I think we all might be missing the point here. What kind of society are we living in where in the fifth or sixth (I can’t keep up) richest economy in the world and we’re talking about our fellows having to choose between eating or watching tv. Something is drastically wrong don’t you think ?
You create the group - those that don't eat or feed their families in favour of having TVs. Then people might say, that is not right - I didn't have a tv once and I did alright - feeding my family is more important - it is their own fault. But the scenario is a simple fabrication of something far more complex. If people debate on your terms they fall into the trap of agreeing people are making these choices and are therefore not really that poor or struggling that much.
and what do you say?
So this group i've created (see my post at 2:56), do you not believe then that there is a group that may prioritise a number of things (pick from TV, Mobile Phones, Holiday, car, whatever you like) over was I would consider more essential items (roof/clothes/food)? You didn't disagree with that view when you said "You can buy a flat screen tv for £30 second hand. Are we saying they shouldn't be able to watch some tv?" - this was a direct quote around people who are unable to afford to feed themselves/their families and have had to resort to using a food bank.
Your implication from your comment above is that someone who is struggling to make ends meet and unable to afford to feed themselves should still have what a lot of people would consider a luxury/non essential item over an essential item (TV was just one example, believe the quote was flatscreen TV and a mobile). Thats the main where we differ on this subject, for me - food, clothing, shelter are number one priority and I personally would sacrifice whatever I needed to, to provide those, you it would seem don't/wouldn't and I don't believe you would be alone in that (again seems post at 2:56). Thats your choice as it is anyone else who makes that choice, but it would be a choice.
There are then others who simply do not have the luxury of making that choice and without a shadow of a doubt as individuals and as a wider society we should help them.
Why don't you seek to discuss the struggling poor seeing that is where the thread was going and move the territory onto people we all may feel less sympathy towards? How many of these people that fit your very specific scenario are there? How many people in genuine poverty with miserable lives are there? It is a simple point. like saying you have no time for both main parties and always defending one and slagging off the other.
You create the group - those that don't eat or feed their families in favour of having TVs. Then people might say, that is not right - I didn't have a tv once and I did alright - feeding my family is more important - it is their own fault. But the scenario is a simple fabrication of something far more complex. If people debate on your terms they fall into the trap of agreeing people are making these choices and are therefore not really that poor or struggling that much.
and what do you say?
So this group i've created (see my post at 2:56), do you not believe then that there is a group that may prioritise a number of things (pick from TV, Mobile Phones, Holiday, car, whatever you like) over was I would consider more essential items (roof/clothes/food)? You didn't disagree with that view when you said "You can buy a flat screen tv for £30 second hand. Are we saying they shouldn't be able to watch some tv?" - this was a direct quote around people who are unable to afford to feed themselves/their families and have had to resort to using a food bank.
Your implication from your comment above is that someone who is struggling to make ends meet and unable to afford to feed themselves should still have what a lot of people would consider a luxury/non essential item over an essential item (TV was just one example, believe the quote was flatscreen TV and a mobile). Thats the main where we differ on this subject, for me - food, clothing, shelter are number one priority and I personally would sacrifice whatever I needed to, to provide those, you it would seem don't/wouldn't and I don't believe you would be alone in that (again seems post at 2:56). Thats your choice as it is anyone else who makes that choice, but it would be a choice.
There are then others who simply do not have the luxury of making that choice and without a shadow of a doubt as individuals and as a wider society we should help them.
Why don't you seek to discuss the struggling poor seeing that is where the thread was going and move the territory onto people we all may feel less sympathy towards? How many of these people that fit your very specific scenario are there? How many people in genuine poverty with miserable lives are there? It is a simple point. like saying you have no time for both main parties and always defending one and slagging off the other.
There was at least 20 posts around the ‘TV’ comment, including a handful from you, before I entered the debate, so hardly I moved it onto that territory, it was already there.
