|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
United Kingdom36161 Posts
I said nothing about misogynistic culture.
Further I disagree with most of the things you said and their implications, but it would take me too many paragraphs to explain my stance for too little gain. Suffice to say the concerns you brought up do not, for me, alter what I originally said. Your argument to me is akin to being against legalising sex (should it somehow be illegal) lest it spreads incidents of rape, because the law already finds rape extremely difficult to deal with. Imo if 3 people love each other they should be allowed to do so, and the pragmatics of law enforcement should be worked out by the appropriate people.
Generally speaking I find the inadequacies of law enforcement to be an extremely poor reason to curtail (civil) liberties.
|
On September 18 2013 21:39 marvellosity wrote:
I said nothing about misogynistic culture.
Further I disagree with most of the things you said and their implications, but it would take me too many paragraphs to explain my stance for too little gain. Suffice to say the concerns you brought up do not, for me, alter what I originally said. Your argument to me is akin to being against legalising sex (should it somehow be illegal) lest it spreads incidents of rape, because the law already finds rape extremely difficult to deal with.
This is a straw man argument since making sex illegal would not prevent rape in any way.
You don't think that conservative religions are misogynistic, or that sharia courts are unequal, and discriminatory towards women? You can have societal pressure to do something even if the law doesn't require it. This is also part of the burqa debate that is often ignored child or even adult female often have no say to decide if she can wear it or not even if it isn't officially against the law to not wear it. Liberties can also be taken away by social pressure, not only by the law.
On September 18 2013 21:39 marvellosity wrote: Imo if 3 people love each other they should be allowed to do so, and the pragmatics of law enforcement should be worked out by the appropriate people.
Generally speaking I find the inadequacies of law enforcement to be an extremely poor reason to curtail (civil) liberties.
3 people can live together just not in officially recognized relationship with benefits, and with religious ceremony. You are also completely delusional about the love part, where are polygamous relationships with multiple females, and one male or mixed ones? It is clearly uneven. One way of limiting liberties is with terrorism it is practically legal for Muslims to threaten for offending they religion in UK, they just must do it by proxy.
http://ex-muslim.org.uk/2013/09/update-on-the-threat-against-nahla-mahmoud/
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
You're making it about islam, which it isn't. You're also making it about misogyny, which it also isn't. It CAN be, but generally speaking you're making one out to be the other..
On September 18 2013 22:05 Polis wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 21:39 marvellosity wrote:
I said nothing about misogynistic culture.
Further I disagree with most of the things you said and their implications, but it would take me too many paragraphs to explain my stance for too little gain. Suffice to say the concerns you brought up do not, for me, alter what I originally said. Your argument to me is akin to being against legalising sex (should it somehow be illegal) lest it spreads incidents of rape, because the law already finds rape extremely difficult to deal with. This is a straw man argument since making sex illegal would not prevent rape in any way.
Much as polygamy being illegal doesn't prevent misogyny and abuse? And?
You don't think that conservative religions are misogynistic, or that sharia courts, and laws are unequal, and discriminatory towards women? You can have societal pressure to do something even if the law doesn't require it. This is also part of the burqa debate that is often ignored child or even adult female often have no say to decide if she can wear it or not even if it isn't officially against the law to not wear it. Liberties can also be taken away by social pressure, not only by the law.
Again, you're drawing misogyny within a particular religion as representative of the whole idea of polygamy. It isn't.
3 people can live together just not in officially recognized relationship with benefits, and with religious ceremony. You are also completely delusional about the love part, where are polygamous relationships with multiple females, and one male or mixed ones? It is clearly uneven.
Right, and I see no good reason why inheritance/hospital visiting rights/various other good things shouldn't extend to polygamy.
The part I've bolded clearly demonstrates your closed-mindedness to the whole concept. You seem to be totally blind to the possibility that multiple people can love each other, and constantly and incorrectly draw it back to islam practices.
It can be 2 women 1 man, 3 women 1 man, 2 men 1 woman, whatever.
Stop drawing it back to the very specific problem of misogyny within Islam. I really can't help or argue with you if you're framing the entirety of polygamy/polyamory in the extremely narrow terms you are.
|
On September 18 2013 22:13 marvellosity wrote:
You're making it about islam, which it isn't. You're also making it about misogyny, which it also isn't. It CAN be, but generally speaking you're making one out to be the other..
I don't make it about Islam, the real world makes it about Muslims because wast majority of people who want polygamous relationship are Muslims.
