London and UK riots (started in Tottenham 10:30PM, 6th Aug)

Micky Dolenz

steve9859 wrote: »

My God, I though this was supposed to be After Hours!!

And?

meditraitor

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Switzerland.

Very interesting country,

Micky Dolenz

We are being pulled off course a little. Please stay on topic

Monty Burnz

Is mise le key wrote: »

Despite its many flaws & some of its leaders, how long was the USSR economy a success before it stagnated (which happened for many reasons we could open entirley different threads on)?

It was a very productive & Sucessful economy with a good standard of living for approx 60 years, it really began to grind to a halt in the late 70's early 80's until its eventual demise.

Would you consider millions of famine deaths indicative of a successful economy? Between 5 and 10 million people are estimated to have died by famine in the USSR in the 30s.

I'd also point out that the standard of goods and services were frankly rubbish compared to those available in the west, and available in much smaller quantities. I used to, for example, have a small collection of Russian cameras from the 60s and 70s. I liked these cameras because they were based on German designs...from the 20s.

You can blather all you like about the successful Soviet economy (I'm sure the Soviets did even as millions of them died of hunger) but the facts are there and I think everyone other than Joe Higgins and yourself accepts them.


Edit: oops, I hope Russian vintage camera design is still on topic for English riots...:o

steve9859

OK, lets drag it back on topic with a good sensationalist article more than worthy of AH

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/british-rioters-the-spawn-of-a-bankrupt-ruling-elite/story-e6frg6zo-1226112640970

(which if I recall correctly is a Murdoch paper)



Cartoon by Peter Nicholson Source: The Australian



THE riots in London and elsewhere in Britain are a backhanded tribute to the long-term intellectual torpor, moral cowardice, incompetence and careerist opportunism of the British political and intellectual class.



They have somehow managed not to notice what has long been apparent to anyone who has taken a short walk with his eyes open down any frequented British street: that a considerable proportion of the country's young population (a proportion that is declining) is ugly, aggressive, vicious, badly educated, uncouth and criminally inclined.


Unfortunately, while it is totally lacking in self-respect, it is full of self-esteem: that is to say, it believes itself entitled to a high standard of living, and other things, without any effort on its own part.


Consider for a moment the following: although youth unemployment in Britain is very high, that is to say about 20 per cent of those aged under 25, the country has had to import young foreign labour for a long time, even for unskilled work in the service sector.



The reasons for this seeming paradox are obvious to anyone who knows young Britons as I do.


No sensible employer in a service industry would choose a young Briton if he could have a young Pole; the young Pole is not only likely to have a good work ethic and refined manners, he is likely to be able to add up and -- most humiliating of all -- to speak better English than the Briton, at least if by that we mean the standard variety of the language. He may not be more fluent but his English will be more correct and his accent easier to understand.


This is not an exaggeration. After compulsory education (or perhaps I should say intermittent attendance at school) up to the age of 16 costing $80,000 a head, about one-quarter of British children cannot read with facility or do simple arithmetic. It makes you proud to be a British taxpayer.
I think I can say with a fair degree of certainty, from my experience as a doctor in one of the areas in which a police station has just been burned down, that half of those rioting would reply to the question, "Can you do arithmetic?" by answering, "What is arithmetic?"


British youth leads the Western world in almost all aspects of social pathology, from teenage pregnancy to drug taking, from drunkenness to violent criminality. There is no form of bad behaviour that our version of the welfare state has not sought out and subsidised.


British children are much likelier to have a television in their bedroom than a father living at home. One-third of them never eat a meal at a table with another member of their household -- family is not the word for the social arrangements of the people in the areas from which the rioters mainly come. They are therefore radically unsocialised and deeply egotistical, viewing relations with other human beings in the same way as Lenin: Who whom, who does what to whom. By the time they grow up, they are destined not only for unemployment but unemployability.


For young women in much of Britain, dependence does not mean dependence on the government: that, for them, is independence. Dependence means any kind of reliance on the men who have impregnated them who, of course, regard their own subventions from the state as pocket money, to be supplemented by a little light trafficking. (According to his brother, Mark Duggan, the man whose death at the hands of the probably incompetent police allegedly sparked the riots, "was involved in things", which things being delicately left to the imagination of his interlocutor.)


Relatively poor as the rioting sector of society is, it nevertheless possesses all the electronic equipment necessary for the prosecution of the main business of life; that is to say, entertainment by popular culture. And what a culture British popular culture is!


Perhaps Amy Winehouse was its finest flower and its truest representative in her militant and ideological vulgarity, her stupid taste, her vile personal conduct and preposterous self-pity.


Her sordid life was a long bath in vomitus, literal and metaphorical, for which the exercise of her very minor talent was no excuse or explanation. Yet not a peep of dissent from our intelllectual class was heard after her near canonisation after her death, that class having long had the backbone of a mollusc.


Criminality is scarcely repressed any more in Britain. The last lord chief justice but two thought that burglary was a minor offence, not worthy of imprisonment, and the next chief justice agreed with him.


By the age of 12, an ordinary slum-dweller has learned he has nothing to fear from the law and the only people to fear are those who are stronger or more ruthless than he.


Punishments are derisory; the police are simultaneously bullying but ineffectual and incompetent, increasingly dressed in paraphernalia that makes them look more like the occupiers of Afghanistan than the force imagined by Robert Peel. The people who most fear our police are the innocent.


Of course, none of this reduces the personal responsibility of the rioters. But the riots are a manifestation of a society in full decomposition, of a people with neither leaders nor followers but composed only of egotists.

Happyman42

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Switzerland.

Ok, I've given you one - now you give me one. Which socialist state would you prefer to emulate then?

How many Swiss actually work for their living in Switzerland? A high percentage earn their crusts in the surrounding countries.

It's also a wealthy and exclusive dormitory for the wealthy of Germany, France and increasingly the UK. It cannot be compared with most countries for those reasons.

Is mise le key

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Would you consider millions of famine deaths indicative of a successful economy? Between 5 and 10 million people are estimated to have died by famine in the USSR in the 30s.

I'd also point out that the standard of goods and services were frankly rubbish compared to those available in the west, and available in much smaller quantities. I used to, for example, have a small collection of Russian cameras from the 60s and 70s. I liked these cameras because they were based on German designs...from the 20s.

You can blather all you like about the successful Soviet economy (I'm sure the Soviets did even as millions of them died of hunger) but the facts are there and I think everyone other than Joe Higgins and yourself accepts them.


Edit: oops, I hope Russian vintage camera design is still on topic for English riots...:o

Well thats still miles off topic,

1. I doubt joe would align himself anywhere near the Socialist ideology of the USSR being a Trotskyist, nor have i really, i diid point out that there was a lot of things done right economically in the past.

2. This is sounding very tit for tat, but, how many people are suffering around the globe due to the inequetable balance that comes with capitalism? How many have died for want of basics like food, water & medicine all from the system overseen by the world bank & IMF as noted above?

But this is off topic, the cause of the riots in england were identified in the article i posted by one of the worlds most noted capitalist economists back in 2001. You, along with the british admin & the rest of the capitalist cheerleaders can play it down all you want, deep down every one knows & realises it is rooted in this dispicable system.

Monty Burnz

Happyman42 wrote: »

How many Swiss actually work for their living in Switzerland? A high percentage earn their crusts in the surrounding countries.

The overwhelming majority. I used to live there for a short time. But I don't see what that has to do with anything? You could say the same about Belgium, or the Netherlands, or Northern Ireland.

Happyman42 wrote: »

It's also a wealthy and exclusive dormitory for the wealthy of Germany, France and increasingly the UK. It cannot be compared with most countries for those reasons.