My first post was stating my surprise that some posts, including from yourself, seemed to indicate that owning a TV or Mobile Phone was a higher priority than food, either directly or indirectly.
You don’t have to engage if you don’t wish to, although you’ve posted more than double anyone else on the matter, even replying to me to say your not going to reply, nor can you dictate how someone replies to yours or other posters.
I’ve very little time for Corbyn and his current Labour Party, I thought that was clear, I’ve also criticised the Tories, although not as much as Labour granted but I suppose that’s my fault as well that the Tories are crap and Labour bloody awful IMHO
A very good point. The danger here is that we have a notion presented to us that people put TV before eating, when it isn't like that in reality. Situations are far more complex - they may have had a TV and lost their job for instance or their zero hours contract hours have dried up, or their disability isn't deemed to be affecting them as badly as it really is. Those that seek to demonise the poor chose to move into this ground where it is so simple.
No one (on here) is demonising the poor.
Genuine question, if you fell on hard times, to the extent that day to day surviving with what you had became almost impossible. Would you sell something such as a car, a TV, a mobile phone etc to be able to buy food, heat your house, pay the rent? Or not and just not eat etc?
so you're saying people have to be literally homeless in order for them to "be in poverty"?
No, where have I said that?
LMAO so muttley is saying that he’d rather have a tv than eat but you’ve never said people have to be homeless to be in poverty. Ok pal.
A very good point. The danger here is that we have a notion presented to us that people put TV before eating, when it isn't like that in reality. Situations are far more complex - they may have had a TV and lost their job for instance or their zero hours contract hours have dried up, or their disability isn't deemed to be affecting them as badly as it really is. Those that seek to demonise the poor chose to move into this ground where it is so simple.
No one (on here) is demonising the poor.
Genuine question, if you fell on hard times, to the extent that day to day surviving with what you had became almost impossible. Would you sell something such as a car, a TV, a mobile phone etc to be able to buy food, heat your house, pay the rent? Or not and just not eat etc?
so you're saying people have to be literally homeless in order for them to "be in poverty"?
No, where have I said that?
LMAO so muttley is saying that he’d rather have a tv than eat but you’ve never said people have to be homeless to be in poverty. Ok pal.
No I haven’t, please show where I have said that.
You indicated I was saying that here by quoting me:
“Genuine question, if you fell on hard times, to the extent that day to day surviving with what you had became almost impossible. Would you sell something such as a car, a TV, a mobile phone etc to be able to buy food, heat your house, pay the rent? Or not and just not eat etc?”
It was simply a question of would you sell something to pay for the things I would consider number 1 priority.
But people do sell things to live - look at Cash Converters and similar shops. Too may people in this country are in poverty and that is the important point. You may not be trying to say that these people have brought it on themselves but that is how it comes across.
But people do sell things to live - look at Cash Converters and similar shops. Too may people in this country are in poverty and that is the important point. You may not be trying to say that these people have brought it on themselves but that is how it comes across.
What I have said, or tried to get across, is if you are sending your child to school hungry having not fed them, but stand outside the school gate smoking whilst looking at your iPhone and then getting in your car to drive home then it isn’t that you cannot afford to feed them but have chosen where you prioritise what you do have and what you spend it on.
The original reply to your post about food banks (not from me) asked if any of those have a flatscreen TV or mobile phone. I thought the indication behind the question was at times, not always or even the majority, people make a choice, I’m sure you’ve seen it yourself and I gave examples of where I have seen that, literally 1/4 of my wife’s class.
Others, including yourself have come across that you need a mobile phone and we shouldn’t begrudge anyone having a TV. I simply disagree, and have said numerous times now, IMHO shelter, food and clothing are always number one priority.
None of that says or indicates there aren’t poor people in this country and society needs to help them (again, something I’ve said more than once) or that you have to be homeless to be poor.
Well we agree then. We need to do more as a country to help our poor. Where we may disagree a little is that some of them may watch some TV and still be living in poverty, but we can disagree.
Sending your kids to school hungry while smoking, driving and having an i-phone is clearly feckless behaviour. But I think the point being missed here is that a lot of people needing to use a food-bank or getting benefits are working. The real problem they face is casualised work and poverty wages. For the last 2-3 decades this has been seen as something that is essentially a problem for the individual to solve. Hopefully, with workers as diverse as McDonalds, Wetherspoons, Deliveroo and Uber going on strike in the last week, the message has got through that individual solutions do not work for a casualised workforce or low pay.
Sending your kids to school hungry while smoking, driving and having an i-phone is clearly feckless behaviour. But I think the point being missed here is that a lot of people needing to use a food-bank or getting benefits are working. The real problem they face is casualised work and poverty wages. For the last 2-3 decades this has been seen as something that is essentially a problem for the individual to solve. Hopefully, with workers as diverse as McDonalds, Wetherspoons, Deliveroo and Uber going on strike in the last week, the message has got through that individual solutions do not work for a casualised workforce or low pay.
According to the trussel trust it’s actually a very small proportion who are working who use their food banks (last report was about 28% of referral is due to low income, of which about 15% are either solely working or both working and receiving benefits, so sub 5%).
A much higher proportion are down to benefit changes/delays.
I agree on casualised work and poverty wage, in my view the latter stems back to the bringing in of in work benefits which although was a great idea on paper, just meant companies could pay a lower wage as effectively the state had agreed to top it up if you didn't pay a decent amount, so guess what they did..... It wasn't all that long ago that a shop/factory worker could afford to live solely on those wages without additional help. That would be almost impossible now as the wages have in effect gone down.
Minimum wage doesn't help at times either, as some companies view that as a maximum wage as well as minimum and it should be higher, especially for the under 21's.
But people do sell things to live - look at Cash Converters and similar shops. Too may people in this country are in poverty and that is the important point. You may not be trying to say that these people have brought it on themselves but that is how it comes across.
What I have said, or tried to get across, is if you are sending your child to school hungry having not fed them, but stand outside the school gate smoking whilst looking at your iPhone and then getting in your car to drive home then it isn’t that you cannot afford to feed them but have chosen where you prioritise what you do have and what you spend it on.
The original reply to your post about food banks (not from me) asked if any of those have a flatscreen TV or mobile phone. I thought the indication behind the question was at times, not always or even the majority, people make a choice, I’m sure you’ve seen it yourself and I gave examples of where I have seen that, literally 1/4 of my wife’s class.
Others, including yourself have come across that you need a mobile phone and we shouldn’t begrudge anyone having a TV. I simply disagree, and have said numerous times now, IMHO shelter, food and clothing are always number one priority.
None of that says or indicates there aren’t poor people in this country and society needs to help them (again, something I’ve said more than once) or that you have to be homeless to be poor.
Straight out of the Daily Mail Big Book of Quotes.
But people do sell things to live - look at Cash Converters and similar shops. Too may people in this country are in poverty and that is the important point. You may not be trying to say that these people have brought it on themselves but that is how it comes across.
What I have said, or tried to get across, is if you are sending your child to school hungry having not fed them, but stand outside the school gate smoking whilst looking at your iPhone and then getting in your car to drive home then it isn’t that you cannot afford to feed them but have chosen where you prioritise what you do have and what you spend it on.
The original reply to your post about food banks (not from me) asked if any of those have a flatscreen TV or mobile phone. I thought the indication behind the question was at times, not always or even the majority, people make a choice, I’m sure you’ve seen it yourself and I gave examples of where I have seen that, literally 1/4 of my wife’s class.
Others, including yourself have come across that you need a mobile phone and we shouldn’t begrudge anyone having a TV. I simply disagree, and have said numerous times now, IMHO shelter, food and clothing are always number one priority.
None of that says or indicates there aren’t poor people in this country and society needs to help them (again, something I’ve said more than once) or that you have to be homeless to be poor.
Straight out of the Daily Mail Big Book of Quotes.
I’ll let my wife know she’s now a daily mail book and a big one at that!!
The original argument put forward is that people who own a tv or phone aren't living in poverty, which is completely untrue.
What if you're a single parent who lives far away from their job and so needs a car to pick up children from school and go to work, and needs a phone to be told what hours or when they'll be working, what if one of their children or they care for some one with a disability so need a car for any kind of transport or a phone on them to be aware of any emergencies. Would you tell them to their faces that they can just sell their second hand car and mobile phone and their financial problems will be solved?
The original argument put forward is that people who own a tv or phone aren't living in poverty, which is completely untrue.
What if you're a single parent who lives far away from their job and so needs a car to pick up children from school and go to work, and needs a phone to be told what hours or when they'll be working, what if one of their children or they care for some one with a disability so need a car for any kind of transport or a phone on them to be aware of any emergencies. Would you tell them to their faces that they can just sell their second hand car and mobile phone and their financial problems will be solved?
Thats not how I read it,
Owning a TV/Phone or not is not an indicator of poverty as clearly there are many many people who own a TV/Phone etc that aren't in poverty as well as people who are. See my numerous posts that are apparently straight out of the daily mail big quote book.
In the scenario you describe, or as Muttley would say the groups you are creating (is this a trap?), no, I wouldn't, see my post yesterday and I may have said it again after that which would apply to your created groups "There are then others who simply do not have the luxury of making that choice and without a shadow of a doubt as individuals and as a wider society we should help them".
Have you found yet where I have said you have to be homeless to be poor
Lol, in other words despite at least twice saying I’ve said it you can only find me saying it asking where I’ve said it you couldn’t make it up...... oh, you have
Lets not get sidetracked arguing who said what and find some feckless wasters to attack. If they haven't got any food, let them eat cake.
But @MuttleyCAFC forgot the poor TV watchers, what about the poor feckers earning over £80,000 per year who have to contend with higher taxes. Poor buggers.
Yes, I should mention them more. What I need to do is post multiple times sympathising with them, and when the plight of the poor is highlighted say briefly, yes that's bad, but let's talk about the feckless who deserve to be poor. I am sorry, I will work on it.
I need to feel more sorry for myself and my family. Two owned houses with no mortgages, two cars, five holidays abroad this year, going to the west end tonight and tomorrow night to watch expensive shows..... I have it hard. Sod the poor who watch a bit of TV rather than feed their families. Feckless bastards!
Yes, I should mention them more. What I need to do is post multiple times sympathising with them, and when the plight of the poor is highlighted say briefly, yes that's bad, but let's talk about the feckless who deserve to be poor. I am sorry, I will work on it.
I need to feel more sorry for myself and my family. Two owned houses with no mortgages, two cars, five holidays abroad this year, going to the west end tonight and tomorrow night to watch expensive shows..... I have it hard, sod the poor who watch a bit of TV rather than feed their families. Feckless bastards!
Or you could continue making up stuff that literally no one has said, it's pretty entertaining.
How many of those families have mobile phones and flatscreen TVs...
That was the original post, just to remind people
Whilst discussing "families who can't afford to feed themselves" I would suggest that if you can afford luxuries such as TVs/Sky Subscriptions/Branded clothes, you can 100% afford to feed yourself, you're just making poor life choices.
Of course, this does not apply to all 'poor' people, and as a country, the UK can 100% do more to support those who need it but many people can also do more to help themselves.
Last time I was back home, I fell out with a friend to the extent that we've not spoken since, he went on a massive rant about how 'the government' do nothing to help him and had abandoned his family, how he had to rely on food banks, this is while we sat in his flat, drinking alcohol, smoking and watching sky, it was beyond ridiculous. These are the type of people I'm talking about.
I'm also in no way from a privileged background my family live on the Cherry Orchard and both my parents are disabled, so I'm hardly some toff demonising the poor.
Comments
My first post was stating my surprise that some posts, including from yourself, seemed to indicate that owning a TV or Mobile Phone was a higher priority than food, either directly or indirectly.
You don’t have to engage if you don’t wish to, although you’ve posted more than double anyone else on the matter, even replying to me to say your not going to reply, nor can you dictate how someone replies to yours or other posters.
I’ve very little time for Corbyn and his current Labour Party, I thought that was clear, I’ve also criticised the Tories, although not as much as Labour granted but I suppose that’s my fault as well that the Tories are crap and Labour bloody awful IMHO
You indicated I was saying that here by quoting me:
“Genuine question, if you fell on hard times, to the extent that day to day surviving with what you had became almost impossible. Would you sell something such as a car, a TV, a mobile phone etc to be able to buy food, heat your house, pay the rent? Or not and just not eat etc?”
It was simply a question of would you sell something to pay for the things I would consider number 1 priority.
The original reply to your post about food banks (not from me) asked if any of those have a flatscreen TV or mobile phone. I thought the indication behind the question was at times, not always or even the majority, people make a choice, I’m sure you’ve seen it yourself and I gave examples of where I have seen that, literally 1/4 of my wife’s class.
Others, including yourself have come across that you need a mobile phone and we shouldn’t begrudge anyone having a TV. I simply disagree, and have said numerous times now, IMHO shelter, food and clothing are always number one priority.
None of that says or indicates there aren’t poor people in this country and society needs to help them (again, something I’ve said more than once) or that you have to be homeless to be poor.
A much higher proportion are down to benefit changes/delays.
I agree on casualised work and poverty wage, in my view the latter stems back to the bringing in of in work benefits which although was a great idea on paper, just meant companies could pay a lower wage as effectively the state had agreed to top it up if you didn't pay a decent amount, so guess what they did..... It wasn't all that long ago that a shop/factory worker could afford to live solely on those wages without additional help. That would be almost impossible now as the wages have in effect gone down.
Minimum wage doesn't help at times either, as some companies view that as a maximum wage as well as minimum and it should be higher, especially for the under 21's.
What if you're a single parent who lives far away from their job and so needs a car to pick up children from school and go to work, and needs a phone to be told what hours or when they'll be working, what if one of their children or they care for some one with a disability so need a car for any kind of transport or a phone on them to be aware of any emergencies. Would you tell them to their faces that they can just sell their second hand car and mobile phone and their financial problems will be solved?
Owning a TV/Phone or not is not an indicator of poverty as clearly there are many many people who own a TV/Phone etc that aren't in poverty as well as people who are. See my numerous posts that are apparently straight out of the daily mail big quote book.
In the scenario you describe, or as Muttley would say the groups you are creating (is this a trap?), no, I wouldn't, see my post yesterday and I may have said it again after that which would apply to your created groups "There are then others who simply do not have the luxury of making that choice and without a shadow of a doubt as individuals and as a wider society we should help them".
Have you found yet where I have said you have to be homeless to be poor
I need to feel more sorry for myself and my family. Two owned houses with no mortgages, two cars, five holidays abroad this year, going to the west end tonight and tomorrow night to watch expensive shows..... I have it hard. Sod the poor who watch a bit of TV rather than feed their families. Feckless bastards!
Of course, this does not apply to all 'poor' people, and as a country, the UK can 100% do more to support those who need it but many people can also do more to help themselves.
Last time I was back home, I fell out with a friend to the extent that we've not spoken since, he went on a massive rant about how 'the government' do nothing to help him and had abandoned his family, how he had to rely on food banks, this is while we sat in his flat, drinking alcohol, smoking and watching sky, it was beyond ridiculous. These are the type of people I'm talking about.
I'm also in no way from a privileged background my family live on the Cherry Orchard and both my parents are disabled, so I'm hardly some toff demonising the poor.