On September 18 2013 22:05 Polis wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 21:39 marvellosity wrote:
I said nothing about misogynistic culture. Becouse you ignore reality, and you talk about a lala land. Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 21:39 marvellosity wrote:Further I disagree with most of the things you said and their implications, but it would take me too many paragraphs to explain my stance for too little gain. Suffice to say the concerns you brought up do not, for me, alter what I originally said. Your argument to me is akin to being against legalising sex (should it somehow be illegal) lest it spreads incidents of rape, because the law already finds rape extremely difficult to deal with. Show nested quote +This is a straw man argument since making sex illegal would not prevent rape in any way. Much as polygamy being illegal doesn't prevent misogyny and abuse? And?
It limits it.
You don't think that conservative religions are misogynistic, or that sharia courts, and laws are unequal, and discriminatory towards women? You can have societal pressure to do something even if the law doesn't require it. This is also part of the burqa debate that is often ignored child or even adult female often have no say to decide if she can wear it or not even if it isn't officially against the law to not wear it. Liberties can also be taken away by social pressure, not only by the law.
Again, you're drawing misogyny within a particular religion as representative of the whole idea of polygamy. It isn't
I don't, but that is mostly the case today.
3 people can live together just not in officially recognized relationship with benefits, and with religious ceremony. You are also completely delusional about the love part, where are polygamous relationships with multiple females, and one male or mixed ones? It is clearly uneven.
Right, and I see no good reason why inheritance/hospital visiting rights/various other good things shouldn't extend to polygamy.
The part I've bolded clearly demonstrates your closed-mindedness to the whole concept. You seem to be totally blind to the possibility that multiple people can love each other, and constantly and incorrectly draw it back to islam practices.
It can be 2 women 1 man, 3 women 1 man, 2 men 1 woman, whatever.
I had given examples of such yet somehow I am blind to such possibility? Your mind does work in a mysterious ways.
I was talking about reality, not about what it might be, if there would be no problems with misogyny related to polygamy today then I wouldn't have anything against it.
Stop drawing it back to the very specific problem of misogyny within Islam. I really can't help or argue with you if you're framing the entirety of polygamy/polyamory in the extremely narrow terms you are.
But that is the problem with it today, there is no intrinsic problems with polygamy.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
So to recap.
1) failure of law enforcement is not an adequate reason to curtail liberties (already said)
2) the fact that misogyny exists within islam does not discredit polygamy as a concept (also see 1))
3) your view of reality is warped.On September 18 2013 22:05 Polis wrote:
You are also completely delusional about the love part, where are polygamous relationships with multiple females, and one male or mixed ones? Similar to how narrow-minded people (and even some not so narrow-minded people) think that all gays are camp and flaming. No, they're just the ones you notice. Thus you don't hear about the happily cohabiting polyamorous couples, but you hear about shitty cases of abuse on the news...
Nothing you've said has offered any good reason why a group of people who love each other should not be recognised under the law. The fact that there may be potential problems with Islam doesn't even really come close to being an adequate reason. Again, if the law enforcers need to do something different to deal with whatever problem there is, then they should do so. Criminalising something for the reasons you've offered is so silly.
a) polygamy/polyamory is fine
b) where there is abuse, it should be stamped out, and existing laws are sufficient.
There's nothing to add.
|
On September 18 2013 22:30 marvellosity wrote:
So to recap.
1) failure of law enforcement is not an adequate reason to curtail liberties (already said)
You are ignoring that liberties can also be limited by social pressure, you can't pretend that it doesn't exist, and that it can't be influenced by law, and police.
On September 18 2013 22:30 marvellosity wrote:2) the fact that misogyny exists within islam does not discredit polygamy as a concept (also see 1))
3) your view of reality is warped.
My view of reality is based on reality, yours is based on wishful thinking.
On September 18 2013 22:05 Polis wrote:
You are also completely delusional about the love part, where are polygamous relationships with multiple females, and one male or mixed ones?
Similar to how narrow-minded people (and even some not so narrow-minded people) think that all gays are camp and flaming. No, they're just the ones you notice. Thus you don't hear about the happily cohabiting polyamorous couples, but you hear about shitty cases of abuse on the news...
I know that polygamous relationships have one male, and multiple females, why it isn't mixed? I also know that polygamy is correlated with mycologist culture, so I shouldn't base my views on veritable information but on lala beliefs? I don't see how % of camp, and flaming gays is relevant to gay marriage, flamboyant people shouldn't be allowed to get married? I don't know what you are trying to say.
On September 18 2013 22:30 marvellosity wrote:Nothing you've said has offered any good reason why a group of people who love each other should not be recognised under the law. The fact that there may be potential problems with Islam doesn't even really come close to being an adequate reason. Again, if the law enforcers need to do something different to deal with whatever problem there is, then they should do so. Criminalising something for the reasons you've offered is so silly.
No, it is practical. Law enforcement is unable to control everything.
On September 18 2013 22:30 marvellosity wrote:a) polygamy/polyamory is fine
b) where there is abuse, it should be stamped out, and existing laws are sufficient.
There's nothing to add.
How are they sufficient? They are only sufficient in fantasy land where they are executed not in real world.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
We just don't have compatible views. You're missing the point in everything I say. Good day! 
|
I will just add that we have to first make the law work, and limit misogyny correlated with polygamy before legalizing, not legalizing it when the law doesn't work, and hope that it will magically start working when the track record says otherwise.
|
On September 18 2013 18:22 Zealos wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 07:33 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 18 2013 04:46 Zealos wrote:On September 17 2013 04:01 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 17 2013 03:56 Zaros wrote:On September 17 2013 03:52 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 17 2013 03:38 Zaros wrote:On September 17 2013 02:58 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 17 2013 01:56 Zaros wrote:On September 17 2013 01:37 GhastlyUprising wrote:
[quote]That's because you have no understanding of the issue, no understanding of the things that matter in people's lives, and you suffer from the prejudice that GDP growth is the be all and end all of how immigration impacts an economy.
If you open your mind and put aside your confirmation bias, you'll see you that there's actually many, many studies showing results like immigrants took 75% of jobs created in the UK in the last 15 years and half a million immigrants were given social housing while many natives sit on the waiting list for years.
In fact, reports of such studies are such common currency in the British press that I'm inclined to say they're not giving the other side a fair hearing. Where do you live, an echo chamber? Its not just GDP, if you believe the government should be active in the economy which u do, then theres tax revenue which goes to pay for schools hospitals etc, economic growth tends to mean more jobs although most at the moment do go to the elderly and immigrants but theres no reason why that trend has to go on forever. As for social housing etc pretty sure most worries about it are scare stories, caused because houses aren't being built because of green belts and restrictive planning laws. "Green belts and restrictive plannning laws". Talk about scare stories. I'm sorry, but the people of the UK aren't especially that keen about your idea of building hundreds of thousands of extra social houses and laying much of the remaining countryside to waste for the sole and express purpose of housing the rest of the world. I'm sure you can also pardon them for not being right behind you on your proposal of adding extra population, and creating tremendous short-term pressure on jobs and social services at a time when the government feels obliged to introduce measures such as the bedroom tax, over some conjectured small percentage increase in tax revenues years down the line. Even when we have the precedent of neighbouring countries with more generous immigration policies, like Sweden where there is great social unrest (to the point of riots lasting over a week) and where a third of people unemployed are immigrants. As i've said before you can double the amount of housing and make no ident on the countryside. No. You've simply misinterpreted the statistics on this. Ask anyone who lived 70 years ago and they will not tell you that the countryside has hardly been "dented". In fact they'll tell you the exact opposite. I go hiking all the time and I'm constantly struck by the devastation. Perhaps only 2% of land has been built on, but that has little to do with how visible or how cumbersome that 2% is. If someone built a skyscraper next to your house, I'm sure you wouldn't be impressed by a letter from the local council assuring you that while they're sorry for the distress caused by the skyscraper, your objection can't be given high priority in view of the fact that it only occupies a small percentage of land in your neighbourhood. You ask everyone for evidence facts and statistics, I show you facts and statistics and u throw anecdotal evidence at me. I'm not going to bother arguing with you anymore just tiresome and pointless. The ONLY way to get a handle on facts and statistics here would be to poll people to ask them about their opinions. Lo and behold, what do we find? Green spaces have a significant positive effect on people's well-being and the quality of their lives. You know that is a fucking terrible poll to bring up when talking about the quantity of green space being removed by more housing. And maybe if you weren't a "fucking" zealous crusader for capitalism you would realize the grotesque inconsistency of (a) calling for the abolition of "green belts and restrictive planning laws", and (b) assuming that development will pay special regard to green spaces so that not a square meter of land will be wasted and X% of land being built on will result in X% of green space being destroyed. The definition of green space isn't even close to "not built on". Damage to scenery, wildlife and ease of movement goes far beyond the piece of land that is built over. You're incapable of seeing such elementary flaws in your arguments because you're utterly consumed by free-market ideology. I think you completely ignored what I said and repeated when you said earlier for some bizzare reason. I have not agreed, nor disagreed with the point you're making. The issue I am taking with you, is that in response to someone saying that extra housing is not having any real effect on our countryside, you quote a poll saying that the countryside is good for people. The poll is not really relevant. I apologise for swearing, but to be honest it was mostly from shock. You don't seem to understand that if you're going to advocate an open borders policy, and play dice with the livelihoods of the voters, the burden of proof falls squarely on YOU. You need to demonstrate, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the voters' jobs aren't going to be impacted in the short-term. That building hundreds of thousands of extra council houses to accommodate the immigrants claiming them won't stretch us beyond our capacities (even though no government has embarked on such a project since the 1960s). That building these houses won't come at the loss of green belt areas that the voters would like to preserve.
Merely quoting a statistic which says that 2% of the land is built on just won't cut it. It doesn't come anywhere CLOSE to proof that there is plenty of room in this country. Sticking with ecology alone...common sense tells you that damage to scenery, ease of movement and wildlife applies to the area surrounding any site of development and goes well beyond the 2% of land that is built on.
Speak to Americans who come here and they will tell you that they miss the open spaces of their country. It's misleading in the extreme to argue that 2% of land built on = hardly a dent in the countryside.
|
On September 18 2013 23:44 GhastlyUprising wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 18:22 Zealos wrote:On September 18 2013 07:33 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 18 2013 04:46 Zealos wrote:On September 17 2013 04:01 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 17 2013 03:56 Zaros wrote:On September 17 2013 03:52 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 17 2013 03:38 Zaros wrote:On September 17 2013 02:58 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 17 2013 01:56 Zaros wrote:
[quote]
Its not just GDP, if you believe the government should be active in the economy which u do, then theres tax revenue which goes to pay for schools hospitals etc, economic growth tends to mean more jobs although most at the moment do go to the elderly and immigrants but theres no reason why that trend has to go on forever. As for social housing etc pretty sure most worries about it are scare stories, caused because houses aren't being built because of green belts and restrictive planning laws. "Green belts and restrictive plannning laws". Talk about scare stories. I'm sorry, but the people of the UK aren't especially that keen about your idea of building hundreds of thousands of extra social houses and laying much of the remaining countryside to waste for the sole and express purpose of housing the rest of the world. I'm sure you can also pardon them for not being right behind you on your proposal of adding extra population, and creating tremendous short-term pressure on jobs and social services at a time when the government feels obliged to introduce measures such as the bedroom tax, over some conjectured small percentage increase in tax revenues years down the line. Even when we have the precedent of neighbouring countries with more generous immigration policies, like Sweden where there is great social unrest (to the point of riots lasting over a week) and where a third of people unemployed are immigrants. As i've said before you can double the amount of housing and make no ident on the countryside. No. You've simply misinterpreted the statistics on this. Ask anyone who lived 70 years ago and they will not tell you that the countryside has hardly been "dented". In fact they'll tell you the exact opposite. I go hiking all the time and I'm constantly struck by the devastation. Perhaps only 2% of land has been built on, but that has little to do with how visible or how cumbersome that 2% is. If someone built a skyscraper next to your house, I'm sure you wouldn't be impressed by a letter from the local council assuring you that while they're sorry for the distress caused by the skyscraper, your objection can't be given high priority in view of the fact that it only occupies a small percentage of land in your neighbourhood. You ask everyone for evidence facts and statistics, I show you facts and statistics and u throw anecdotal evidence at me. I'm not going to bother arguing with you anymore just tiresome and pointless. The ONLY way to get a handle on facts and statistics here would be to poll people to ask them about their opinions. Lo and behold, what do we find? Green spaces have a significant positive effect on people's well-being and the quality of their lives. You know that is a fucking terrible poll to bring up when talking about the quantity of green space being removed by more housing. And maybe if you weren't a "fucking" zealous crusader for capitalism you would realize the grotesque inconsistency of (a) calling for the abolition of "green belts and restrictive planning laws", and (b) assuming that development will pay special regard to green spaces so that not a square meter of land will be wasted and X% of land being built on will result in X% of green space being destroyed. The definition of green space isn't even close to "not built on". Damage to scenery, wildlife and ease of movement goes far beyond the piece of land that is built over. You're incapable of seeing such elementary flaws in your arguments because you're utterly consumed by free-market ideology. I think you completely ignored what I said and repeated when you said earlier for some bizzare reason. I have not agreed, nor disagreed with the point you're making. The issue I am taking with you, is that in response to someone saying that extra housing is not having any real effect on our countryside, you quote a poll saying that the countryside is good for people. The poll is not really relevant. I apologise for swearing, but to be honest it was mostly from shock. You don't seem to understand that if you're going to advocate an open borders policy, and play dice with the livelihoods of the voters, the burden of proof falls squarely on YOU. You need to demonstrate, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the voters' jobs aren't going to be impacted in the short-term. That building hundreds of thousands of extra council houses to accommodate the immigrants claiming them won't stretch us beyond our capacities (even though no government has embarked on such a project since the 1960s). That building these houses won't come at the loss of green belt areas that the voters would like to preserve. Merely quoting a statistic which says that 2% of the land is built on just won't cut it. It doesn't come anywhere CLOSE to proof that there is plenty of room in this country. Sticking with ecology alone...common sense tells you that damage to scenery, ease of movement and wildlife applies to the area surrounding any site of development and goes well beyond the 2% of land that is built on. Speak to Americans who come here and they will tell you that they miss the open spaces of their country. It's misleading in the extreme to argue that 2% of land built on = hardly a dent in the countryside.
Suprise suprise voters want contradictory things, ask people if more houses should be built they will say yes, ask people if the greenbelt should be built on they say no, sometimes voters wishes aren't compatible and one has to be chosen over the other. As for the built on thing, i agree it might go beyond the 2% but there is definitely plenty of space to build on without removing any significant amount of the country side.
|
On September 18 2013 23:47 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 23:44 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 18 2013 18:22 Zealos wrote:On September 18 2013 07:33 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 18 2013 04:46 Zealos wrote:On September 17 2013 04:01 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 17 2013 03:56 Zaros wrote:On September 17 2013 03:52 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 17 2013 03:38 Zaros wrote:On September 17 2013 02:58 GhastlyUprising wrote:
[quote]"Green belts and restrictive plannning laws". Talk about scare stories. I'm sorry, but the people of the UK aren't especially that keen about your idea of building hundreds of thousands of extra social houses and laying much of the remaining countryside to waste for the sole and express purpose of housing the rest of the world.
I'm sure you can also pardon them for not being right behind you on your proposal of adding extra population, and creating tremendous short-term pressure on jobs and social services at a time when the government feels obliged to introduce measures such as the bedroom tax, over some conjectured small percentage increase in tax revenues years down the line. Even when we have the precedent of neighbouring countries with more generous immigration policies, like Sweden where there is great social unrest (to the point of riots lasting over a week) and where a third of people unemployed are immigrants. As i've said before you can double the amount of housing and make no ident on the countryside. No. You've simply misinterpreted the statistics on this. Ask anyone who lived 70 years ago and they will not tell you that the countryside has hardly been "dented". In fact they'll tell you the exact opposite. I go hiking all the time and I'm constantly struck by the devastation. Perhaps only 2% of land has been built on, but that has little to do with how visible or how cumbersome that 2% is. If someone built a skyscraper next to your house, I'm sure you wouldn't be impressed by a letter from the local council assuring you that while they're sorry for the distress caused by the skyscraper, your objection can't be given high priority in view of the fact that it only occupies a small percentage of land in your neighbourhood. You ask everyone for evidence facts and statistics, I show you facts and statistics and u throw anecdotal evidence at me. I'm not going to bother arguing with you anymore just tiresome and pointless. The ONLY way to get a handle on facts and statistics here would be to poll people to ask them about their opinions. Lo and behold, what do we find? Green spaces have a significant positive effect on people's well-being and the quality of their lives. You know that is a fucking terrible poll to bring up when talking about the quantity of green space being removed by more housing. And maybe if you weren't a "fucking" zealous crusader for capitalism you would realize the grotesque inconsistency of (a) calling for the abolition of "green belts and restrictive planning laws", and (b) assuming that development will pay special regard to green spaces so that not a square meter of land will be wasted and X% of land being built on will result in X% of green space being destroyed. The definition of green space isn't even close to "not built on". Damage to scenery, wildlife and ease of movement goes far beyond the piece of land that is built over. You're incapable of seeing such elementary flaws in your arguments because you're utterly consumed by free-market ideology. I think you completely ignored what I said and repeated when you said earlier for some bizzare reason. I have not agreed, nor disagreed with the point you're making. The issue I am taking with you, is that in response to someone saying that extra housing is not having any real effect on our countryside, you quote a poll saying that the countryside is good for people. The poll is not really relevant. I apologise for swearing, but to be honest it was mostly from shock. You don't seem to understand that if you're going to advocate an open borders policy, and play dice with the livelihoods of the voters, the burden of proof falls squarely on YOU. You need to demonstrate, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the voters' jobs aren't going to be impacted in the short-term. That building hundreds of thousands of extra council houses to accommodate the immigrants claiming them won't stretch us beyond our capacities (even though no government has embarked on such a project since the 1960s). That building these houses won't come at the loss of green belt areas that the voters would like to preserve. Merely quoting a statistic which says that 2% of the land is built on just won't cut it. It doesn't come anywhere CLOSE to proof that there is plenty of room in this country. Sticking with ecology alone...common sense tells you that damage to scenery, ease of movement and wildlife applies to the area surrounding any site of development and goes well beyond the 2% of land that is built on. Speak to Americans who come here and they will tell you that they miss the open spaces of their country. It's misleading in the extreme to argue that 2% of land built on = hardly a dent in the countryside. Suprise suprise voters want contradictory things, ask people if more houses should be built they will say yes, ask people if the greenbelt should be built on they say no, sometimes voters wishes aren't compatible and one has to be chosen over the other. As for the built on thing, i agree it might go beyond the 2% but there is definitely plenty of space to build on without removing any significant amount of the country side. I don't think these things are contradictory. They realize that a balance has to be struck. They realize that our existing population has to be accommodated.
Inviting hundreds of thousands more immigrants into this country, on the strength of the idea that we're going to build houses anyway so we might as well build loads more for immigrants, is the diametrical opposite of striking a balance. It's irresponsible.
|
On September 18 2013 08:10 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +All pupils at infant schools in England are to get free school lunches from next September, Lib Dem leader and Deputy PM Nick Clegg has announced.
The change - for children in reception, year one and year two - will save parents about £400 a year per child.
Targeting infants would ensure "every child gets the chance in life they deserve", teach healthy eating habits and boost attainment, Mr Clegg said.
But Labour said the Lib Dems could not be trusted to deliver.
Money is being provided for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to emulate the English scheme, but as education is a devolved issue, it is up to those running schools there to decide whether to spend the money on free lunches.
A Scottish government spokesman said: "We are committed to expanding this provision further and, once we see the financial implications of this announcement for Scotland, we will examine how best to deliver that expansion." Source
I disapprove of this. It should be a parents job to finance their childs life at least until the point where the child is suffering as a result of the parents neglect or poverty, in which case I'm okay footing that bill. So basically the system had before was the correct one in my opinion.
|
On September 19 2013 03:29 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 08:10 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:All pupils at infant schools in England are to get free school lunches from next September, Lib Dem leader and Deputy PM Nick Clegg has announced.
The change - for children in reception, year one and year two - will save parents about £400 a year per child.
Targeting infants would ensure "every child gets the chance in life they deserve", teach healthy eating habits and boost attainment, Mr Clegg said.
But Labour said the Lib Dems could not be trusted to deliver.
Money is being provided for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to emulate the English scheme, but as education is a devolved issue, it is up to those running schools there to decide whether to spend the money on free lunches.
A Scottish government spokesman said: "We are committed to expanding this provision further and, once we see the financial implications of this announcement for Scotland, we will examine how best to deliver that expansion." Source I disapprove of this. It should be a parents job to finance their childs life at least until the point where the child is suffering as a result of the parents neglect or poverty, in which case I'm okay footing that bill. So basically the system had before was the correct one in my opinion.
Should this financing include healthcare and education?
|
|
|
If this carries on a Conservative majority is looking increasingly likely.
Tom Newton Dunn @tnewtondunn 12m
BREAKING: YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Tories and Labour neck and neck, tied on 36% each. UKIP 12%, LD 10%. Lab lost 14 point lead over a year.
|
Proud to be English when i see that.
Guy Fawkes had the right idea.
|
On September 19 2013 06:41 Zaros wrote:
If this carries on a Conservative majority is looking increasingly likely.
Tom Newton Dunn @tnewtondunn 12m
BREAKING: YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Tories and Labour neck and neck, tied on 36% each. UKIP 12%, LD 10%. Lab lost 14 point lead over a year.
What about the Communist Party etc. Our my Comrades across the pond still fighting the good fight?
|
On September 19 2013 07:24 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2013 06:41 Zaros wrote:
If this carries on a Conservative majority is looking increasingly likely.
Tom Newton Dunn @tnewtondunn 12m
BREAKING: YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Tories and Labour neck and neck, tied on 36% each. UKIP 12%, LD 10%. Lab lost 14 point lead over a year. What about the Communist Party etc. Our my Comrades across the pond still fighting the good fight?
they died out years ago, i hear the socialist workers party is still struggling along
|
On September 18 2013 23:44 GhastlyUprising wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 18:22 Zealos wrote:On September 18 2013 07:33 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 18 2013 04:46 Zealos wrote:On September 17 2013 04:01 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 17 2013 03:56 Zaros wrote:On September 17 2013 03:52 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 17 2013 03:38 Zaros wrote:On September 17 2013 02:58 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 17 2013 01:56 Zaros wrote:
[quote]
Its not just GDP, if you believe the government should be active in the economy which u do, then theres tax revenue which goes to pay for schools hospitals etc, economic growth tends to mean more jobs although most at the moment do go to the elderly and immigrants but theres no reason why that trend has to go on forever. As for social housing etc pretty sure most worries about it are scare stories, caused because houses aren't being built because of green belts and restrictive planning laws. "Green belts and restrictive plannning laws". Talk about scare stories. I'm sorry, but the people of the UK aren't especially that keen about your idea of building hundreds of thousands of extra social houses and laying much of the remaining countryside to waste for the sole and express purpose of housing the rest of the world. I'm sure you can also pardon them for not being right behind you on your proposal of adding extra population, and creating tremendous short-term pressure on jobs and social services at a time when the government feels obliged to introduce measures such as the bedroom tax, over some conjectured small percentage increase in tax revenues years down the line. Even when we have the precedent of neighbouring countries with more generous immigration policies, like Sweden where there is great social unrest (to the point of riots lasting over a week) and where a third of people unemployed are immigrants. As i've said before you can double the amount of housing and make no ident on the countryside. No. You've simply misinterpreted the statistics on this. Ask anyone who lived 70 years ago and they will not tell you that the countryside has hardly been "dented". In fact they'll tell you the exact opposite. I go hiking all the time and I'm constantly struck by the devastation. Perhaps only 2% of land has been built on, but that has little to do with how visible or how cumbersome that 2% is. If someone built a skyscraper next to your house, I'm sure you wouldn't be impressed by a letter from the local council assuring you that while they're sorry for the distress caused by the skyscraper, your objection can't be given high priority in view of the fact that it only occupies a small percentage of land in your neighbourhood. You ask everyone for evidence facts and statistics, I show you facts and statistics and u throw anecdotal evidence at me. I'm not going to bother arguing with you anymore just tiresome and pointless. The ONLY way to get a handle on facts and statistics here would be to poll people to ask them about their opinions. Lo and behold, what do we find? Green spaces have a significant positive effect on people's well-being and the quality of their lives. You know that is a fucking terrible poll to bring up when talking about the quantity of green space being removed by more housing. And maybe if you weren't a "fucking" zealous crusader for capitalism you would realize the grotesque inconsistency of (a) calling for the abolition of "green belts and restrictive planning laws", and (b) assuming that development will pay special regard to green spaces so that not a square meter of land will be wasted and X% of land being built on will result in X% of green space being destroyed. The definition of green space isn't even close to "not built on". Damage to scenery, wildlife and ease of movement goes far beyond the piece of land that is built over. You're incapable of seeing such elementary flaws in your arguments because you're utterly consumed by free-market ideology. I think you completely ignored what I said and repeated when you said earlier for some bizzare reason. I have not agreed, nor disagreed with the point you're making. The issue I am taking with you, is that in response to someone saying that extra housing is not having any real effect on our countryside, you quote a poll saying that the countryside is good for people. The poll is not really relevant. I apologise for swearing, but to be honest it was mostly from shock. You don't seem to understand that if you're going to advocate an open borders policy, and play dice with the livelihoods of the voters, the burden of proof falls squarely on YOU. You need to demonstrate, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the voters' jobs aren't going to be impacted in the short-term. That building hundreds of thousands of extra council houses to accommodate the immigrants claiming them won't stretch us beyond our capacities (even though no government has embarked on such a project since the 1960s). That building these houses won't come at the loss of green belt areas that the voters would like to preserve. Merely quoting a statistic which says that 2% of the land is built on just won't cut it. It doesn't come anywhere CLOSE to proof that there is plenty of room in this country. Sticking with ecology alone...common sense tells you that damage to scenery, ease of movement and wildlife applies to the area surrounding any site of development and goes well beyond the 2% of land that is built on. Speak to Americans who come here and they will tell you that they miss the open spaces of their country. It's misleading in the extreme to argue that 2% of land built on = hardly a dent in the countryside.
Still missing the pointttttttt :3
Thats ok, I didn't really expect anything better
|
On September 19 2013 07:38 Zealos wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 23:44 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 18 2013 18:22 Zealos wrote:On September 18 2013 07:33 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 18 2013 04:46 Zealos wrote:On September 17 2013 04:01 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 17 2013 03:56 Zaros wrote:On September 17 2013 03:52 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 17 2013 03:38 Zaros wrote:On September 17 2013 02:58 GhastlyUprising wrote:
[quote]"Green belts and restrictive plannning laws". Talk about scare stories. I'm sorry, but the people of the UK aren't especially that keen about your idea of building hundreds of thousands of extra social houses and laying much of the remaining countryside to waste for the sole and express purpose of housing the rest of the world.
I'm sure you can also pardon them for not being right behind you on your proposal of adding extra population, and creating tremendous short-term pressure on jobs and social services at a time when the government feels obliged to introduce measures such as the bedroom tax, over some conjectured small percentage increase in tax revenues years down the line. Even when we have the precedent of neighbouring countries with more generous immigration policies, like Sweden where there is great social unrest (to the point of riots lasting over a week) and where a third of people unemployed are immigrants. As i've said before you can double the amount of housing and make no ident on the countryside. No. You've simply misinterpreted the statistics on this. Ask anyone who lived 70 years ago and they will not tell you that the countryside has hardly been "dented". In fact they'll tell you the exact opposite. I go hiking all the time and I'm constantly struck by the devastation. Perhaps only 2% of land has been built on, but that has little to do with how visible or how cumbersome that 2% is. If someone built a skyscraper next to your house, I'm sure you wouldn't be impressed by a letter from the local council assuring you that while they're sorry for the distress caused by the skyscraper, your objection can't be given high priority in view of the fact that it only occupies a small percentage of land in your neighbourhood. You ask everyone for evidence facts and statistics, I show you facts and statistics and u throw anecdotal evidence at me. I'm not going to bother arguing with you anymore just tiresome and pointless. The ONLY way to get a handle on facts and statistics here would be to poll people to ask them about their opinions. Lo and behold, what do we find? Green spaces have a significant positive effect on people's well-being and the quality of their lives. You know that is a fucking terrible poll to bring up when talking about the quantity of green space being removed by more housing. And maybe if you weren't a "fucking" zealous crusader for capitalism you would realize the grotesque inconsistency of (a) calling for the abolition of "green belts and restrictive planning laws", and (b) assuming that development will pay special regard to green spaces so that not a square meter of land will be wasted and X% of land being built on will result in X% of green space being destroyed. The definition of green space isn't even close to "not built on". Damage to scenery, wildlife and ease of movement goes far beyond the piece of land that is built over. You're incapable of seeing such elementary flaws in your arguments because you're utterly consumed by free-market ideology. I think you completely ignored what I said and repeated when you said earlier for some bizzare reason. I have not agreed, nor disagreed with the point you're making. The issue I am taking with you, is that in response to someone saying that extra housing is not having any real effect on our countryside, you quote a poll saying that the countryside is good for people. The poll is not really relevant. I apologise for swearing, but to be honest it was mostly from shock. You don't seem to understand that if you're going to advocate an open borders policy, and play dice with the livelihoods of the voters, the burden of proof falls squarely on YOU. You need to demonstrate, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the voters' jobs aren't going to be impacted in the short-term. That building hundreds of thousands of extra council houses to accommodate the immigrants claiming them won't stretch us beyond our capacities (even though no government has embarked on such a project since the 1960s). That building these houses won't come at the loss of green belt areas that the voters would like to preserve. Merely quoting a statistic which says that 2% of the land is built on just won't cut it. It doesn't come anywhere CLOSE to proof that there is plenty of room in this country. Sticking with ecology alone...common sense tells you that damage to scenery, ease of movement and wildlife applies to the area surrounding any site of development and goes well beyond the 2% of land that is built on. Speak to Americans who come here and they will tell you that they miss the open spaces of their country. It's misleading in the extreme to argue that 2% of land built on = hardly a dent in the countryside. Still missing the pointttttttt :3 Thats ok, I didn't really expect anything better Then you mustn't have the best reading comprehension in the world, because I expressed myself quite clearly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
