National News Rishi Sunak

m said:
Um. Would describing his life in faintly mocking tones on the internet not count as acting on a judgement.

Would using him as an example to try and influence the thought of others not count as acting on a judgement?
Click to expand...
'Faintly mocking tones'? If that's how perceived what I said then that's on you.
 
MustardYellow said:
'Faintly mocking tones'? If that's how perceived what I said then that's on you.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

Would describing his life to others on the internet not count as acting on a judgement?

Would using him as an example to try and influence the thought of others not count as acting on a judgement?
 
Scotchegg said:
Where does this start and finish? If you think people should mind their own business about international war crimes and the killings of 20-30,000 women and children along with up to a million more facing starvation, then why are you worried about who Oxford United Ltd. employ or how much your neighbour pays in rent?
Click to expand...
Start with things that directly effect you and your loved one's, finish with things that don't!
 
Marston Road yellow said:
Genuine question ( I’m trying to be less confrontational on here) after reading what you have written and know how bad things are in one of the biggest employers in the country, that even has a government minister overseeing it. After the last 14 years how could there be any support for the government that is overseeing that?
Click to expand...

Its not just the last 14 years is the straight/non-confrontational answer.

The NHS has lurched from crisis (PFI under Blair) to crisis (various outsourcing "ideas" mostly bad) and now we are still paying the bills for PFI and TUPE`ing folk back into the NHS after outsourcing pretty much collapsed under its own weight and the desire for easy profit.

Short term this is what impacts on the maintenance, cleaners, catering, porters, supplies etc that change ALWAYS comes from above without genuine consultation with those on the shop floor.

The biggest issue the NHS has is that "big change" takes decades not years and short term governments don`t think/care about the fallout because the other lot will get left with the mess to clear up. *

* Apply to both sides!
 
m said:
Fair enough.

Would describing his life to others on the internet not count as acting on a judgement?

Would using him as an example to try and influence the thought of others not count as acting on a judgement?
Click to expand...
Nothing I say on this thread, or indeed on this forum, has any real world consequences. I'm more talking about things that actually effect real life. If I treated him poorly or different to others because of my opinion of him (which is something I'd never do) then that's the sort of thing I mean.
 
MustardYellow said:
Nothing I say on this thread, or indeed on this forum, has any real world consequences. I'm more talking about things that actually effect real life. If I treated him poorly or different to others because of my opinion of him (which is something I'd never do) then that's the sort of thing I mean.
Click to expand...

Are you not trying to influence the thought of others?

Would that not be a real world consequence?
 
SteMerritt said:
Or we could look to do both 🤷‍♂️ As much as you'd like to paint this as a binary 'either-or' choice, it simply isn't.
Click to expand...
Precisely. We chose not to do anything about those domestic issues and the government are perfectly comfortable with letting the charity sector pick up the slack. It lets them off the hook without actually having to do a great deal.

The proliferation of food banks run by the charity sector and reliant on handouts and donations from the public, coupled with the exponential growth in their use over the last decade, tells you all you need to know about the governments attitude towards helping out with domestic issues.

And it's not like they're really doing much to tackle the root causes of that proliferation either.

And maybe the government would also like to explain why it is that charities again have to pick up the slack with help for ex-servicemen.

And again, maybe they'd like to explain to all those communities that used to get EU funding, where all the replacement funds they were promised have gone.

I bet you anything you like that you won't find one government minister who will say we're not funding these domestic things because we're giving that money to Ukraine, or Gaza or any other war torn, famine decimated region of the world.

Maybe if the government actually went after recovering all that fraudulently obtained COVID money from their chums, they might have a bit extra to chuck at some of these worthy causes.
 
Last edited:
Sheik djibouti said:
Precisely. We chose not to do anything about those domestic issues and the government are perfectly comfortable with letting the charity sector pick up the slack. It lets them off the hook without actually having to do a great deal.

The proliferation of food banks run by the charity sector and reliant on handouts and donations from the public, coupled with the exponential growth in their use over the last decade, tells you all you need to know about the governments attitude towards helping out with domestic issues.
Click to expand...
This. 100% this.
 
Sheik djibouti said:
Precisely. We chose not to do anything about those domestic issues and the government are perfectly comfortable with letting the charity sector pick up the slack. It lets them off the hook without actually having to do a great deal.

The proliferation of food banks run by the charity sector and reliant on handouts and donations from the public, coupled with the exponential growth in their use over the last decade, tells you all you need to know about the governments attitude towards helping out with domestic issues.

And it's not like they're really doing much to tackle the root causes of that proliferation either.

And maybe the government would also like to explain why it is that charities again have to pick up the slack with help for ex-servicemen.

And again, maybe they'd like to explain to all those communities that used to get EU funding, where all the replacement funds they were promised have gone.

I bet you anything you like that you won't find one government minister who will say we're not funding these domestic things because we're giving that money to Ukraine, or Gaza or any other war torn, famine decimated region of the world.

Maybe if the government actually went after recovering all that fraudulently obtained COVID money from their chums, they might have a bit extra to chuck at some of these worthy causes.
Click to expand...

First food bank opened 24 years ago.

Welfare reform is one of, if not the primary cause for the growth in use. Since 2010, the structure of the welfare system has been deliberately changed to provide overall less support to working age claimants.

Now you can see that as good or bad depending on your life views.

I would probably suggest said working age claimants seek employment - others will come up with reasons why they shouldn`t.
 
MustardYellow said:
It's not necessarily incompatible, I just find it counterproductive at this stage. We're sending money to other people to help them, while people here struggle. Maybe if less people were struggling here we'd be in a better position to help elsewhere, and actually offer more help than we are now?

I don't think scale or magnitude come into it. There's always going to be someone somewhere in the world worse off than you, does that mean you should be forever aiding them regardless of the effect on you? Also, how do you decide who to help and who not to help? Who's 'worthy' of your help and who isn't?

Political choice is probably part of it, but that doesn't change the fact money that could be spent here is being spent elsewhere.

Politics is also about optics. Financially aiding or helping to arm countries that are assets/allies to us is logical - we get something back for what we put in. 'Humanitarian' aid is one of those things where it's a financial/political decision made on emotion, but also optics - it's a good look. Imagine if the Gov announced they were stopping all foreign aid?

Also, as I've said, t's not that I 'don't give a f**k', we just prioritise different things!
Click to expand...
If spending money abroad is the root cause of people struggling at home you might have a point. Fact is, it isn't. People are struggling at home because the wealth we create is being grabbed, some might say stolen, by a few already obscenely rich individuals (one of whom is very closely related to our PM if you care to look!). This image does a lot of the hard lifting for people who still don't get this.

Edit: as Paul Heaton once sang 'Let's fight a war on greed, not a war on poverty'.


20231230_131915.jpg
 
Last edited:
Essexyellows said:
First food bank opened 24 years ago.

Welfare reform is one of, if not the primary cause for the growth in use. Since 2010, the structure of the welfare system has been deliberately changed to provide overall less support to working age claimants.

Now you can see that as good or bad depending on your life views.

I would probably suggest said working age claimants seek employment - others will come up with reasons why they shouldn`t.
Click to expand...
I get the point that the first food bank arrived under a Labour government, but charitable welfare has been a part of the Uk psyche for centuries ( harvest festival, church lunches, soup kitchens etc) for me it’s not when they were invented it’s when they were most needed. The alarming statistics are far more around use than creation.

Almost a million people used emergency food banks over 2013/14, trebling the number needing the service from a year earlier.
 
MustardYellow said:
They make him angry. In fairness to him, he's very open about how he feels about things in his life, but countless colleagues have tried to help him and he just can't help himself making problems worse. He went to a family meal late last year as a 'trial run' to see if his mum would let him come to Christmas (weird, I know). He ended up kicking off at his brother-in-law because he asked his wife (my colleagues sister) if she wouldn't mind getting him a drink. According to my colleague, he was 'perpetuating the patriarchy' and it's 'disgusting how he treats women' because of it, this despite the brother-in-law getting her a glass of wine upon arrival at his mothers house. Now maybe I'm a young man behind the times, but isn't couples occasionally getting each other things just... normal?

He has a bee in his bonnet. The running theory amongst colleagues is he's had so little in his life for so long that 'social justice' has become his life, which is why everything comes back to it. He gets very aggressive towards anyone who doesn't agree with him. If it makes him happy then it doesn't show!!!
Click to expand...
The only things you haven't given us are his name, address and email!
 
m said:
Are you not trying to influence the thought of others?

Would that not be a real world consequence?
Click to expand...
Not really tbh. I'm just putting my opinion forward, people can choose to agree with me or (more than likely!) not.
 
It does sound as if he has got a bee in his bonnet. But because one chap has reacted like this, it doesn't prove the rule. People can obsess about *anything* to the detriment of family life, whether that be social justice, politics, gambling, conspiracy theories, flat earthism, aliens etc etc (some might say you could add a middling third division football team into that list!).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom