Yeah, horses in the UK are for posh people and gypsies, and she's no gypsy.
Printable View
Yeah, horses in the UK are for posh people and gypsies, and she's no gypsy.
Got it.
Horses in the US could go either way. Posh or farmer / rancher.
Where I grew up, far more farmer/rancher girls than posh girls. I grew up just far enough away from the city of St Louis, my high school was mostly rural Missouri students. Lots of farmers, hunters, ranchers, etc. Mostly cool people once I got over my stereotypes about stupid yokels. Plenty of wealthy families run farms and stuff, too. I dated a girl in high school and the first time I visited her house, I was kinda expecting to visit a shack and ended up swimming in an indoor pool.
In Western Canada horses are for farmers/ranchers and their friends who they let ride. Any fancy schmancy posh horse rider who wasn't wearing jeans and a cowboy hat would have a hard time being taken seriously there.
In today's news, an opposition party MP was caught taking a 900 mile road trip after testing +ive for covid.
Her excuse? "The covid affected my brain and made me act out of character." Will she resign then? "No."
Her party leader hasn't sacked her either, at least not yet.
https://memegenerator.net/img/instan...aaaaarrrgh.jpg
Fuck me, I hope I get covid so I can rob a bank.
Ferrier isn't "opposition", she's SNP, which makes her government in Scotland. And she has been suspended, with Sturgeon saying that she doesn't have the power to sack her, while adding she should step down.
Yeah that's right. I forgot she was in SNP in Scotland, not UK. Still, she's a twat.
The statement at the end, "We care because we're following the rules" (paraphrased) is the most vapid statement about public health I've heard recently.
I enjoyed this bit myself. After a 2nd year student talks about receiving a used testing kit:
Quote:
She claims they were then told by the staff not to ‘put it on social media’.
Riiiight. "Whatever you do with that used kit, don't tell the world we fucked up! k thx bye."
Meanwhile in dorm 2:
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2020/02...0593367625.jpg
Damn, and here I was thinking we could just take back control of our flights to other countries and not have to deal with their stupid "regulations".
#MEGA
https://www.independent.co.uk/travel...-b1035344.html
That is pure fear porn. If there are no flights between the UK and the EU, that will hurt them a lot more than it will hurt us. And it'll hurt us enough to not want to go down that road. There are a lot more UK tourists going to Europe than the other way around. Without British tourists, Spain and Portugal would suffer badly. We'd suffer too, we rely on European tourists, but not nearly on the same scale. We're far more reliant on East Asian tourism.
This will not happen. And if it does, fucking LOL. That's a bonus for climate change, isn't it?
Well, the transport sec. says he is 'seeking arrangements.' It's just a bit funny that they're finally getting around to this now, after four years. You'd think that'd be a pretty easy one, and they'd get it out of the way early so they could concentrate on the hard ones.
And lol that there's anything about Brexit that's gonna hurt the EU more than it hurts us. You been drinking the kool aid if you think we have them over any barrels, m'boy.
You're being pretty naive here, based on your ideology. There are some aspects which will hurt us more, and some that will hurt them more. A clear example is cars. How many British cars do you think are on the German roads? How many German cars are on British roads? If Audis cost 10%, then they don't sell as many of them in the UK. That hurts Germany.Quote:
And lol that there's anything about Brexit that's gonna hurt the EU more than it hurts us. You been drinking the kool aid if you think we have them over any barrels, m'boy.
You can't seriously think it's all one way traffic.
lol yeah I'm the one who's naive.
The German car industry already said (in writing) long ago the integrity of the EU was more important than guarding their exports to the UK. I quoted this to you once before but obviously you've forgotten.
The British car industry has forecast huge losses for itself after Brexit, based on its use of imported parts from outside the EU
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54345882
Don't forget we're also losing all the trade agreements we currently have as part of the EU.
https://www.smmt.co.uk/industry-topi...ational-trade/
Here's some more bullshit you've probably been told, and why it's not true:
https://www.smmt.co.uk/2019/07/13-au...-myths-busted/
This isn't the point. You're telling me that there are no examples of situations that hurt the EU more than us. I just gave you one, and you give me an irrelevant point.Quote:
The German car industry already said (in writing) long ago the integrity of the EU was more important than guarding their exports to the UK. I quoted this to you once before but obviously you've forgotten.
And lol at "the British car industry". We don't fucking have one. It's all foreign owned.
