Poverty in Oldham
Discussion
sidicks said:
crankedup said:
WTF are you on about, dragging those at the top down? Down to the level of what or who?
Personally I am more concerned with a fairer Society in the U.K.
The word obsessing seems to be the new ‘must include’ word in posts.
Define ‘fair’...Personally I am more concerned with a fairer Society in the U.K.
The word obsessing seems to be the new ‘must include’ word in posts.
And yet you seem to be ‘obsessed’ with a nonsense metric and the politics of envy, rather than things that might actually make a difference.
crankedup said:
You want me to define ‘fair’ AGAIN!! How many times do I need to do this before it finally sinks in to your grey matter. I cannot be bothered (as you would say) to go through that again. To jog your grey matter think football.
Perhaps when you come up with a sensible and meaningful definition, we will try to take your definition of ‘fair’ seriously.crankedup said:
You want me to define ‘fair’ AGAIN!! How many times do I need to do this before it finally sinks in to your grey matter. I cannot be bothered (as you would say) to go through that again.
The problem with 'fair' is that everyone has a different definition- it generally means "more advantageous to me & mine than the current system".Newsflash- the world isn't fair & never will be. Deal with it.
Rovinghawk said:
The problem with 'fair' is that everyone has a different definition- it generally means "more advantageous to me & mine than the current system".
Newsflash- the world isn't fair & never will be. Deal with it.
The other problem with 'fair' is that some people insist on applying it to non zero sum games.Newsflash- the world isn't fair & never will be. Deal with it.
sidicks said:
crankedup said:
You want me to define ‘fair’ AGAIN!! How many times do I need to do this before it finally sinks in to your grey matter. I cannot be bothered (as you would say) to go through that again. To jog your grey matter think football.
Perhaps when you come up with a sensible and meaningful definition, we will try to take your definition of ‘fair’ seriously.Murph7355 said:
crankedup said:
You want me to define ‘fair’ AGAIN!! How many times do I need to do this before it finally sinks in to your grey matter. I cannot be bothered (as you would say) to go through that again. To jog your grey matter think football.
Once might be a start 
Rovinghawk said:
crankedup said:
You want me to define ‘fair’ AGAIN!! How many times do I need to do this before it finally sinks in to your grey matter. I cannot be bothered (as you would say) to go through that again.
The problem with 'fair' is that everyone has a different definition- it generally means "more advantageous to me & mine than the current system".Newsflash- the world isn't fair & never will be. Deal with it.
crankedup said:
I have never said that the World is fair, therefore I do not need to ‘deal with it’. Agreed, everyone has a different definition of fair, The one that matters is that of our Government, then when enough voters disagree with thier definition we say so through the ballot box. Can’t be fairer than that
What is the government’s definition of fair? crankedup said:
Go on sidicks is the master of mindless, you will never compete with him, but I congratulate you for trying. B+.
Says the person that’s determined to ignore all the evidence that contradicts their prejudice. That sounds very much like ‘mindlessness’ to me.Edited by sidicks on Monday 26th March 10:29
crankedup said:
Murph7355 said:
crankedup said:
You want me to define ‘fair’ AGAIN!! How many times do I need to do this before it finally sinks in to your grey matter. I cannot be bothered (as you would say) to go through that again. To jog your grey matter think football.
Once might be a start You come across as someone who thinks they should feel appalled by these media stories, but has no real answer to it crankie. Partly because, I am sure, you know where you will end up on any meaningful and still arbitrary line drawn to "improve" matters. You are absolutely suckered in by the terminology used in the headlines. No shame in that - that is precisely what they are designed to do. You are being played.
It's no good asking people like sidicks what his view is. My suspicion is that his view is very much that "fair" is very subjective and actually that the world, wrt this country, is likely to be as fair as it's possible to get. I certainly feel that way, and definitely feel that it cannot be legislated against more than it already has been unless we are prepared for worse unintended consequences.
What "relative poverty" is actually getting at is your favourite topic of the "wealth gap". But "wealth gap" doesn't plug at the heart strings as much as "poverty" does.
Shareholders can easily address the "wealth gap" without any new legislation by refusing to invest in companies that seem to encourage it. But guess what? That will never happen. Because everyone wants to make money and will be frightened to death of losing out by withdrawing their funds - you included. Your pension will be heavily invested in these same firms.
