The 'poor' (an infuriating and virtually meaningless phrase too often used in this country today) is a collection of peoples who often excuse their behaviour or are excused by others on account of 'learning difficulties'.
So there will be a 'poor' family in a council flat, and the mum will spend her money on a pet dog and a fag habit while the kids eat shit and sleep on the floor. And when the kids do badly at school and get into trouble, the parent will look all sheepish and say 'it's 'cos poor little Darren has [add bullshit made up condition here].
It could be one of any number of curiously new things. But they all fall under the simpering, pathetic bracket of 'learning difficulties'.
The state loves all this. Because it helps to cover up and make excuses for why their precious comprehensive education system is so shit, whilst at the same time inventing brilliant new ways of spending money, hiking taxes and explaining away crime rates.
"There's nothing wrong with your son, Tracey Savage, he just needs a fucking smack in the face and access to a book." - what would be said to pikey parents, in an ideal world.
But then we have the other end of the spectrum. Bullshit made up conditions that suit the agendas of the super rich.
You'll have heard of this: sex addiction.
I'm sorry, but fuck right off. There is no such fucking thing as sex addiction. I'll tell you what there is, though. There is, not sex addiction (funny how this never crops up amongst scum bags who actually do breed like apes on 'E'), but there is the phenomenon of obscenely rich men who are bloated on ego, money, drugs and a surreal world where they have everything at their fingertips but not the sense and stability to handle it properly.
Well, this won't be the view of one very rich man in the public eye at the moment. Tiger Woods cuts a sad figure these days, and like another big celeb name before him, he wants to sort out his personal life by booking himself in to a clinic for help with his ailment.
The story is utterly ludicrous. Sixty large, for a 6 week course at a 'sex clinic', charmingly known as 'rehab', as though it were for Crystal Meth-heads.
I can see why these centres open up. There's big money in this bollocks, in the same way as there is big money in organic food, mineral water and Sunny Delight. If a product is wanted, it doesn't matter if it is one giant, useless placebo. There's a demand, so there's a supply. Well, fair play to the profit makers.
But if these so-called 'sex addicts' want to spend their money, something they shouldn't be granted is any sympathy. Because rather than embracing made up non-existent, scientifically unprovable conditions to try and make their lives work, they might like to try taking responsibility.
A bit like the wasters who claim dole and churn out pikey brats in this god forsaken shit hole of a country.
So there will be a 'poor' family in a council flat, and the mum will spend her money on a pet dog and a fag habit while the kids eat shit and sleep on the floor. And when the kids do badly at school and get into trouble, the parent will look all sheepish and say 'it's 'cos poor little Darren has [add bullshit made up condition here].
It could be one of any number of curiously new things. But they all fall under the simpering, pathetic bracket of 'learning difficulties'.
The state loves all this. Because it helps to cover up and make excuses for why their precious comprehensive education system is so shit, whilst at the same time inventing brilliant new ways of spending money, hiking taxes and explaining away crime rates.
"There's nothing wrong with your son, Tracey Savage, he just needs a fucking smack in the face and access to a book." - what would be said to pikey parents, in an ideal world.But then we have the other end of the spectrum. Bullshit made up conditions that suit the agendas of the super rich.
You'll have heard of this: sex addiction.
I'm sorry, but fuck right off. There is no such fucking thing as sex addiction. I'll tell you what there is, though. There is, not sex addiction (funny how this never crops up amongst scum bags who actually do breed like apes on 'E'), but there is the phenomenon of obscenely rich men who are bloated on ego, money, drugs and a surreal world where they have everything at their fingertips but not the sense and stability to handle it properly.
Well, this won't be the view of one very rich man in the public eye at the moment. Tiger Woods cuts a sad figure these days, and like another big celeb name before him, he wants to sort out his personal life by booking himself in to a clinic for help with his ailment.
The story is utterly ludicrous. Sixty large, for a 6 week course at a 'sex clinic', charmingly known as 'rehab', as though it were for Crystal Meth-heads.
I can see why these centres open up. There's big money in this bollocks, in the same way as there is big money in organic food, mineral water and Sunny Delight. If a product is wanted, it doesn't matter if it is one giant, useless placebo. There's a demand, so there's a supply. Well, fair play to the profit makers.