It's being excluded from comparison with the commie countries because it is wealthy and successful?

Right.

Monty Burnz

Is mise le key wrote: »

You, along with the british admin & the rest of the capitalist cheerleaders can play it down all you want, deep down every one knows & realises it is rooted in this dispicable system.

I agree. And I think they should stop handing them everything and expecting nothing back.

monara

I agree. Giving people something for nothing eventually demoralises them. The old communist system of insisting everyone did some work for State payments is the only way this kind of senseless looting etc can be avoided.:)

up for anything

monara wrote: »

I agree. Giving people something for nothing eventually demoralises them. The old communist system of insisting everyone did some work for State payments is the only way this kind of senseless looting etc can be avoided.:)

Maybe the people in government should work a little harder to earn their senseless loot by making sure that the country they are running can offer worthwhile jobs to those that want and need them.

Is mise le key

monara wrote: »

I agree. Giving people something for nothing eventually demoralises them. The old communist system of insisting everyone did some work for State payments is the only way this kind of senseless looting etc can be avoided.:)

You have nailed it on the head, the misconception from most people is that genuine Socialism is about people being supported by the state for doing nothing, the reality is, Socialism is about all of Society contributing how they can to the best of their ability & all sharing the product of that equally.

Anyone who is able bodied & able minded have an obligation to work towards creating a Society that is fair for all regardless of their ability, i would go out on a limb here & say that most of the young people involved in the riots just cant see a way to break the cycle of their impoverishment.

blaming the parents is a lame argument also, how can a parent be responsible if they were 'trapped' in the same pit of personal social deprivation & unable to offer or guide them as effectiveely as we all would like.

I am not saying that you will by default act this way if you are from these areas involved in the riots, but this Social deprivation is the product of this system, i, and these young people, see no solution as to how to change society by a contiuation of the same system.

The chief of police in scotland was on the BBC news last night & he pretty much said the same, cameron can blow all hot in the commons & say he will hunt them down & they WILL go to prison, but in his words (scottish head of police) How will that change anything at all?

It wont.

Monty Burnz

up for anything wrote: »

Maybe the people in government should work a little harder to earn their senseless loot by making sure that the country they are running can offer worthwhile jobs to those that want and need them.

It's quite depressing how often this 'government - get us jobs' thing comes up. How exactly is the government supposed to get jobs for everyone?

And that's before you even get into the difficulty of finding something useful that lazy illiterates are able to and are willing to do.

jmayo

Happyman42 wrote: »

Do you think that social policy of the last 50 years has anything to do with these events?
Do you absolve politics of all blame? Is there any onus on our 'leaders' to create a fair society?

Ehh what is your definition of a fair society ?
From my viewpoint the social policies of the last 50 years gave people who are the so called downtrodden a chance of free education, social welfare, free healthcare.
What else do you want the taxpayers to give them ?

Paparazzo wrote: »

Yeah, I'm sick of scumbags blaming society and the government. Here's an idea. How about taking responsibility for your own actions?

I hate the way society in most western countries has gone where no one ever takes responsibility for their actions.

We have it from the top to the bottom now.
It is blame the parents, blame the environment, blame a foreigner, blame anyone but the person themselves.

K-9 wrote: »

...
What's your point though? We should remove free healthcare and housing?

Yes remove them from anyone who continously engages in anti social behaviour.
If you want free things handed to you from the rest of society then respect the rest of society.

It is for exactly this reason you have serial anti-social behaviour from people who are moved from social housing area to another.
Give someone a couple of chances and if you continue in your anti-social behaviour you lose all rights.
FFS at the moment it is like the catholic church are in charge of social housing where troublesome families/individuals are moved on to wreak havok on more unsuspecting people.

Is mise le key wrote: »

To each according to his need, from each according to his ability.
...

Usually the mantra of those who want someone else to provide for them.
Ever heard "life isn't always fair" and "tough sh**".

stovelid wrote: »

Non-chimps.

Ahh so now you are a fan of Planet of the Apes.

Is mise le key wrote: »

Oh yes, and to expand on that list, name all the sucessful capitalist countries??

None in europe for a start, take a look around.

Jeeze I would have thought they are a hell of a lot more sucessful than the socialist/marxist/communist ones, but go on tell us all how the western world has been a complete failure ?
Better still tell us how much the downtrodden are not getting free healthcare, education and social welfare.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Because you are allowed to see it. Can you not accept the notion of the downtrodden? Vast communities in urban Britain that have no hope & very few ways out.
Have you ever walked around places like Toxteth? Or some of Limerick's or Dublins under resourced estates?

The same estates that produce people that think it is all right to take someone elses property and lives.

Happyman42 wrote: »

For those people capitalism has completely and abjectly failed.

No capitalism hasn't failed them, they have failed themselves.
Stop always looking for someone to blame for people's own inadeqaucies.

Is mise le key wrote: »

Despite its many flaws & some of its leaders, how long was the USSR economy a success before it stagnated (which happened for many reasons we could open entirley different threads on)?

It was a very productive & Sucessful economy with a good standard of living for approx 60 years, it really began to grind to a halt in the late 70's early 80's until its eventual demise.

Its estimated economic output at the beginning of the 80's was equivilant to $9 trillion at that time (estimated by the USSR) with a population of 300 million.

So to answer you, the USSR was a success for a long time.

A lot of what was implemented in the USSR in the past works, it was the leaders that have brought the despise of the USSR upon it, not its economic activity of the past.

You are pulling the p*** now ?

Monty Burnz

Is mise le key wrote: »

You have nailed it on the head, the misconception from most people is that genuine Socialism is about people being supported by the state for doing nothing, the reality is, Socialism is about all of Society contributing how they can to the best of their ability & all sharing the product of that equally.

Oh, I see where you've gone wrong - you are talking about 'genuine socialism' as if it's a thing that exists in the real world. It doesn't and it can't, as has been proven by every disastrous attempt to introduce 'genuine socialism' in the past.

It's a sci-fi idea that only exists in the minds of those who are capable of ignoring everything we've learned about human nature and everything history has taught us about previous attempts to implement 'genuine socialism'.

There's as much chance of 'genuine socialism' being a success for whatever god-forsaken society tries it as there is of me marrying an elf that I meet in an enchanted forest of Ents.

Is mise le key

jmayo wrote: »

Usually the mantra of those who want someone else to provide for them.
Ever heard "life isn't always fair" and "tough sh**".

Ha ha!!

Sorry chief, ive worked my entire life, lucky enough to be still working now, never claimed the dole, welfare, assisstance, medical card etc.

'Life' is not an entity in itself, people who control Society make life unfair for others, you can say its just tough shít if you want, i offer to you that we can be better as the human race now than what has preceeded us, we just need to remove the people from power democratically that make life unfair.

Morlar

Is mise le key wrote: »

i would go out on a limb here & say that most of the young people involved in the riots just cant see a way to break the cycle of their impoverishment.

You are applying your own values to this scenario. 'They have to be decent people just misunderstood', 'there has to be a good reason'.

You are just making excuses and moving the blame from the guilty individuals onto the victim - in this case society at large.

What I saw were feral scumbags with 'callous indifference' to other human beings, either physical suffering or mental fear and anguish.

The fact is, however poor people are, not all of them do this. Saying that the ones who did this, did so because they are poor is an insult to law abiding people everywhere (rich or poor). It's just another way of abdicating responsibility from these people.

If you treat a subculture or community of people as if you expect nothing more from them than this (riot & scumbag behaviour) and if you trip up over yourself forming contorted excuses for their direct behaviour, which involves every imaginary factor other than personal responsibility, then if you do that, this behaviour is all you will ever get.

I am starting to think all this wishy washy blame everyone else bs is a weird form of inverse racism.

conorhal

DominoDub wrote: »

A Great read on the riots by Russel Brand of all people !

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/11/london-riots-davidcameron

It's an intresting read, intresting in it's hypocrisy.

To quote Brand:

These young people have no sense of community because they haven't been given one. They have no stake in society because Cameron's mentor Margaret Thatcher told us there's no such thing.
If we don't want our young people to tear apart our communities then don't let people in power tear apart the values that hold our communities together.
And goes on to say:
But I know, as we all intuitively know, the solution is all around us and it isn't political, it is spiritual.

I broadly agree with him, but isn't he the very kind of person that's first to deride things like patriotism, morality and manners as 'Victorian values', to dismiss religion and have a sh1t fit if anybody stigamatizes single mothers on welfare or suggests that perhaps you can't behave however you feel like?
Also, It isn't just Thatcher and the Tories to blame for an agressively individualized consumerist society, he kind of ignores the fact that agressive individualism, moral subjectivity and deconstructionsim are just as much the goals of the ideological left (why else would they defend the likes of Norris).

Is mise le key

Morlar wrote: »

You are applying your own values to this scenario. 'They have to be decent people just misunderstood', 'there has to be a good reason'.

You are just making excuses and moving the blame from the guilty individuals onto the victim - in this case society at large.

What I saw were feral scumbags with 'callous indifference' to other human beings, either physical suffering or mental fear and anguish.

The fact is, however poor people are, not all of them do this. Saying that the ones who did this, did so because they are poor is an insult to law abiding people everywhere (rich or poor). It's just another way of abdicating responsibility from these people.

If you treat a subculture or community of people as if you expect nothing more from them than this (riot & scumbag behaviour) and if you trip up over yourself forming contorted excuses for their direct behaviour, which involves every imaginary factor other than personal responsibility, then if you do that, this behaviour is all you will ever get.

I am starting to think all this wishy washy blame everyone else bs is a weird form of inverse racism.

You obviously didnt read my entire post above,

Is mise le key wrote: »

I am not saying that you will by default act this way if you are from these areas involved in the riots, but this Social deprivation is the product of this system, i, and these young people, see no solution as to how to change society by a contiuation of the same system.

I did not say at all this is the Only way you will act if you are from these areas, you have set your own argument up there, also i agree 99% with you, Society is the victim, but it is all of Society, including the young people caught up in the engagment of the riots also.

Now i must run, i have to say, for After hours i am surprised at the focussed debate that has gone on in the thread, are all the usual losers that ruin any kind of mature arguments on a Boards day out or something??:D

Happyman42

jmayo wrote: »

Ehh what is your definition of a fair society ?
From my viewpoint the social policies of the last 50 years gave people who are the so called downtrodden a chance of free education, social welfare, free healthcare.

Free inferior education, badly designed and distributed social welfare, free inferior healthcare....ever lain on a trolley waiting for your 'free' care?

Social policy has FAILED ffs. Failed spectacularly.

jmayo wrote: »

The same estates that produce people that think it is all right to take someone elses property and lives.

Yes, the same estates. Isn't that what we are talking about, why they think it ok to loot and riot? :rolleyes: The scary thing is that you and other reactionary's think depriving them even more, marginalising them even more is some sort of a solution. We live in fascist times.

jmayo wrote: »

No capitalism hasn't failed them, they have failed themselves.
Stop always looking for someone to blame for people's own inadeqaucies.

Of course it has failed them and YES somebody is responsible for that. Our 'caring' society has been shown to be tragically inadequate'!

You know you are in bother when somebody holds Switzerland up as an example of an all inclusive fair society!
Where the world's wealthy can hide their gains, I was resisting the urge to use the word 'ill-gotten'...but then why would you hide it if it wasn't? :rolleyes:
The Bono School of social responsibility!

Morlar

Is mise le key wrote: »

i agree 99% with you, Society is the victim, but it is all of Society, including the young people caught up in the engagment of the riots also.

I did read your entire post. I replied to the part I most disagreed with where you said this was an attempt to break free from impoverisation.

It is bizarro PC horse**** to say the very people wantonly, repeatedly, committing these crimes are actually the victims.

Liam Byrne

Happyman42 wrote: »

Isn't that what we are talking about, why they think it ok to loot and riot? :rolleyes: The scary thing is that you and other reactionary's think depriving them even more, marginalising them even more is some sort of a solution. We live in fascist times.

Absolute rubbish! They've marginalised themselves even more by engaging in sickening acts.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Of course it has failed them and YES somebody is responsible for that. Our 'caring' society has been shown to be tragically inadequate'!

We already care, because we give them something for nothing. Of course it's not enough, but then we can't be expected to work and pay for everyone.

That said, they had enough to have Blackberrys to organise their despicable behaviour, so they can't be too badly off. And now they have 2 or 3 Blackberrys each, along with plasma TVs and digital cameras.

Stop making excuses for people who CHOSE to loot and damage.

I would support an uprising in relation to everything else you have posted; but that uprising should not target ordinary citizens. And it would be support that I would only offer if I believed that this was a political stance against unfairness, rather than a cowardly attempt to get their hands on new TVs and simply run riot, which the coverage showed that it was.

mloc

Is mise le key wrote: »

it is all of Society, including the young people caught up in the engagment of the riots also.

They are not "caught up in the engagement of the riots". They choose to riot, they choose to loot, indeed, they choose to kill.

They are the rioters, they are the very manifestation of the problem, whatever the causes may be.

LordSutch

I think I'm correct in saying that this is the 1st time that CCTV has been so beneficial in such circumstances (Riots). That twenty two old who knocked out and killed poor Richard Mannington Bowes has now been caught with the help of CCTV.

Monty Burnz

LordSutch wrote: »

I think I'm correct in saying that this is the 1st time that CCTV has been so beneficial in such circumstances (Riots). That twenty two old who knocked out and killed poor Richard Mannington Bowes has now been caught with the help of CCTV.

It's not his fault - he was making a protest against...something! Free the Tottenham one!

Happyman42

jmayo wrote: »

Absolute rubbish! They've marginalised themselves even more by engaging in sickening acts.

Correct. And now you wish to marginalise them even more

jmayo wrote: »

We already care, because we give them something for nothing. Of course it's not enough, but then we can't be expected to work and pay for everyone.

^^^^^ That could have been written by a Landlord in the 1800's.
But we rose up against that and people got hurt, they generally do when a segment of society say 'enough'.
**Where they wrong to throw off the yoke Liam? After all, people got hurt, property was burned, stuff was stolen etc etc.
The landlords believed that they would never rise against them either.
Read their accounts, they are full of incomprehension as to why the rabble where dissatisfied. They had their best interests at heart after all :rolleyes:

** please answer that question directly.

Morlar

Happyman42 wrote: »

^^^^^ That could have been written by a Landlord in the 1800's.
But we rose up against that and people got hurt, they generally do when a segment of society say 'enough'.
**Where they wrong to throw off the yoke Liam? After all, people got hurt, property was burned, stuff was stolen etc etc.
The landlords believed that they would never rise against them either.
Read their accounts, they are full of incomprehension as to why the rabble where dissatisfied. They had their best interests at heart after all :rolleyes:

** please answer that question directly.

'People saying enough', 'throwing off the yoke' and so on?

Are you trying to draw a historical comparison between the british riots and something else ?

If so, please clarify exactly what you are comparing this to.

jmayo

Is mise le key wrote: »

Ha ha!!

Sorry chief, ive worked my entire life, lucky enough to be still working now, never claimed the dole, welfare, assisstance, medical card etc.

You did what you should do.
Should you have chosen to sit on your ar** like lots of those rioting and complaining expecting the rest of society to provide for you ?