Of course it's relevant. But if you don't like that point, choose one of the others. You have no argument, OTOH.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
yeah, only about 800,000 jobs. No biggie. Let's concentrate on the 24,000 who work in fishing.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
https://www.statista.com/statistics/...yment-figures/
https://www.dw.com/en/uk-fishing-ind...ngs/a-51418061
But only 168k of those jobs are in manufacturing. So only 7x as many as in the entire fishing industry. But hey, there'll be plenty of openings in the lucrative fruit picking industry.
Also, 8/10 cars built in the UK are exported. Hope that trade deal with Japan works out.
https://www.smmt.co.uk/industry-topics/uk-automotive/
How many of these people are helping to support the German economy?Quote:
yeah, only about 800,000 jobs. No biggie.
No, it wasn't. I said "it hurts them" and you say "no it doesn't, here's a quote that shows they admit it will hurt them but they don't think it's the most important thing to worry about".Quote:
Of course it's relevant.
I suspect people who live and work in the UK contribute more to the UK economy than the German one. Maybe you have evidence otherwise?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
At the very least surely these workers are mostly made up of UK nationals who you were unselfishly trying to help by voting for Brexit.
Put down the bong for a minute and try to remember what you said an hour ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Or even half an hour ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Now go on and explain to me why their auto industry is prepared to sacrifice the UK market, but ours is begging for a deal. Obviously you know something the auto industries don't, so please share it with the class.
Well where's your evidence? Why is the onus on me?Quote:
I suspect people who live and work in the UK contribute more to the UK economy than the German one. Maybe you have evidence otherwise?
If someone is working for a German car company in the UK, then the profits go to Germany. There are a ridiculous number of German cars on our roads, we're a huge market for them. The UK gets tax. But people need cars... we're getting that tax one way or another, it doesn't matter if it's a German car, or a Japanese car. So the only net loss to the UK taxman is the lost income tax, but do you think these people will be out of work for long? They're not idle fuckers like me. When you have lots of skilled, willing unemployed people, there are opportunities for new businesses. So the loss to the taxman is short-term. The loss to the German car industry is longer term. It won't hurt them to the point of Audi going bankrupt, but if they lose the British market, their CEO won't be getting as juicy a dividend.
I think you're smoking a bong. I'm not seeing a contradiction.Quote:
Put down the bong for a minute and try to remember what you said an hour ago.
I think you choose to see it as you wish. Words like "begging" are subjective, probably picked up by the media using words like "plea". They're prepared to "sacrifice" the UK market because it's out of their hands. It's like when you get dumped by someone you really like, but you pretend to not give a fuck, before going to have a private cry. The German auto industry isn't a relevant party when it comes to negotiations. They are watching on the sidelines, as the EU and UK negotiate. So we're "begging" for a deal because it's in our interests, as well as the EU's. The auto industry isn't begging for anything because they leave the negotiating to the EU. They're probably quietly lobbying instead.Quote:
Now go on and explain to me why their auto industry is prepared to sacrifice the UK market, but ours is begging for a deal. Obviously you know something the auto industries don't, so please share it with the class.
Just seems like common sense. Unless most of these 800,00 people are buying their groceries in Germany, living in houses and paying rent in Germany, and/or sending their earnings to relatives in Germany, the default assumption would be they're contributing more to the UK economy than Germany's.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
There's more economy that comes from a business than the net profits, as I alluded to above. 800,000 gainfully employed people in the UK also make profits off their work (called a wage), and those profits end up contributing mainly to the UK economy.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
You're just rambling here.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Sounds like a good scenario for sure. As long as they can eventually find other jobs, they'll be fine. Like I said, fruit picking jobs will be abundant.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
The difference is between your original argument that the UK car industry would suffer less than the EU's, and what you later claimed was your argument, that Brexit would do at least some harm to the EU. See the difference? It's not really that subtle.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Speaking of fish, seems Macron is digging in his heels on fishing rights. Doesn't he know we have him over a barrel?
https://twitter.com/BBCkatyaadler/st...26530601615362
Right, so you want evidence from me, but you only need what you call "common sense", which of course is subjective as fuck.Quote:
Just seems like common sense.
Perhaps they are. But you're thinking short term. If an individual is out of work for six months, and then finds a new job, then they are contributing again. Meanwhile, we won't be back in the EU in six months. Maybe we'll have finally agreed a trade deal, but let's be honest, it's more likely that someone will find a new job than the UK and EU coming to a belated agreement.Quote:
the default assumption would be they're contributing more to the UK economy than Germany's.