But if these so-called 'sex addicts' want to spend their money, something they shouldn't be granted is any sympathy. Because rather than embracing made up non-existent, scientifically unprovable conditions to try and make their lives work, they might like to try taking responsibility.
A bit like the wasters who claim dole and churn out pikey brats in this god forsaken shit hole of a country.
16 comments:
Fuck me, those first three paragraphs are worse than anything I've ever seen in the Daily Mail, the paper you purport to despise. Fucking sweeping generalisation fueled by vitriolic snobbery? Fuck the Mail, read it right here on Numberwang & Dacrehead. At least the Mail's got Oborne and Mel.
Private: such people actually do exist in reality, as well as within the fearmongering pages of the Daily Heil. Talk to a social worker, talk to a policeman. Most of their "clients" are like the woman mentioned above. I know a social worker and whenever I see her I ask her what she has been up to lately, and although she has some pretty progressive ideas she will also have some new, awful stories about unfortunate children and their awful junkie parents.
We can't, in general, talk about this without being accused of being Daily Mailists. As soon as we mention any possible course of action that stands outside the progressive consensus ("more benefits and more state interference") we are shouted down and denounced. For example. It is as if everything written in the Daily Mail is automatically assumed to be a lie issued by the evil overlord Dacre in order to undermine Progress.
Private, I'm unclear at what point it is a sweeping generalisation. The term poor is used on a wide and unspecified level to explain away many of societies ills as are many learning issues.
Although many people suffer fromt hem, in recent years there has been a huge increase in their number with usually one unifying issue: either parents who simply don't give a shit and therefore the failings of their child must be blamed on either the teacher or a mystery health issue, or parents who treat their child as lord and master.
People are largely to blame for their own failings. Deprivation does indeed cause a range of issues that are well documented, however teching your child to be respectful and literate is free. It is also up for debate as to what deprivation really is in this country.
"A bit like the wasters who claim dole and churn out pikey brats in this god forsaken shit hole of a country."
And what example are they set by the great and the good? How can they be lectured to live worthwhile lives when they're fed a diet of incompetance,corruption and greed from Royalty,politicians,bankers,religious jockeys,big business and of course their own particular heroes,celebs. Why is it a surprise that they choose to play by their own rules rather like the others mentioned above? The State bred them in a mirror image of it's own sickness.
We have one of those sex therapy clinics near us where for a small consultion fee, a young lady from Eastern Europe will administer healing hands. It's the best place to see our local MP pressing the flesh so to speak.
Mr D, I may have called you names in the "comments" section of another blog, but I cannot fault you on this one - you're spot-on.
Well well well....and why is it bad for these scummy people to exercise their freedom of choice and breed to gain benefits?
What exactly do you want the state to change to alleviate this situation? You see, I read the link that Vladimir kindly posted (I really am going to have to find something upon which to violently disagree with him soon or people might start thinking he is my homeboy like innit?)and Mr Harris MP had to use a word quite repeatedly to make his point, that word being..
wrong.
So are questions of right and wrong when it comes to individual behaviour any business of the state or not? Discuss.
PS @ Can't Get....
You wouldn't have the address handy by any chance would you? Just out of interest...
Mr Rob. Indeed, what is "right" and what is "wrong"?
I suppose when the state gets involved in redistributing wealth, it becomes the de facto arbiter of right and wrong amongst the recipients. Welfare gives the state the power to punish or subsidise behaviour according to arbitrary criteria. The State is God.
In fact I undestand that this was one of the great appeals of the welfare state and the minimum wage, because the two work together to force people to submit to state control if their labour is worth less than the minimum wage. At one point in history (pre-WW2), some progressives apparently advocated this as part of a Darwinian programme to eliminate the welfare class, by forcing them to surrender breeding rights in exchange for welfare payments! Welfare would make it possible to exercise this sort of control without doing anything obviously "evil" against society and "the will of the people".
I don't personally think that the state has any business deciding what is right or wrong for the individual. I think ultimately that's the job of a judicial system, most particularly, a jury. But if we have to have a welfare state, what choice do we have?
