Virgin TV subscription, or an average mobile phone subscription, and it doesn't seem like an overly huge amount to me.
Obviously you are welcome to be annoyed beyond belief that stuff in the real world isn't as cheap as in the taxpayer-funded military, but I'm rather struggling for sympathy here.
king taxpayer. And even if it were, bear in mind that I was paying tax too! "The taxpayer" funds a whole load of st that I don't benefit from, but other people do. It's due to the unique way in which public services are funded.You want to know who funds sport in the army? In the main soldiers do. It's called 'Regimental Subscriptions' and is paid as a portion of your mess bill, or directly to the Squadron Sergeant Major by rank & file Bills. It goes into a Non Public Fund and individual sports officers can draw on it to pay for kit and travel expenses, etc. It works in just the same way as the NHS, etc. Everyone pays, and the system works (ish) because not everyone is hammering down the doors to get something out of said system. So lazy scrotes who retreat to their rooms to play XBox on a Wednesday afternoon are subsidising those with a bit of get-up-and-go who want to play hockey, or try a triathlon on one of the regimental sports store's bikes. Yes, some money does come from central funds, for use by the CO, but all of it, public money or not, is subject to close scrutiny when spent and must be accounted for at every step. It all benefits the army, and YOU, the population of the UK, because sport maintains physical fitness, fosters teamwork, and can be used to identify potential leaders of men. I'm presuming that, since you are paying for it (whether you want one or not), you want your army to be fit, efficient, and well led?
I don't have a phone subscription, nor Sky TV, and a gym membership? Don't make me laugh. #outsideisfree Gym memberships on the whole seem to be more about bragging about how much you pay, and sitting on gym equipment uploading selfies to Facebook, than it is about getting/staying fit.
And yet again, the point has been missed, so I'll repeat...
It is 'sort of' about the cost, but my moan is more with the 'movers and shakers' who are regularly wheeled out on TV to tell us all that 'x' sport is fun, accessible, and affordable. It isn't affordable for folk on low incomes. And by definition that means it's not accessible to them. Wealthier individuals tend to be able to afford Tennis clubs, gym memberships, etc, if they want them. And if they are fat lazy f
kers, it's probably through choosing to spend their spare cash on wine and fine dining or driving around the golf course on a glorified mobility scooter. My point was more about sport governing bodies bemoaning the fact that people aren't participating in sufficient numbers to breed new generations of players from which to develop talent, yet there are people like me, keen to get back into sport, who cannot because it costs too much to contemplate.And, as you're clearly finding basic comprehension difficult, Mr Chocolate Starfish, I'll remind you that in a previous post I clearly stated that "I'm not seeking sympathy". Clearly you have a very large chip on your powerfully built shoulder about publicly funded services. Perhaps I, and gentlemen like me, ought not to have voluntarily served and kept ungrateful turds safe from harm. One way or another, any sensible government we elect will maintain a standing army. Either it's staffed by volunteers, or conscription to National Service returns. God help us if that happens, because we'll end up with the likes of you manning the bloody ramparts...
ClockworkCupcake in his own profile page said:
Pretty easy-going and try to see the best in people, and try to debate from a position of knowledge. Although sometimes I fail.
You got that last bit right in a great deal of your post. Now if you pinky-swear to play nice, I'll leave this subject well alone from now on. After all, it has rather hijacked the thread a bit and I'm sure we'd all far rather hear about some other minor annoyance that has "annoyed you beyond reason"...Edited for a spelling mistake. Doh!
Edited by yellowjack on Wednesday 26th October 00:02
whoami said:
You put some effort into that.
It's not exactly difficult. After all, I'm a mentally ill unemployed loser with fk all else to fill my day (or night) with. I'm up waiting for a phonecall to go collect my wife from work, as she's been called in for an emergency case and has no transport home but me, or a taxi that we can ill afford...WD39 said:
I'm sure that there are plenty of millenials on PH that are unaware of the said motion picture, shirley?
i was born 10 years after the masterpiece that is airplane! was released, which makes me a millennial ( who the hell thought of that stupid term) and i use the Shirley line ALL of the time.Edited by WD39 on Tuesday 25th October 21:51
Johnspex said:
I know its origin. Airplane is a very funny film, however, I think the Shirley joke is a bit worn out and so overused on here that some people don't appreciate it's a joke and think that is the correct spelling of the word surely.
Similar here with the word "Aloud" for "allowed". Girls Aloud have a lot of chavs thing it's the correct spelled of said word. Local Freebay.. "I hope this is aloud, cuz i aint got nuffink to sit on in the front.."yellowjack said:
whoami said:
You put some effort into that.
It's not exactly difficult. After all, I'm a mentally ill unemployed loser with fk all else to fill my day (or night) with. I'm up waiting for a phonecall to go collect my wife from work, as she's been called in for an emergency case and has no transport home but me, or a taxi that we can ill afford...Yj I don't know why but that's make me feel incredibly sad this morning. Sorry to hear about your troubles. I don't think people consider you a loser. Just a grumpy sod which is understandable, it comes with age
OpulentBob said:
yellowjack said:
whoami said:
You put some effort into that.
It's not exactly difficult. After all, I'm a mentally ill unemployed loser with fk all else to fill my day (or night) with. I'm up waiting for a phonecall to go collect my wife from work, as she's been called in for an emergency case and has no transport home but me, or a taxi that we can ill afford...Yj I don't know why but that's make me feel incredibly sad this morning. Sorry to hear about your troubles. I don't think people consider you a loser. Just a grumpy sod which is understandable, it comes with age
Ditto.
yellowjack said:
You got that last bit right in a great deal of your post. Now if you pinky-swear to play nice, I'll leave this subject well alone from now on. After all, it has rather hijacked the thread a bit and I'm sure we'd all far rather hear about some other minor annoyance that has "annoyed you beyond reason"...
Thank you for setting me straight, and for doing so in a measured and polite way (initially, at least) - I did not know about the Regimental Subscriptions. Not that I would be expected to know that - I just pay taxes and expect the government to get on with things (including a standing army). I rather suspect my financial contribution is far more welcome than any physical contribution I could make to the defence of the realm. Also, I apologise for the possibly brusque nature of my previous post. Although clearly it touched a raw nerve with you; enough for you to get into personal insults in the latter part of your lengthy reply, which I will choose to ignore. Despite what you may feel, I didn't level personal insults at you.
Anyway, yes, I take your point that "sport for all" being only for those that can afford it is therefore, by definition, not for all. Agreed.
Edited by ClockworkCupcake on Wednesday 26th October 22:36
Very true, I always assume the noreply email address means, basically, "We couldn't give a toss what you actually think". I wish my work email was a noreply. Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff