• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

The real question is that given various ministers and the PM's spokesman have confirmed that they respect the court's decision and would arrest those in question if they set foot on UK territory (which includes, BTW, the British embassy in Israel itself and more awkwardly, British military airfields in Cyprus, which are frequently used by Israeli forces and diplomatic flights), but given said court's ruling along with the issuing of arrest warrants is that there are reasonable grounds to suspect war crimes have been committed deliberately by Israeli military forces, authorised by the Israeli government, whether the UK should cease all military aid and support to Israel.

I don't necessarily agree with the warrant myself, but as per the government, we've signed up by treaty to the ICC and given the government has stated they respect and will abide by the court's judgement, they must abide by that and given the US will no doubt continue to support Israeli military actions, the UK must also cease all military co-operation with the US as being a facilitator in criminal breaches of international law. The UK must also impose sanctions on both Israel and the US in line with the requirements of the UK's human rights international sanctions legislation.....

....unless the government wants to be selective with its adherence and respect of the ICC's decisions.
 
Kompakted said:
I have 3 kids in primary school. There's absolutely nothing wrong with our education. Just had a hernia operation also. Within 5 weeks of referral from my GP. Things are not as bad as people make out.
Click to expand...
I'm sure you are, but the people that live in less affluent area's, are not so lucky.

And just because you had a good experience, doesn't mean the rest is society does
 
Kompakted said:
The real question is that given various ministers and the PM's spokesman have confirmed that they respect the court's decision and would arrest those in question if they set foot on UK territory (which includes, BTW, the British embassy in Israel itself and more awkwardly, British military airfields in Cyprus, which are frequently used by Israeli forces and diplomatic flights), but given said court's ruling along with the issuing of arrest warrants is that there are reasonable grounds to suspect war crimes have been committed deliberately by Israeli military forces, authorised by the Israeli government, whether the UK should cease all military aid and support to Israel.

I don't necessarily agree with the warrant myself, but as per the government, we've signed up by treaty to the ICC and given the government has stated they respect and will abide by the court's judgement, they must abide by that and given the US will no doubt continue to support Israeli military actions, the UK must also cease all military co-operation with the US as being a facilitator in criminal breaches of international law. The UK must also impose sanctions on both Israel and the US in line with the requirements of the UK's human rights international sanctions legislation.....

....unless the government wants to be selective with its adherence and respect of the ICC's decisions.
Click to expand...
I guarantee he'll take the cowardly option for each and every one of those decisions.
 
scaramanga said:
You (and the author(s) of that article) are still missing the point. Look at the measure they use for calculating poverty - a proportion of the median income.

Let me explain with an example. If the median income became £100k tomorrow and nothing happened to inflation, a £60k salary would be considered to be in poverty. Now £60k isn't a lot in London with a family and a mortgage, but it's a million miles from what any sensible person would describe as being in poverty. Would you still insist that people earning £60k are in poverty? Or would you concede that a percentage of median income is an incredibly silly and politically loaded way to measure poverty?
Click to expand...

So around 3716 a month, for 850 a week.
Are there kids?
Are there commute costs?
Are there childcare costs?
As well as the expenses of just living (food, fuel).
Let's say rent/mortgage is 2k a month...you see where this all starts falling down?
So no, I won't concede anything. If you can take the figures here and disprove those, I'm all eyes. It still does not account for the vast amount of peoople who are on such tight lines they have to visit food banks, albeit I suppose you're someone who thinks that if you can drive a car to a food bank you have no business visiting one!




scaramanga said:
What about the right to release employees within 2 years? Many of the people that work for me now would never have started working for me without that option - we would never have taken a chance on them.

And zero hour contracts can be very useful. In the past, we've had customers ask for ancillary work on a fairly sporadic basis. It's impossible to have permanent employees for that work, they'd spend most of the year standing around with their thumbs up their arses. So we have two options - zero hour contracts for people that want sporadic work and don't want to be tied to 40 hours, or use an employment agency which has exactly the same result for the employee except they get paid a little less, we pay a little more and the agency sharks get some more money to buy coke with.