@ Vladimir
A-ha! Homeboy jibes averted - the judicial system, or indeed a jury, is not there to decide what is right or wrong for an individual - it is the state, through the enactment of laws, that decides, the judicial system and jury exist to determine whether an individual has in fact done wrong according to these laws, i.e. broken them.
On the subject of Welfare, to have any degree of state assistance, one must have an idea of what constitutes a deserving case - unless you wish the same provision to be made for the undeserving also, which seems to be quite unpopular, see original post.
There would appear to have to be some system of moral values behind this judgement; even if it were made on solely Utilitarian lines (with which I would not agree) you would still need to define what was the greater good.
I suppose that a libertarian of the minarchist, let alone the anarcho-whatsit persuasion (how am I doing, chaps?) would say this is precisely why there should be no state provision of welfare.
I wonder what is more disturbing to a minarchist or ancap: (1) the state taking money from the employed in order to pay the unemployed to do nothing, or (2) the authoritarian control that is an inevitable result of a welfare system...
However, to clarify something, when I say "right" and "wrong", I am using these terms in a moral rather than legal sense, an in this sense it is most definitely not the purpose of laws is to define what "wrong" is, since some things are wrong but not illegal, and other things might be illegal but not wrong. I also think that the purpose of the judiciary is surely to decide if something is both illegal AND wrong: it's hoped that a jury will acquit people who are technically guilty of things that are only crimes in the minds of raving Stalinists.
Regarding right and wrong, very fair point. Theoretically spot on, but a little more difficult for a jury in practice - especially one consisting of people less knowledgable, self-confident or plain bolshy as most of the contributors here are.
When is it justifiable for the state to take money from the employed, the self-employed, or those whose inherited wealth renders the concept of employment
laughable?
@ Vald"I wonder what is more disturbing to a minarchist or ancap: (1) the state taking money from the employed in order to pay the unemployed to do nothing, or (2) the authoritarian control that is an inevitable result of a welfare system..."
Very good point.
We see it, if I may speak for the other one, in the first point. Hence why a degree of 'welfare' is not always a bad thing if it is going to people that do in fact need it, such as those who literally cnnot work or are very limited to do so - the mentally ill, the disabled, those who are unemployed but cannot be re-employed for a period due to serious injury maybe.
The issue we have is with money simply being dished out, money that wouldnt need to be dished out if we didn't have to pay the taxes to allow it to be dished out.
I think the second is where it goes more a-c. I don't doubt the socialist intention of re-distributing wealth via the welfare state, but at the same time Japan has a huge welfare state and isn't exactly socialist.
@Rob. "When is it justifiable for the state to take money from the employed, the self-employed, or those whose inherited wealth renders the concept of employment laughable?"
I thought about this and can't come up with a non-ideological answer. I think you can only answer this question by making an assumption about the role of the state.
@Kevin. Putting on a slightly ideological hat, I'd agree that a limited welfare system is a good idea.
However, "limited" is hard. Right now, you can't be on the long term sick unless you are cerified by your GP and at least one other doctor, who must periodically recertify you. We'd hope that this would limit access to those who have absolutely no alternative, but that's not what happens. I'm not sure why, but the system seems to be broken. I can't believe that it is really jam-packed with leftie ideologues on a mission to undermine capitalism, although I do put some stock in the theory that the bureaucrats need the welfare dependents as much as the welfare dependents need the bureaucrats.
@ Vlad
@ Kevin
Would I be correct in thinking that a libertarian of the minarchist persuasion or anything more rightwards, would believe that the state should not be providing any form of welfare at all to anyone?
That's my understanding. I think the standard answers to questions like "what about people who are severely disabled" are "life insurance" and "charity".
It sounds heartless, but if the government did not help such unfortunate people, you can be sure that others would, just as they did in the Victorian era where the workhouse was the extent of state welfare. We are human after all. We do not want others to suffer. And there is an argument that many independent charities would actually be better at caring for people than a vast state-run bureaucracy that ultimately does not care about anything beyond statistics and targets. There is something to be said for this, even though it is a "hard sell" in a country where many feel that government help is an absolute right.
Easily I agree but I think the post should have more info then it has.
Why?
Post a Comment