You wouldn't believe how many people think Brexit is worse than covid. Are you one of them poop?
I don't expect evidence for your argument because it doesn't make any sense to begin with. But hey, believe whatever makes you feel good.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
And, if the UK auto industry primarily benefits Germany somehow, that would at least explain why they want a deal so badly, the unpatriotic bastards.
I probably wouldn't if it was a number that came from you lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Whatever one can say about Brexit, a global pandemic causing over a million deaths is worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Believe it or not, I don't think that the UK's strategy is to hurt them more than us. The UK want a deal because it's in our interests. The EU are considering a little more than the auto industry, they also have to worry about their little club. They do want to hurt the UK, because they want to deter others from leaving.Quote:
And, if the UK auto industry primarily benefits Germany somehow, that would at least explain why they want a deal so badly, the unpatriotic bastards.
Well I was talking about economics, but then again maybe the entire UK population is going to starve, which would be worse than bad flu.Quote:
Whatever one can say about Brexit, a global pandemic causing over a million deaths is worse.
That's not a productive strategy even if it were possible to somehow manage it.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
The UK also has its own club to worry about.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
The EU probably isn't bothered about hurting us, that's for sure, since it will serve as a deterrent to others leaving. They also know we can't hurt them as much as they can hurt us.
Don't think we're going to starve, but food bottlenecks are certainly posslble.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Ecomonically alone, the forecast from covid is worse than the forecast from Brexit; that's before you start piling up the dead.
I'm not worried. If Scotland want to leave, that's their democratic choice. They should have that choice. It's not my business, just like it's not a Frenchman's business if the UK wishes to leave the EU.Quote:
The UK also has its own club to worry about.
I mean... I feel where you're coming from, but the US fought a civil war over the cessation of the southern states.
IDK where to draw the line, but it's not so cut and dry as you make it sound, ong.
I'd like to think that 1700s USA is a different world to 2000s UK. I really don't see England and Scotland ever going to war again. The only way there might be problems is if the UK powers (Westminster) refuse to allow the Scots to have a democratic say, and Scotland then decide to unilaterally leave the UK regardless. That would cause problems. But even then, it's a stretch to believe it would descend into war.
Yeah, don't think it's going to happen either. I don't think England would do Brexit based on a referendum and then deny Scotland the right to secede if it were voted for through another referendum. They'd just drag the negotiations out for a few years.
Good to know it's all the fault of those libtard EU politicians! #MEGA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rw0_bCeyhe4
Of course, and I agree. I wasn't making a direct correlation. Only saying that your assertion that a people have the right to be self-governed is not a black and white issue. I stand by people's right to self-govern, but what constitutes a political "self" is not well-defined.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Is Taiwan an independent "self?" or is it an island state of China?
Depends who you ask, and the question is largely unresolved at this time.
You're probably right, but again, you're taking my allusion to the American Civil War too literally. It was only meant to illustrate the fuzziness of political selfhood during times of transition.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
It's part of China, but it should be independent by any reasonable standard. They are essentially self-governing, but they are not recognised by the international community, A very contentious example.Quote:
Is Taiwan an independent "self?" or is it an island state of China?
International law is fairly clear on it, but in practise it's a great deal more complex. The important word is "nation", and what that means.
A nation, as defined by wikipedia, is...
"...a stable community of people formed on the basis of a common language, territory, history, ethnicity, or psychological make-up manifested in a common culture."
Scotland is a nation, that is not in question. Anyone who claims otherwise either doesn't know what nation means, or is being disingenuous. So Scotland has a right to self determination. But in the real world, what matters is international recognition. Catalonia is a nation, but nobody will recognise them nor will anyone stand up for their right to self determination. So they have no hope. If we decide that Scotland cannot have a referendum, and they declare independence, then it's a question of who will recognise them. England doesn't have all that many friends right now, certainly not in Europe, so it would definitely not be easy to call, but then again we stood by Spain, after we voted to leave. I really don't know. Better is for it to happen amicably. If they want independence, they should have it.
Not letting them have another referendum would be a dick move though, pretty close on the dick scale to denying them the right to leave after a positive referendum.
If Scotland goes, N. Ireland won't be far behind imo.
I think the Irish situation is a little more concerning, in terms of security. And it's not a given that they will leave the UK. They are mostly divided along religious grounds, with Catholics making up 41.5% of the population, and Protestants or other Christians making up 41%. It's anyone's guess as to who would win a reunification referendum. I guess it comes down to those who don't give a fuck about religion.
So the Telegraph (right-wing paper in UK) is now rolling out the excuses for why Brexit won't be as great as they all predicted. Or even good. Ok, in fact it will be a shitshow. Who'da thunk it?
https://twitter.com/BEERG/status/1320602841317335040
In other news, the gov'ts latest scandal involves voting down a motion to provide funding for school meals for disadvantaged children.
#MEGA by taking us back to Dickensian times!
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ElUo7BDW...pg&name=medium
This "hungry children" is the latest Tory-hating virtue singnalling crap doing the rounds. There's nothing that tugs on the heart strings more than a hungry child.
A 2+2 family on Universal Credit (benefits) gets around £1100 a month, before their rent and council tax. There is no reason children should be hungry in this country. If a child is hungry, perhaps instead of asking what Boris is going to do about it, we should ask what the parents are doing with their benefits. My guess is special brew for Dad, wine for Mom, 20 ciggies a day, and scratchcards.
The last two weeks of the month are usually pretty tight for me, like £50 a week budget for food and baccy. More pasta less maccies.
The problem with your argument is the kids don't get to choose their parents - so unless the gov't can prove that the parents are using the kids' meal vouchers to barter for crack as one of the Tory MPs suggests, it's completely irrelevant to most decent people what the parents are like if the kids are going hungry. If some of them are so irresponsible they won't properly feed their kids, that's not a good reason to let those kids go hungry.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
And if the parents are refusing to feed their kids because they spend all their money on booze and crack, the kids should be taken away from them and found a better home.
Doubtless a few mill out of the £12b spent on giving Dido "my husband is head of ethics so I can't be touched" Harding a plum job running TTI that doesn't work, with "consultants" earning £7k/day, and whatever other projects are being given to party donors, could more sensibly be used to feed hungry children rather than fatten rich party cronies.
Do you ever read back what you just wrote and think: wow, that kinda sounds bad?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Ong's argument hinges on what should be, and not what is.
Saying how things should be, but not checking to see if that's how they are, and insisting things are fine because they should be fine isn't going to advance our culture, or alleviate our constraints. It just leaves us on a slow decline of people in power taking more power and becoming more and more disconnected from the people they inevitably oppress.
Ong, you seem to have this notion that since you don't feel oppressed, there is no oppression where you live.
Doesn't that sound ... unlikely?
Given that he fails to see the hypocrisy of accepting gov't handouts himself while thinking gov't money shouldn't also be spent on feeding children, I'm guessing the answer to this will be a resounding "No," or possibly "No, #MEGA."Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
There's no hypocrisy. You just like to think there is. I never suggested that the govt shouldn't feed children. I pointed out they already try to, and that if children are hungry, then it's the fault of the parents, not the govt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Ultimately, it is the job of the parents to feed their children. If they won't do it, then of course the govt has to step in. But that shouldn't just involve free meals, that should also involve a social worker. If the govt are just handing out vouchers without condition, that results in bad parents becoming even more dependent on the govt than they already were.
I'm just going to point out that I came from a poor family, I went hungry at times. I can remember as a child sneaking out of class, finding the button for the bell, and ringing it because I was so hungry and wanted lunch. It upset some of the teachers. I had shit parents (Dad & Stepmom). I had a social worker too, and eventually was taken into care. And that's a lot less fun than being hungry. I can also remember phone calls to my Mom, crying, begging her to let me come and live with her. That's more painful than hunger, believe me.
So if anyone thinks I'm lacking in empathy, you couldn't be more wrong. I just don't blame the govt for parents doing a terrible job. I blame the parents. And parents will continue to do a shit job if the govt keep enabling them.
It's not an easy problem for the govt to solve. Throwing money around isn't the solution to bad parenting.
This has nothing to do with oppression. A child who has terrible parents is not oppressed by the govt.Quote:
Originally Posted by mojo
You cut my question and responded to a non-sequitur.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Try again, man.
Ong, I don't know why you always seem to think your personal experiences are relevant to national politics.
Brexit is going to cause shortages in fresh fruit and veg, but that's ok 'cause you like fish.
Damage to auto manufacturing? So what, you don't own a car anyways.
Kids going hungry? I had bad parents, so they must have bad parents too.
I can say with a great deal of confidence that at leat 95% of "hungry children" have terrible parents. What possible excuse is there? Ok, perhaps Mom has slipped into a diabetic coma and can't make dinner. I'm struggling to think of other ways a parent can allow a child to go hungry without it being the parent's fault. Medical emergencies, that's about it.Quote:
Kids going hungry? I had bad parents, so they must have bad parents too.
My personal experiences are relevant. You can't talk about hungry children and then tell me my experience as a hungry child is irrelevant.
This isn't about "should" vs "is". It's about assigning the blame to the correct people. When people like poop blame Boris for a hungry child, the parents are getting cut slack for the sake of politics. Feeding children is not the job of government.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
If feeding people such as you is the job of the government, and I would say it is, then feeding children certainly should be too.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
You can disagree with the concept of the welfare state but that's the state we live in. And when it fails to provide sustenance to its own hungry children when doing so would be well within its capabilities, I am not alone in saying it's got its priorities wrong.
(And btw, it's not virtue signalling if you actually believe what you are saying. That's just a convenient Tory excuse for the backlash they've been facing over their miserliness, including from many within their own party.)
Anecdotal evidence is problematic because you can't generalise from a sample of n=1 to n=1,000,000 or however many poor kids there are. I could just as easily find you an example of a single parent who's lost their job due to covid, has bills to pay, and is struggling to make ends meet through no fault of their own. But that would also be irrelevant because we are talking about the group of hungry children as a whole, not just the one or two or three kids I know of personally, or the one kid you once were 30 years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Speaking of virtue signalling, check out Cruela DeVille here talking about drowning refugees she said should be sent to a desolate island for "processing."
#MEGA
https://twitter.com/pritipatel/statu...38002542891009
Well if you're intent on playing semantics, then no the govt do not feed me, they provide me with the means to feed myself. If I spend all my money on weed, should I get a free meal? What about if I have a dog? Should someone else feed my dog? Or perhaps someone should take the dog off me if I'm too irresponsible to put its needs ahead of my smoking habit.
I am obviously a supporter of welfare. What I don't support is unending welfare where the govt literally take on the duties of the parent.
UK welfare is already sufficient to feed children. The problem is parents. Children should not be going hungry in the UK, and if they are, then there are serious problems with the parenting that needs addressing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
The difference is you're a grown-up and are in control of your own finances. Kids don't have that control. So if you want to blame the parents, fine, I agree some of them are probably irresponsible twats. But some of them are probably just falling on hard times, and that's not the kids' fault. Surely it's easier to send them all food vouchers than to have an army of social workers investigate every single child separately to see if they're starving because their parents are twats or because the gov't chose to let them.
Have you also considered how things are slightly different this year due to covid? That was largely the impetus behind the whole campaign afaik.
I understand that. But still, the benefit system in this country is quite generous. Like I said earlier, a 2+2 family get around £1100 a month, before rent and council tax. So "hard times" is no excuse for kids going hungry. It's a reason to not drink as much, not buy scratchcards, not eat maccies, not go on holiday, not buy new clothes from designer stores, etc. Food for children is literally the highest priority.Quote:
But some of them are probably just falling on hard times
No it's not the kids' fault their parents are terrible. And yes it's easier to dish out vouchers instead of sending out social workers. So you want the easy solution instead of the responsible solution? If you dish out vouchers, that provides an incentive for parents to keep being terrible. If you send a social worker, that provides an incentive for parents to stop being terrible.
And yes covid is a factor. That's why there are lots more people claiming UC. This is enough, provided parents don't squander the money.
I did just do some research to see how parents who own their property pay their mortgage when claiming benefits. I pay rent, which I get from the govt. Homeowners have to apply for a loan, but this loan is basically tagged to the value of the property and doesn't have to be paid back until the property is sold. So parents who cannot pay their mortgage get the help they need too.
Aside from extreme circumstances, I see no reason why a child should be going hungry in this country. It's nearly always bad parenting, and it's sufficiently serious enough for the govt to do more than simply provide meal vouchers.
Do you think there was time last week to set up proper system to determine which parents would be letting their kids go hungry this week? How about by xmas holiday?
I don't disagree with your premise I just don't think it's practical.
Why did it need to be set up last week? There is already a social services system that has been functional since at least when I was a kid. What do you suppose happened after I rang the bell for lunch? I don't know this for certain, but I'm going to guess that one of the teachers contacted my social worker to inform them of their concerns. Today that is a legal requirement, it's called safeguarding.
Kids aren't at school during half term - that's kind of the point of the vouchers.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
So they can't ring the bell. I suppose they can call the fire department directly if they're hungry, but I'm just not sure they all have your moxie.
Whether you realise it or not, you are demanding the govt enable bad parenting. Meal vouchers only serve to mask a problem that needs to be identified and dealt with. It encourages people to spend less of their actual money on food, which in turn is good news for tobacconists and off licenses.
The govt already provide. I know that UC is a pittance, there's no life of luxury. But the govt should not be providing luxury, they should be providing essentials, which they do.
Don't get me wrong, I understand why people get outraged about this, especially given that MPs are getting pay rises while everyone else is laid off. Corruption and "me first" mentality is rife in government, and that only fuels the outrage. But blaming the govt for bad parenting is unhelpful, and is driven by politics, not reason.
You're still ignoring the fact that the victims in all of this are the children. There obviously is a deeper problem with bad parenting that can exacerbate the problem of hungry kids, but there are also responsible parents who struggle to feed their kids nutritious meals. Things like saying 'you can buy cheese and crackers for 40p a meal, and throw in the occassional hotdog. so just stretch your budget so it's calorie-rich and nutrient poor, but at least your kid won't starve' doesn't help because you can't live a healthy life with such an unabalanced diet.
Also, putting in a system that can properly identify when parents are mis-spending their pittance, even if that were possible, is going to cost the taxpayer more and would be very intrusive besides, and also would take time. It's not like there's a bunch of social workers sitting around with nothing to do all day, so let's put them in charge of auditing how everyone on benefits spends their money. You'd have to hire a lot more people and then hope no-one buys anything with cash so you can track their purchases. Aside from the Big Brother aspect of it, it just isn't practical and it also doesn't address what is happening right now, this week, with kids going hungry.
There's an immediate problem right now that can be solved with a few million quid. We can look for ways to solve the more difficult problems starting next week if we want, and we should.
In other news, Fox News calls out the freedom-hating Kiwis.
#MNZGA
https://twitter.com/MoaVideos/status...42534266753026
I'm unconvinced about this. Fruit and veg is not expensive. And school meals aren't quite what they were in terms of nutrition. Any voucher system is going to be cheap processed food, it's not going to be full of fresh fruit and veg which require preparation and therefore time. So if the goal is nutrition, then vouchers is not going to solve this problem.Quote:
...but there are also responsible parents who struggle to feed their kids nutritious meals.
It costs fuck all if there is a voucher system for parents who need extra financial help. Anyone who asks for such help immediately becomes known to social services, and further checks can be made. Perhaps you can ignore the first request, anyone can have a sudden bill or something that stretches the budget. But the second or third time, you have to start asking what is happening to their money they are re3ceiving already to support their family. Maybe the incentive can come in terms of docking their benefits the value of the voucher.Quote:
Also, putting in a system that can properly identify when parents are mis-spending their pittance, even if that were possible, is going to cost the taxpayer more and would be very intrusive
It doesn't solve the problem, it exasperates if. Parents are getting away with failing in their duties, and being rewarded for it. That incentivises them to continue as they were.Quote:
There's an immediate problem right now that can be solved with a few million quid. We can look for ways to solve the more difficult problems starting next week if we want, and we should.
lol at USA mocking NZ's freedoms.
Incarceration rates...
USA - 716/100000
NZ - 220/100000
^ that NZ figure is pretty high, btw, nearly twice the per capita rate of the UK. That's how far ahead of the rest of the pack USA are.
FREEEEEEDOM
Iceland is 38/100000
That's a total prison population of around 120-odd.
China is lower than many parts of Europe.
There's a lot cool maps on this page too.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/com..._in_the_world/
I was like... how is USA not #1, here. What're the stats? Wait... how is something above >700?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Wow... that's... way above 700. It's out of how many?
Oh. oh I see.
heh. It's funny 'cause Australia is the sex number.
Nice.
;)
So Boris (finally) caved and took the advice of his scientists, putting us in lockdown (but only after FRA and GER did it). Of course, now he's being accused of "giving in to science". #LOLMEGA
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavir...kdown-12120759
I've got my lockdown weed.
Pretty sure the rules allow a fairly liberal interpretation of "essential trips."
Boris is self-isolating again lol.
https://twitter.com/SpillerOfTea/sta...06145307832321
"What about the own goal?"
"Which one?"
lmao
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SP1dV7AZ8M