The Politics Thread

[thebish]

No, god no, they aren't! The 'right' for kids to have free milk is not at all a human right. Human rights are universal, unconditional rights to each and every human being, the right to a fair trial for example, the right to religious freedom, free speech, these are rights for which wars are waged, and foreign policy dictated, kids free milk does not fit in the same list. Who are the people singing the songs? By your own admission you were the one who introduced the concept of 'human rights' to a debate on milk! This is why we see raging articles in the Mail and the Express about human rights!

I wonder why I bother some times, I really do. Do we live in the same world at all Pru?

The people (the non-producers who sing the loudest about everthing), the ones who don't have the benefits of university educations to help them define the differences, or see why they should bother, are the ones who want free everything. This is the point I was making. They see everything as a right without having to contribute fax-all to anything. There are a lot of them-far to many for the country to support without making cuts somewhere. I know what the concept of human rights is as well as you do, but the term has become abused beyond description. Lifers sue prisons for invading their human rights. It's a joke. The law defines how much money we need to live on and make it the same for the workers as the shysters. They've made it a human right. It shouldn't be, but then again, I've spent my life contributing towards a welfare society. Those who don't are the ones who make it all necessary by making issues like kids free milk seem like a national disaster. These are the ones who cause all the hue and cry about eveything that they see as their right.

Bruce is right in as much as why should he be responsible for all the wastrels in this area of society. Worthy sees it as contributing not hurting him because of his circumstances (again, earned by contributing). I see it as primarily the fault of all those who keep banging on about their rights. That's what I stated. It isn't just a simple debate about milk, it's about the causes that make the issue necessary in the first place. The dodgers. How simple is that?

oooh tango - why do you tempt us so?? can i resist??? yes - of course I can! I am all holiday-relaxed and thus immune!

anyway - since the tories told us that it isn't beneficial - and it's a waste of money - and (as Brucey points out) - it is the family's job to buy the milk - then why are the tories wasting £40million a year on milk for kiddies when there's a recession on??

didn't they promise us they were the ones who would not fight shy of difficult decisions?? or did i miss something?

[Prufrock]

No, god no, they aren't! The 'right' for kids to have free milk is not at all a human right. Human rights are universal, unconditional rights to each and every human being, the right to a fair trial for example, the right to religious freedom, free speech, these are rights for which wars are waged, and foreign policy dictated, kids free milk does not fit in the same list. Who are the people singing the songs? By your own admission you were the one who introduced the concept of 'human rights' to a debate on milk! This is why we see raging articles in the Mail and the Express about human rights!

I wonder why I bother some times, I really do. Do we live in the same world at all Pru?

The people (the non-producers who sing the loudest about everthing), the ones who don't have the benefits of university educations to help them define the differences, or see why they should bother, are the ones who want free everything. This is the point I was making. They see everything as a right without having to contribute fax-all to anything. There are a lot of them-far to many for the country to support without making cuts somewhere. I know what the concept of human rights is as well as you do, but the term has become abused beyond description. Lifers sue prisons for invading their human rights. It's a joke. The law defines how much money we need to live on and make it the same for the workers as the shysters. They've made it a human right. It shouldn't be, but then again, I've spent my life contributing towards a welfare society. Those who don't are the ones who make it all necessary by making issues like kids free milk seem like a national disaster. These are the ones who cause all the hue and cry about eveything that they see as their right.

Bruce is right in as much as why should he be responsible for all the wastrels in this area of society. Worthy sees it as contributing not hurting him because of his circumstances (again, earned by contributing). I see it as primarily the fault of all those who keep banging on about their rights. That's what I stated. It isn't just a simple debate about milk, it's about the causes that make the issue necessary in the first place. The dodgers. How simple is that?

The debate isn't about dodgers at all. The debate is about whether or not milk should be provided to kids under five. Bruce said he thought it should be the parents responsibility. You were the one who introduced dodgers, human rights and benefits into this. All kids under five to my knowledge are currently entitled to this milk. If it was stopped the poorest families would be the ones who suffered, including those who do work in very low paid jobs. As far as I can see not one group of particular wasters have been up in uproar, nor has anyone suggested it contravenes the child's human rights!

[Worthy4England]

The debate wasn't originally about either case (dodgers or whether to provide milk to the under 5's)

I originally pointed out that we'd been here before with "milk" under previous tory governments.

Brucie took the view that he shouldn't be paying for other folks kids.

That was what the debate was about...

[Prufrock]

The debate wasn't originally about either case (dodgers or whether to provide milk to the under 5's)

I originally pointed out that we'd been here before with "milk" under previous tory governments.

Brucie took the view that he shouldn't be paying for other folks kids.

That was what the debate was about...

Is that not 'whether to provide milk to the under 5's'? Brucie said no, and gave his reasons, in this case, coz he's a heartless feck

The debate is perhaps then about 'milk and the under 5s' ?

[thebish]

The debate wasn't originally about either case (dodgers or whether to provide milk to the under 5's)

I originally pointed out that we'd been here before with "milk" under previous tory governments.

Brucie took the view that he shouldn't be paying for other folks kids.

That was what the debate was about...

Is that not 'whether to provide milk to the under 5's'? Brucie said no, and gave his reasons, in this case, coz he's a heartless feck

The debate is perhaps then about 'milk and the under 5s' ?

no - clearly not - it's about human rights and scroungers and political correctness gone mad. I blame the muslims.

[Worthy4England]

The debate wasn't originally about either case (dodgers or whether to provide milk to the under 5's)

I originally pointed out that we'd been here before with "milk" under previous tory governments.

Brucie took the view that he shouldn't be paying for other folks kids.

That was what the debate was about...

Is that not 'whether to provide milk to the under 5's'? Brucie said no, and gave his reasons, in this case, coz he's a heartless feck

The debate is perhaps then about 'milk and the under 5s' ?

I guess it's somewhat contextual.

I thought the important bit was "I (Brucie) shouldn't have to pay this" for someone elses kid's milk as he views milk provision as being in the domain of parents. To which I commented that it was good to see the politics of mememememe back again. (I'll pay for something as long as I see the benefit)....

[TANGODANCER]

no - clearly not - it's about human rights and scroungers and political correctness gone mad. I blame the muslims.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Nobody mentioned Halaal milk at all.

[Bruce Rioja]

You asked me answer your question...So I did.

What about meals on wheels? Surely that's for the persons family to provide - they should look after their own parents/relations? Sheltered Housing - let's put that down to families too...shouldn't be state funded, when there's really nothing medically wrong with them...

The point is, where you stop with things you don't directly benefit from as an individual.

As I say, you're missing my point (and I'll answer Pru's as well here), and my point is simple - If you can't afford to have children then don't have them - don't expect society to pick up the tab. Now you may wish to drag that around all corners for the divilment of it, that's up to you. You seem to suggest that I'm not in favour of a welfare state at all, I'd like to know how you've arrived at that judderingly ridiculous conclusion. It's not about me as an individual, is it?! I'd like a car like yours, Worthy, and your house, but I can't afford them, though given your clearly unstinting benevolence perhaps I should just pitch up at yours and move in.

[Bruce Rioja]

Brucie took the view that he shouldn't be paying for other folks kids.

That was what the debate was about...

Nah - I shouldn't be paying for the stuff that other folks should be providing for their own kids. I'm more than happy to pay for every child an education and so on. I've obviously either not made that clear or you're being a fanny. One suspects the latter.

[Gravedigger]

You asked me answer your question...So I did.

What about meals on wheels? Surely that's for the persons family to provide - they should look after their own parents/relations? Sheltered Housing - let's put that down to families too...shouldn't be state funded, when there's really nothing medically wrong with them...

The point is, where you stop with things you don't directly benefit from as an individual.

As I say, you're missing my point (and I'll answer Pru's as well here), and my point is simple - If you can't afford to have children then don't have them - don't expect society to pick up the tab. Now you may wish to drag that around all corners for the divilment of it, that's up to you. You seem to suggest that I'm not in favour of a welfare state at all, I'd like to know how you've arrived at that judderingly ridiculous conclusion. It's not about me as an individual, is it?! I'd like a car like yours, Worthy, and your house, but I can't afford them, though given your clearly unstinting benevolence perhaps I should just pitch up at yours and move in.

My grand-kids' nursery actually knocks it up (milk) from powder. They're not babies, they're four year olds. Now I don't know the cost of powder milk, or the health benefits. All I know is my grandkids would chuck up if they had to drink it. They don't, ergo x-amount wasted and how much is wasted nationwide. At least give them something palatable and healthy if we have to give them anything.
On the other side of the coin, covered a la Sun today, family of two plus eleven kids in £300,000 house(es) lotsadosh and still not good enough so old furniture out, new in and including widescreen tv's. I wonder if these kids drink milk?

[Bruce Rioja]

I guess it's somewhat contextual.

I thought the important bit was "I (Brucie) shouldn't have to pay this" for someone elses kid's milk as he views milk provision as being in the domain of parents. To which I commented that it was good to see the politics of mememememe back again. (I'll pay for something as long as I see the benefit)....

No - the point is for the very last time is that it's a parental responsibility, not the responsibility of society - feck all to do with any benefit for me. Is that finally clear?

[Worthy4England]

You asked me answer your question...So I did.

What about meals on wheels? Surely that's for the persons family to provide - they should look after their own parents/relations? Sheltered Housing - let's put that down to families too...shouldn't be state funded, when there's really nothing medically wrong with them...

The point is, where you stop with things you don't directly benefit from as an individual.

As I say, you're missing my point (and I'll answer Pru's as well here), and my point is simple - If you can't afford to have children then don't have them - don't expect society to pick up the tab. Now you may wish to drag that around all corners for the divilment of it, that's up to you. You seem to suggest that I'm not in favour of a welfare state at all, I'd like to know how you've arrived at that judderingly ridiculous conclusion. It's not about me as an individual, is it?! I'd like a car like yours, Worthy, and your house, but I can't afford them, though given your clearly unstinting benevolence perhaps I should just pitch up at yours and move in.

In that case, I have missed your point, so lets roll back the last 2 pages and start again.

I don't expect anyone to pay for my kids and can afford the ones I do have, mine don't need free milk, although I'm delighted that kids under 5 get free milk. Nice touch. (I already pay for the one of them that's over 5 and still at infants school) .

I thought you were coming from the angle of I don't have any kids, so why should I pay for someone elses, which is clearly the thin end of the particular wedge I traversed. But once people start voting for bits of welfare state, because they use them and not others because they don't, then it would be rather all about an individual rather than general policy. I was probably confused by you saying "why should I pay for someone elses kids?"

I don't think anyone's level of taxation will change either way, so I'm not unhappy with retaining milk for the under 5's.

In the spirit of benevelonce, you are welcome to my car and house, but they both come with their own paperwork involving mortgages and finance arrangements, which go along with them. They also come with a wife, 2 KIDS and a rat on a lead sometimes referred to as "the dog". Once you sign the paperwork, I will no longer be of the opinion that giving kids free milk is a good idea, as they'd be yours. Feck that for a lark.

[Bruce Rioja]

My grand-kids' nursery actually knocks it up (milk) from powder. They're not babies, they're four year olds. Now I don't know the cost of powder milk, or the health benefits. All I know is my grandkids would chuck up if they had to drink it. They don't, ergo x-amount wasted and how much is wasted nationwide. At least give them something palatable and healthy if we have to give them anything.
On the other side of the coin, covered a la Sun today, family of two plus eleven kids in £300,000 house(es) lotsadosh and still not good enough so old furniture out, new in and including widescreen tv's. I wonder if these kids drink milk?

There are some that have children as a source of unearned income. How's this situation allowed to go unchecked? By the way, a sure sign that you are in/passing the house of a chav is that percentage-wise the television will be too big for the room that it's in.

[Worthy4England]

I guess it's somewhat contextual.

I thought the important bit was "I (Brucie) shouldn't have to pay this" for someone elses kid's milk as he views milk provision as being in the domain of parents. To which I commented that it was good to see the politics of mememememe back again. (I'll pay for something as long as I see the benefit)....

No - the point is for the very last time is that it's a parental responsibility, not the responsibility of society - feck all to do with any benefit for me. Is that finally clear?

Did you get free milk at school?

[Gravedigger]

I guess it's somewhat contextual.

I thought the important bit was "I (Brucie) shouldn't have to pay this" for someone elses kid's milk as he views milk provision as being in the domain of parents. To which I commented that it was good to see the politics of mememememe back again. (I'll pay for something as long as I see the benefit)....

No - the point is for the very last time is that it's a parental responsibility, not the responsibility of society - feck all to do with any benefit for me. Is that finally clear?

Did you get free milk at school?

I did and free orange juice and free codliver oil. Jesus! The unholy trinity! And it was forced down my throat. I would have loved my mom and dad more had they told the school not to give me any of this crap! But it was in the forties so perhaps was required more than today. Mind you I didn't have a banana until I was about eleven, the vagaries of wartime rationing, but that's another story.

[Bruce Rioja]

I guess it's somewhat contextual.

I thought the important bit was "I (Brucie) shouldn't have to pay this" for someone elses kid's milk as he views milk provision as being in the domain of parents. To which I commented that it was good to see the politics of mememememe back again. (I'll pay for something as long as I see the benefit)....

No - the point is for the very last time is that it's a parental responsibility, not the responsibility of society - feck all to do with any benefit for me. Is that finally clear?

Did you get free milk at school?

I've had free milk most of my life, Worthy. My parents are farmers.

[TANGODANCER]

I guess it's somewhat contextual.

I thought the important bit was "I (Brucie) shouldn't have to pay this" for someone elses kid's milk as he views milk provision as being in the domain of parents. To which I commented that it was good to see the politics of mememememe back again. (I'll pay for something as long as I see the benefit)....

No - the point is for the very last time is that it's a parental responsibility, not the responsibility of society - feck all to do with any benefit for me. Is that finally clear?

Did you get free milk at school?

I've had free milk most of my life, Worthy. My parents are farmers.

You were just waiting patiently for that one weren't you.

[Gravedigger]

I guess it's somewhat contextual.

I thought the important bit was "I (Brucie) shouldn't have to pay this" for someone elses kid's milk as he views milk provision as being in the domain of parents. To which I commented that it was good to see the politics of mememememe back again. (I'll pay for something as long as I see the benefit)....

No - the point is for the very last time is that it's a parental responsibility, not the responsibility of society - feck all to do with any benefit for me. Is that finally clear?

Did you get free milk at school?

I've had free milk most of my life, Worthy. My parents are farmers.

You were just waiting patiently for that one weren't you.

My dad was a senior army officer but I didn't get free guns. Something wrong there.

[thebish]

Despite a rather mystifying comment elsewhere about me dishing out free milk (covered by the begging bowl) on another thread, I actually agree with Bruce.

I simply do not believe that there are parents in britain who cannot afford milk for their kids. and if it is perceived to be a problem for some - then a universal handout of milk would seem disproportionate. if it really is a problem for some - then why not simply add a carton of milk to all the means-tested free school meals that are already catered for?

WHY are the tories - having told us we need to save money and that this is not necessary - spending £40,000,000 on free school milk for children?

it wouldn't be because they LIED when they told us they would not flinch from hard decisions - would it? surely not?

[Bruce Rioja]

Despite a rather mystifying comment elsewhere about me dishing out free milk (covered by the begging bowl) on another thread, I actually agree with Bruce.

I simply do not believe that there are parents in britain who cannot afford milk for their kids. and if it is perceived to be a problem for some - then a universal handout of milk would seem disproportionate. if it really is a problem for some - then why not simply add a carton of milk to all the means-tested free school meals that are already catered for?

Or stop smoking?

Hey, this is interesting. Maybe you agree with Tango that gassing every feck* with tabs is a human right?