Is mise le key wrote: »

'Life' is not an entity in itself, people who control Society make life unfair for others, you can say its just tough shít if you want, i offer to you that we can be better as the human race now than what has preceeded us, we just need to remove the people from power democratically that make life unfair.

People often make life unfair for themselves.
If you chose to live like animals don't be surprised when people start treating you like animals.
What is your definition of making life unfair ?
How far is the rest of society, and more particularly the taxpayers contributing to it, meant to go to make it fairer for the socalled downtrodden ?

Happyman42 wrote: »

Free inferior education, badly designed and distributed social welfare, free inferior healthcare....ever lain on a trolley waiting for your 'free' care?

Of course they should be getting the best of everything all paid for by the same people who have to often pay for their own. :rolleyes:

BTW I have sone poeple who have paid for their healthcare having to suffer the same conditions in A&E as the ones who are there getting their free entitlement healthcare becuase they have been so downtrodden they have had to indulge in fighting and drugs.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Yes, the same estates. Isn't that what we are talking about, why they think it ok to loot and riot? :rolleyes: The scary thing is that you and other reactionary's think depriving them even more, marginalising them even more is some sort of a solution. We live in fascist times.

Maybe we live in times that aren't fascist enough, ever think of that.
As Liam Byrne said, a lot of these people do a find job of margiunalising themselves.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Of course it has failed them and YES somebody is responsible for that. Our 'caring' society has been shown to be tragically inadequate'!

And once again we are all responsible for the poor behaviour of other people. :rolleyes:

Happyman42 wrote: »

You know you are in bother when somebody holds Switzerland up as an example of an all inclusive fair society!

I would love to know what is your definition of an all inclusive fair society ?
Does fairness only apply to the ones who can't be bothered working, who want to have all their needs provided with no responsibility to the rest of society ?

Happyman42

jmayo wrote: »

Of course they should be getting the best of everything all paid for by the same people who have to often pay for their own. :rolleyes:

BTW I have sone poeple who have paid for their healthcare having to suffer the same conditions in A&E as the ones who are there getting their free entitlement healthcare becuase they have been so downtrodden they have had to indulge in fighting and drugs.

Yes, we do have a problem in how 'our' money is spent don't we. Now would it be such a huge leap for you to admit that social welfare has been badly distributed and used?

jmayo wrote: »

Maybe we live in times that aren't fascist enough, ever think of that.
As Liam Byrne said, a lot of these people do a find job of margiunalising themselves.

Fascism is only attractive to the fascist.

jmayo wrote: »

And once again we are all responsible for the poor behaviour of other people. :rolleyes:

No we aren't, we spent a lot of time pointing that out during the banking crisis.

jmayo wrote: »

I would love to know what is your definition of an all inclusive fair society ?
Does fairness only apply to the ones who can't be bothered working, who want to have all their needs provided with no responsibility to the rest of society ?

People have been so stereotyped, eg, what postal code you use, what clothes you wear etc etc that it becomes pointless even applying for jobs. The corrosiveness of that type of discrimination (where you are from) is lost on a lot of the 'why don't they eat cake' moralists on here, even though there is ample evidence of it here in Ireland never mind the UK where it is even more prevalent.

Morlar

Happyman42 wrote: »

People have been so stereotyped, eg, what postal code you use, what clothes you wear etc etc that it becomes pointless even applying for jobs. The corrosiveness of that type of discrimination (where you are from) is lost on a lot of the 'why don't they eat cake' moralists on here, even though there is ample evidence of it here in Ireland never mind the UK where it is even more prevalent.

If you want a job and believe you are genuinely discriminated against on the basis of your postcode then send an application using a relatives, or a friends address.

If you really want the job and have the right attitude, and a factor like 'postcode discrimination' really is the only reason you don't get the job then it is not some kind of an unsurmountable obstacle.

Any job interview you go for you need to dress appropriately, this goes for everyone all the time.