Which is the better option?
Click to expand...

The situation you are discussing with regards to zero hour contracts is a best-case use. I think you know all too well that it is an abused area of employment.

https://www.gqrr.com/news/tuc-abusive-use-of-zero-hours-contracts-is-increasing/
 
thfcsteff said:
So around 3716 a month, for 850 a week.
Are there kids?
Are there commute costs?
Are there childcare costs?
As well as the expenses of just living (food, fuel).
Let's say rent/mortgage is 2k a month...you see where this all starts falling down?
So no, I won't concede anything. If you can take the figures here and disprove those, I'm all eyes. It still does not account for the vast amount of peoople who are on such tight lines they have to visit food banks, albeit I suppose you're someone who thinks that if you can drive a car to a food bank you have no business visiting one!
Click to expand...

You're still missing the point. It's not about the numbers.

Let's make the median income £200k a year. Then 60% of the median income is £120k. Is an arbitrary percentage of the median income poverty then or not?

What about someone who earns almost nothing but has enough land to grow the cows and vegetables and chickens they need to keep their family fed, with enough wood to keep them warm. Are they in poverty? What about someone who's inherited £Ms and doesn't work at all? Their earnings are 0% of the median income - are they in poverty?

thfcsteff said:
The situation you are discussing with regards to zero hour contracts is a best-case use. I think you know all too well that it is an abused area of employment.

https://www.gqrr.com/news/tuc-abusive-use-of-zero-hours-contracts-is-increasing/
Click to expand...
I'll give you a life tip that will save you time in future. If the TUC said it, it's flimflam. Skip it and ignore.
 
scaramanga said:
You're still missing the point. It's not about the numbers.

Let's make the median income £200k a year. Then 60% of the median income is £120k. Is an arbitrary percentage of the median income poverty then or not?

What about someone who earns almost nothing but has enough land to grow the cows and vegetables and chickens they need to keep their family fed, with enough wood to keep them warm. Are they in poverty? What about someone who's inherited £Ms and doesn't work at all? Their earnings are 0% of the median income - are they in poverty?


I'll give you a life tip that will save you time in future. If the TUC said it, it's flimflam. Skip it and ignore.
Click to expand...

I'll give you a life tip Scara. Don't ever, ever try to evaluate poverty. You have no interest in understanding, or trying to deal with it as a national issue.

You asked, "What about someone who earns almost nothing but has enough land to grow the cows and vegetables and chickens they need to keep their family fed, with enough wood to keep them warm. Are they in poverty?"
Again, no context. Have they chosen a life outside the 'system' which is self-sustaining? If so, they would consider themselves wealthy (quite rightly so).
But your flimsy attempt to compare that with current poverty is laughable. Do you think any of the studies and definitions of poverty include people who have made such choices?
Your talk about me 'missing points' is amusing. Of course it's not about numbers. If your median income was 200k then proportionately living expenses would also be higher.

Again, you're either interested in solving the growing wealth inequity, or you're a keen subscriber to the financial and govenmental model they're about to embark upon in the US, you know, the one which says if government is operated on a stock market driven series of moves then it will be 'good for everyone' which is patently gonads.

It's probably a futile conversation between us to be honest. I don't think either of us believe the other has a clue. We're not going to agree on much are we?!
 
thfcsteff said:
I'll give you a life tip Scara. Don't ever, ever try to evaluate poverty. You have no interest in understanding, or trying to deal with it as a national issue.

You asked, "What about someone who earns almost nothing but has enough land to grow the cows and vegetables and chickens they need to keep their family fed, with enough wood to keep them warm. Are they in poverty?"
Again, no context. Have they chosen a life outside the 'system' which is self-sustaining? If so, they would consider themselves wealthy (quite rightly so).
But your flimsy attempt to compare that with current poverty is laughable. Do you think any of the studies and definitions of poverty include people who have made such choices?
Your talk about me 'missing points' is amusing. Of course it's not about numbers. If your median income was 200k then proportionately living expenses would also be higher.

Again, you're either interested in solving the growing wealth inequity, or you're a keen subscriber to the financial and govenmental model they're about to embark upon in the US, you know, the one which says if government is operated on a stock market driven series of moves then it will be 'good for everyone' which is patently gonads.

It's probably a futile conversation between us to be honest. I don't think either of us believe the other has a clue. We're not going to agree on much are we?!
Click to expand...
I gave up reading any of his posts in the politics thread when he spent a week in 2020 informing us all that you could only catch Covid once.

Everything anyone needs to know on any potential insight from that direction right there.

Note he’s posted something and skim past is good advice.
 
Last edited:
thfcsteff said:
I'll give you a life tip Scara. Don't ever, ever try to evaluate poverty. You have no interest in understanding, or trying to deal with it as a national issue.

You asked, "What about someone who earns almost nothing but has enough land to grow the cows and vegetables and chickens they need to keep their family fed, with enough wood to keep them warm. Are they in poverty?"
Again, no context. Have they chosen a life outside the 'system' which is self-sustaining? If so, they would consider themselves wealthy (quite rightly so).
But your flimsy attempt to compare that with current poverty is laughable. Do you think any of the studies and definitions of poverty include people who have made such choices?
Your talk about me 'missing points' is amusing. Of course it's not about numbers. If your median income was 200k then proportionately living expenses would also be higher.

Again, you're either interested in solving the growing wealth inequity, or you're a keen subscriber to the financial and govenmental model they're about to embark upon in the US, you know, the one which says if government is operated on a stock market driven series of moves then it will be 'good for everyone' which is patently gonads.

It's probably a futile conversation between us to be honest. I don't think either of us believe the other has a clue. We're not going to agree on much are we?!
Click to expand...
If course I'm not interested in inequality - it has no relevance to anything. Certainly not poverty.

I'm interested in whether those at the bottom of the scale have enough. What everyone else has is only relevant for jealousy.

So again please answer with a yes or no. If poverty is earning 60% of the median income, is a person with a £20m house and £20m in cash who earns nothing at all in poverty? Because they are as defined by those fools you keep quoting.
 
Mikey10 said:
I gave up reading any of his posts in the politics thread when he spent a week in 2020 informing us all that you could only catch Covid once.

Everything anyone needs to know on any potential insight from that direction right there.

Note he’s posted something and skim past is good advice.
Click to expand...
Who gives a fudge about a cold?

If you've had the same COVID strain twice then you should see someone about your immune system.
 
Last edited:
scaramanga said:
Unfortunately not as we have a spineless, back stabbing coward for a PM.

Can't imagine any country would be to keen to help us if we ever end up in military trouble if that's how we treat allies.
Click to expand...

You treat your friends best by telling them to stop doing something when they are being dingdongs. And when that dingdongish thing is committing genocide, you definitely take a hard line with them.
 
scaramanga said:
You (and the author(s) of that article) are still missing the point. Look at the measure they use for calculating poverty - a proportion of the median income.

Let me explain with an example. If the median income became £100k tomorrow and nothing happened to inflation, a £60k salary would be considered to be in poverty. Now £60k isn't a lot in London with a family and a mortgage, but it's a million miles from what any sensible person would describe as being in poverty. Would you still insist that people earning £60k are in poverty? Or would you concede that a percentage of median income is an incredibly silly and politically loaded way to measure poverty?


What about the right to release employees within 2 years? Many of the people that work for me now would never have started working for me without that option - we would never have taken a chance on them.

And zero hour contracts can be very useful. In the past, we've had customers ask for ancillary work on a fairly sporadic basis. It's impossible to have permanent employees for that work, they'd spend most of the year standing around with their thumbs up their arses. So we have two options - zero hour contracts for people that want sporadic work and don't want to be tied to 40 hours, or use an employment agency which has exactly the same result for the employee except they get paid a little less, we pay a little more and the agency sharks get some more money to buy coke with.

Which is the better option?
Click to expand...

If they are part time and sporadic why not use self employed people? Effectively the same as zero hours but with less rights?
 
The economy isn’t doing too well. It seems like we are going to suffer a bit before we can rebuild.

Those supporting Brexit were supposedly fine with reduced economic activity and less money. Now less so!

All sane predictions saw our economy with less GDP and less growth, which of course means less tax revenue and this has come to fruition. What did you expect @scaramanga This is the reality you espoused and said you wanted. Mind you you also argued fervently that we’d be trading with non-EU nations and this was where all the growth was. What happened to that?
 
thfcsteff said:
I'll give you a life tip Scara. Don't ever, ever try to evaluate poverty. You have no interest in understanding, or trying to deal with it as a national issue.

You asked, "What about someone who earns almost nothing but has enough land to grow the cows and vegetables and chickens they need to keep their family fed, with enough wood to keep them warm. Are they in poverty?"
Again, no context. Have they chosen a life outside the 'system' which is self-sustaining? If so, they would consider themselves wealthy (quite rightly so).
But your flimsy attempt to compare that with current poverty is laughable. Do you think any of the studies and definitions of poverty include people who have made such choices?
Your talk about me 'missing points' is amusing. Of course it's not about numbers. If your median income was 200k then proportionately living expenses would also be higher.

Again, you're either interested in solving the growing wealth inequity, or you're a keen subscriber to the financial and govenmental model they're about to embark upon in the US, you know, the one which says if government is operated on a stock market driven series of moves then it will be 'good for everyone' which is patently gonads.

It's probably a futile conversation between us to be honest. I don't think either of us believe the other has a clue. We're not going to agree on much are we?!
Click to expand...
Opening salvo - love it! Top tip for those that believe poverty is a very targeted problem in the UK that requires very targeted solutions - "you shouldn't ever ever evaluate poverty - you should leave it to the likes of us, that think that tonnes of money and resources need to be thrown at it.

And the thing for me is this mentality is kind of fine for commentators but what really concerns me is that this new government's starting point is actually the same. Their mantra is "everything is broken".

Very different to the last Labour government under Blair where they did actually inherit many of the same issues (the UK had just come out of a recession, geopolitical issues such as Northern Ireland and the balkans existed) but their initial output was basically positivity about Britain and the future: some of it was cringe (remember "cool Britannia"?) but the problem is when you tell everyone "everything is a s***show", people don't know where to begin.

What we are seeing currently is a complete loss of external and internal business confidence in the UK. If you're thinking about where to base your new European operations and the UK government is telling everyone that will listen that everything is s*** and it will take ages to fix?

We are seeing a total lack of leadership (where the f*** is Starmer half the time BTW?) and strategy.

Everything is s*** doesn't allow prioritisation. So they've decided to save a few quid "because everything ie s*** and we need the money" by decommissioning a load of older military hardware early. This is at a time when figures like Donald Tusk are saying we've never been closer to WW3.
 
SpurMeUp said:
The economy isn’t doing too well. It seems like we are going to suffer a bit before we can rebuild.

Those supporting Brexit were supposedly fine with reduced economic activity and less money. Now less so!

All sane predictions saw our economy with less GDP and less growth, which of course means less tax revenue and this has come to fruition. What did you expect @scaramanga This is the reality you espoused and said you wanted. Mind you you also argued fervently that we’d be trading with non-EU nations and this was where all the growth was. What happened to that?
Click to expand...

Funny that!

Also, how are these farmers protesting with a straight face, a lot of them voted for Brexit, and now they are protesting losing protections the EU gave them...

They should know more than any, about reaping what you sow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back