Moreover, you'll then find that seemingly "ethical" firms also have their dark sides - just as you did with your beloved CoOp example
- which will mean you will have to resort to sticking your wedge under your mattress. The solutions to these things are ALWAYS anything that impacts other people and not one's self. Unless we can change that mindset (and that especially includes those in "poverty") we will never resolve anything.
Murph7355 said:
You ALWAYS dodge the question as far as I recall.
You come across as someone who thinks they should feel appalled by these media stories, but has no real answer to it crankie. Partly because, I am sure, you know where you will end up on any meaningful and still arbitrary line drawn to "improve" matters. You are absolutely suckered in by the terminology used in the headlines. No shame in that - that is precisely what they are designed to do. You are being played.
It's no good asking people like sidicks what his view is. My suspicion is that his view is very much that "fair" is very subjective and actually that the world, wrt this country, is likely to be as fair as it's possible to get. I certainly feel that way, and definitely feel that it cannot be legislated against more than it already has been unless we are prepared for worse unintended consequences.
What "relative poverty" is actually getting at is your favourite topic of the "wealth gap". But "wealth gap" doesn't plug at the heart strings as much as "poverty" does.
Shareholders can easily address the "wealth gap" without any new legislation by refusing to invest in companies that seem to encourage it. But guess what? That will never happen. Because everyone wants to make money and will be frightened to death of losing out by withdrawing their funds - you included. Your pension will be heavily invested in these same firms.
Moreover, you'll then find that seemingly "ethical" firms also have their dark sides - just as you did with your beloved CoOp example - which will mean you will have to resort to sticking your wedge under your mattress.
The solutions to these things are ALWAYS anything that impacts other people and not one's self. Unless we can change that mindset (and that especially includes those in "poverty") we will never resolve anything.
You come across as someone who thinks they should feel appalled by these media stories, but has no real answer to it crankie. Partly because, I am sure, you know where you will end up on any meaningful and still arbitrary line drawn to "improve" matters. You are absolutely suckered in by the terminology used in the headlines. No shame in that - that is precisely what they are designed to do. You are being played.
It's no good asking people like sidicks what his view is. My suspicion is that his view is very much that "fair" is very subjective and actually that the world, wrt this country, is likely to be as fair as it's possible to get. I certainly feel that way, and definitely feel that it cannot be legislated against more than it already has been unless we are prepared for worse unintended consequences.
What "relative poverty" is actually getting at is your favourite topic of the "wealth gap". But "wealth gap" doesn't plug at the heart strings as much as "poverty" does.
Shareholders can easily address the "wealth gap" without any new legislation by refusing to invest in companies that seem to encourage it. But guess what? That will never happen. Because everyone wants to make money and will be frightened to death of losing out by withdrawing their funds - you included. Your pension will be heavily invested in these same firms.
Moreover, you'll then find that seemingly "ethical" firms also have their dark sides - just as you did with your beloved CoOp example
- which will mean you will have to resort to sticking your wedge under your mattress. The solutions to these things are ALWAYS anything that impacts other people and not one's self. Unless we can change that mindset (and that especially includes those in "poverty") we will never resolve anything.
crankedup said:
I have never said that the World is fair, therefore I do not need to ‘deal with it’. Agreed, everyone has a different definition of fair, The one that matters is that of our Government....
But the article in the OP doesn't state what the government's definition of fairness is. There is a government definition for 'relative poverty', but as far as I can tell - they don't have a definition for 'fairness'.
Isn't it great, all these posters that have never been to Oldham let alone these crap areas or any other northern industrial dump, never experienced life there or even seen it, and yet feel that they know absolutely everything about the place, how the people are, what they are like and why they are too bone-idle lazy to bother getting a proper job, and quite how easy it must be for them.
Wow, truly enlightening.
Wow, truly enlightening.
Efbe said:
Isn't it great, all these posters that have never been to Oldham let alone these crap areas or any other northern industrial dump, never experienced life there or even seen it, and yet feel that they know absolutely everything about the place, how the people are, what they are like and why they are too bone-idle lazy to bother getting a proper job, and quite how easy it must be for them.
Wow, truly enlightening.
I’m from Birkenhead and also lived in a council house in Rock Ferry........just sayingWow, truly enlightening.
Edited by Moonhawk on Monday 26th March 11:36
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff