|
|
Post by dunserving on Jan 5, 2013 13:00:48 GMT 1
Please, no more of this crap |
|
|
|
Post by nickd on Jan 5, 2013 13:27:48 GMT 1
We all know welfare reform and many of the issues surrounding it should be taken seriously but from time to time in my view it's not inappropriate to lighten up on the subject not least because so many of us are finding it genuinely depressing. Therefore my question is do you want all posts to be deadly serious or not? 99% of the posts on the forum are factually based and to be honest the way Government is going about its reform programme is at times something which exposes them as comical. In particular IDS in his misquoting of statistics was something which attracted a great deal of ridicule in his direction on Twitter after he emerged with some outrageous misquotes of facts and figures as his way of introducing his government's agenda straight after the Christmas break. After all this lot seem to think it's one big joke....  Personally I don't see the funny side - far from it. However I take it as an encouraging sign from the fightback I'm seeing on social media that these politicians are at long last becoming the subject of the ridicule which they expose themselves wide open to so long as they continue in their fact-less quest to turn the voters against all those on benefits by continually peddling in lie after lie about welfare reform related statistics. Let's have some views on this. I've kicked off with a view from Dunserving (see above) who seems less than impressed..... What do others think? |
|
|
|
Post by dunserving on Jan 5, 2013 14:36:43 GMT 1
I'm all for humour on this site as well as others I frequent; it matters not a jot if it is humour in life, work, relationships or even politics.
What totally cheeses me off is when you post biased, one sided political comment and views on a constant basis. The stuff I commented on wasn't even slightly humorous just attacking a political party that you obviously have no time for quite rightly in my opinion considering some of their attacks on those of us too disabled to work or dependant on welfare to allow them to work.
As for the one sided view, I note you didn't post a picture of the opposition Labour Party laughing their socks off and/or heckling the government of the day e.g. Balls & Harriet Harperson!
|
|
|
|
Post by dunserving on Jan 5, 2013 14:42:03 GMT 1
I notice with interest that you deleted my comment requesting "Please, no more of this crap", but see fit as the administrator to open another topic asking for others to back your view using humour as an excuse!
|
|
|
|
Post by nickd on Jan 5, 2013 19:16:48 GMT 1
Dunserving:
The reason why your post was moved (not deleted as you can see from its appearance here) is because I considered it detracted from the post where it was and was likely to spoil others enjoyment of it; given that over 600 others have viewed it - at least it seems to be of interest to some.
I also saw it opportune to raise a new topic for discussion along the lines that we are having here. Interest in social welfare from the perceptive of the people who stand to be most affected is difficult to promote in any shape or form and thus I sought to present it in a slightly different way to see how others would (or perhaps would not) relate to the serious message contained within the content. The post will be added to and if you bear with it you will see the serious message which evolves. The problem with going in all 'serious' from the start is that invariably some just switch off and choose not to read any further - it was therefore in part an experiment to see if it captured any interest from the outset.
I can see that you perceive some of the posts on the forum as 'political' because unfortunately that's where the debate currently is in the public arena; divides where tribal politics have unfortunately given way to any real respect for social welfare. However, on social welfare on what side of the political fence does one sit when faced with a government which is doing absolutely nothing to protect what we fight for?
On social justice Labour has given this side of the fence a great deal of support in arguing for the continuance of legal aid funding for social welfare law cases - our primary concern on the forum - am I therefore not bound to back them?
As to the picture of the three jokers shown above, why chose it rather rather than one relating to the opposition party? - Because they are the government in power and as such It is their duty to show themselves to be responsible over what they are doing - the picture (in my view and that of many others) sums up their contemptuous attitude towards welfare reform; a view which at long last seems to be surfacing in the media over their inept handling of these important and so often live threatening reforms.
Cheers
Nick
|
|
|
|
Post by dunserving on Jan 5, 2013 21:20:00 GMT 1
Dunserving: The reason why your post was moved (not deleted as you can see from its appearance here) is because I considered it detracted from the post where it was and was likely to spoil others enjoyment of it; given that over 600 others have viewed it - at least it seems to be of interest to some. I also saw it opportune to raise a new topic for discussion along the lines that we are having here. Interest in social welfare from the perceptive of the people who stand to be most affected is difficult to promote in any shape or form and thus I sought to present it in a slightly different way to see how others would (or perhaps would not) relate to the serious message contained within the content. The post will be added to and if you bear with it you will see the serious message which evolves. The problem with going in all 'serious' from the start is that invariably some just switch off and choose not to read any further - it was therefore in part an experiment to see if it captured any interest from the outset. I can see that you perceive some of the posts on the forum as 'political' because unfortunately that's where the debate currently is in the public arena; divides where tribal politics have unfortunately given way to any real respect for social welfare. However, on social welfare on what side of the political fence does one sit when faced with a government which is doing absolutely nothing to protect what we fight for? On social justice Labour has given this side of the fence a great deal of support in arguing for the continuance of legal aid funding for social welfare law cases - our primary concern on the forum - am I therefore not bound to back them? As to the picture of the three jokers shown above, why chose it rather rather than one relating to the opposition party? - Because they are the government in power and as such It is their duty to show themselves to be responsible over what they are doing - the picture (in my view and that of many others) sums up their contemptuous attitude towards welfare reform; a view which at long last seems to be surfacing in the media over their inept handling of these important and so often live threatening reforms. Cheers Nick There you go again, splitting hairs. My post was deleted from the thread you started as it didn't comply with your personal views. You could just as easily have left it where it was and still started your new thread, including my comment (or not) as you saw fit. Unlike on www.youreable.com/forums/forum.php where politics does raise it's head (more often than not to highlight an injustice) you are conducting a political drive against the current government without being either balanced or objective. Just because the labour party (in opposition) support your legal aid funding argument it doesn't follow that they will honour it if they get back into government at the next election nor does it follow that labour will not attack the Welfare budget because it's been made the focus of most of the media in recent months. As for your comment on 600 viewing it, care to comment on how many actually posted? Oh yes that'll be one (me) and that comment was removed! As for political humour, here's something I robbed from the Torygraph comments: ''Government Health Advice''... 1/ Stop eating butter 2/ Stop drinking whole milk 3/ Stop eating anything with saturated fat in it. 4/ And cook your food in vegetable oil. 5/ Take ''Statins'' for the rest of your life. Question: Will this help me live longer..? Answer: Well..! ''No'', not exactly, it will probably ''shorten your life''. However, the good news is: ...That it will solve the Pensions Crisis..! |
|
|
|
Post by nickd on Jan 5, 2013 21:31:19 GMT 1
Dunserve:
That's really not the case. Yes it is of course a drive against the government for all the aforementioned reasons. Challenging a government is not being political if it is being done on objective challenge. I'm really struggling to see how you can say the argument on here is neither objective or balanced?
The objectivity is aimed at redressing the balance by carefully looking at HMG's claims (with a particular emphasis on their blatant misuse/misquoting of statistics) and then posting a corrected analysis of them; most of which are linked to HM government sources. Time and time again this government is caught out by their over - egging of the real figures. Take their media led spin on the figures that 75% had been found 'fit for work' - how is is political to challenge this by quoting the real figures?
I fail to understand how you contend that this is not an objective contribution towards the social welfare debate? How can you possibly 'balance' something which is so grossly unbalanced to start with - except by reverting to a statement of the truth?
On the issue of moving posts I quite often move them around where an article isn't yet complete ( it was marked 'more to come') to the member's question area so as not to break up the continuity. Members are always free to post what they like on the assumption they've read the whole piece. If you wait for the piece to complete you will see that it relates to how IDS is in difficulty on the 'maths' when it comes to the departmental expenditure limit imposed upon him by his chancellor and the plan they've almost certainly hatched to bury the problem.
On objectivity I have spent a good few years challenging many welfare decisions under both this government and the last one and indeed have been examining these reforms well before they came to be regarded as the car crash they appear to becoming - I therefore think I'm coming at it from a very objective viewpoint.
Be assured I do welcome your comments and enjoy your contributions, the majority tend to view only so feedback can only be for the good.
Why doesn't your finding on the ToryGraph comments surprise me! Which article did it relate to?
Cheers
Nick
|
|
|
|
Post by dunserving on Jan 5, 2013 23:34:45 GMT 1
Paragraph 1 - I'll admit, reluctantly, that the argument on here may be classed as objective but it can't be balanced if you simply focus on the governments view and ignore the oppositions alternative ideas if or when they have them. Paragraph 2 - This government, the previous one and all governments that I can remember back to the sad and difficult old days of Wilson & Heath are guilty of this. Paragraph 3 - Social Welfare has been unbalanced for many a year. Depending on which political party is in government depends on which way it is balanced. The current view put forward by the Tories is that Welfare was tilted towards the parts of the UK that tended to vote for the labour party. Paragraph 4 - That's a load of bull. If you post something and you don't want anyone putting their view then lock the thread. By removing posts that are neither inflammatory or abusive you in effect remove the right to free speech of alternate viewpoints. Paragraph 5 - Totally happy and impressed with your efforts challenging welfare decisions and scrutinising the welfare reforms before they are enacted. Someone outside government needs to do it and hold them to account. I attempt to help and advise those in a particular part of society that are often let down by their Lords & Masters (at least that's what they think they are) on a regular basis. Mainly as I am still able to get hold of the rules and regulations governing everything they do. The Torygraph comments came from this article: www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9782754/Jeremy-Hunt-considers-new-fat-and-sugar-limits.html#disqus_thread |
|
|
|
Post by nickd on Jan 5, 2013 23:42:20 GMT 1
Dunserving
Not quite sure why the reluctance Dunserve although I take this to relate to what you say about balancing rather than objectivity?
On the question of balance I re-iterate my previous points and would go so far as to say that other campaigning bodies (including those which I am closest to) have become incredibly 'lame' by their 'over balanced' counter argument. For instance nearly every campaign briefing I read will start with something along the lines of 'we warmly welcome welfare reform' whereas I think it ought to be evaluated before you say whether you welcome it or not?
Remember the benefit claimant (and there are around 30 million in the UK) is a very much under - represented individual when it comes to being able to rely on someone to take up their cause. What strikes me is the vast majority of them who I interact with both in work and on social media feel totally on their own with all this. Now if I were to engage by being over balanced I doubt whether we'd get any interest on here at all. They have no unions upon which they can rely and any reliance they may have on many of the more major charities etc which are far too politically constrained (due to funding etc) appears to be leading to a lot of disappointment when they realise they are not there to fight their corner. This doesn't by any means apply to all charities but it certainly does to some.
In principle I agree we should do need to promote the alternatives and in many posts I have done so by explaining how social welfare legal aid could be funded in other ways? I've also consistently drawn attention to how HMG's purported cost savings are in fact not savings at all - indeed they cost rather than save so therefore the argument is not to implement a cut and to point out the false ground upon which it being promoted as a 'saving'.
"...sad and difficult old days of Wilson & Heath are guilty of this" - isn't that being political? Personally I don't think it is but the minute you mention a name (as I do with IDS etc) it does instantly make you think it to be a political argument - I accept that's not the intention but it is how it can and often is perceived.
However on social justice Labour did introduce the Access to Justice act in 1999 and implemented social welfare legal aid for the first time in history - making it possible for advice agencies and law centres to hold the state to account when the state gets it wrong. The current government has run a bulldozer through social justice and could have made savings in much more expensive areas of legal aid. If Labour was doing what this government is to welfare you can be absolutely certain I would be equally on their case! I actually spend a fair amount of my time in a very good level of dialogue with my own Tory MP who has to her credit (and there are warm words of praise on here to back me up) engaged with me in very constructive dialogue over numerous issues connected with social justice.
"The current view put forward by the Tories is that Welfare was tilted towards the parts of the UK that tended to vote for the labour party" - Isn't that shaping the political map for self - (party) gain instead of looking more constructively at balancing rather than deepening the social divides?
Unfortunately You can't lock a thread on here until you've completed it - once locked it becomes impossible to unlock - hence why I put 'more to come' or protect posts by putting something like 1, 2, 3, 4 in future posts not yet filled. If I was stifling the freedom to speech we wouldn't be having this conversation now would we? I would just have banned you and refused to enter a discussion - it's not something I would do because I welcome your views and respect your right to express them that's why we're both on this forum.
Glad to have a consensus on this and like I say I do welcome your views.
Slightly off topic on what this thread was intended to be about but I genuinely thought it was the use of what I thought to be humour (we've all got different tastes! and in that regard we've had a fair laugh over it on Twitter which is an extension to the forum which many don't get to see) which was the issue rather than what you see as a political attack.
On the food issue? - I despair of how everyone has all of a sudden jumped on the bandwagon on this one! Better school meals, more exercise in the formulative years I guess and yes tighter controls on the stuff they are allowed to put in food are probably the way to go - I think the problem is way more than just sugar. Maybe more home grown food where possible. I just think there are too many topical issues being made topical at the moment to gain voter popularity. Right now my primary concern remains over people having sufficient means to buy food in the first place rather than what's in it!
Cheers
Nick
|
|
|
|
Post by jetsetwilly on Jan 6, 2013 11:41:51 GMT 1
If we cant laugh at our Government, or any political party as well as ourselves we cease to be objective.
Its also a point worth noting that Dunserving complained about some quite normal day to day language I used in a post, yet this same Dunserving is a member of an army Forum with language that would make Bernard Manning blush, yets says nothing about it ? One rule for them and one rule for us?
Aint life strange ?
|
|
|
|
Post by jetsetwilly on Jan 6, 2013 11:43:43 GMT 1
THATS funny
Well done
|
|
|
|
Post by nickd on Jan 6, 2013 13:54:56 GMT 1
Thanks Jetset - have moved your post over here for same reasons given to Dunserve. The thread does have a serious point to it though, seems like IDS and co have been out in force again misquoting statistics in readiness for Tuesday's welfare debate!
Cheers
Nick
|
|
|
|
Post by dunserving on Jan 6, 2013 17:01:12 GMT 1
If we cant laugh at our Government, or any political party as well as ourselves we cease to be objective. Its also a point worth noting that Dunserving complained about some quite normal day to day language I used in a post, yet this same Dunserving is a member of an army Forum with language that would make Bernard Manning blush, yets says nothing about it ? One rule for them and one rule for us? Aint life strange ? I objected because you posted a swear word in a thread then refused to admit you had done so. I see you still refuse to accept you did so. Here's the extract: ...Tory twats in Cabinet ... Yes I'm a member of The Army Rumour Service (Arrse) as I served 30+ years in the army, a place where the language is more often than not colourful to say the least. If you join a site like Arrse you accept than a majority of it's members may revert to type and use such language and the site even warns viewers of it. That is not the case on here and I flagged it up to avoid it becoming a common occurrence. The point I was making in my exchanges with nickd was that I did not believe his posting was balanced as he seemed only to be focused on the government of the day, something he has explained quite thoroughly. I have no problem whatsoever with humour against political figures or party's but if it isn't balanced then it leads itself open to accusations of political bias rather than humour at politicians, something nickd has explained very well. I don't understand your one rule comment at all particularly as my postings on here are totally different to what I post elsewhere. Are you saying I'm not entitled to an opinion on here because I post on another site? |
|
|
|
Post by jetsetwilly on Jan 6, 2013 18:14:43 GMT 1
Firstly, in my world 'Twats' isnt a swear word, and yes I object to your trying to bring your censorial attitude here when you say nothing about far worse language on another site.
That, Sir, is duplicitous
|
|
|
|
Post by dunserving on Jan 6, 2013 20:48:17 GMT 1
Firstly, in my world 'Twats' isnt a swear word, and yes I object to your trying to bring your censorial attitude here when you say nothing about far worse language on another site. That, Sir, is duplicitous If that word isn't swearing in your world that's fine; in my world and polite society it is swearing and it's worth you realising there are people viewing and/or posting on this site that may not live in your world or mine. In my main career swearing was an everyday occurrence at work amongst like minded colleagues but was not tolerated in a social setting nor when addressing your management function, doing so would almost certainly have had consequences. If you want to get your knickers in a twist because I don't agree with your views on another thread on this site and you then start commenting in another thread attempting to illicit support for your viewpoint against me then who's being duplicitous? en.wiktionary.org/wiki/duplicitous#EnglishI'm not attempting to be censorial at all as I don't have, nor do I want to have moderator status. I will however strongly defend myself and my views against anyone attempting to bully me into not posting them on this or other sites. |
|
|
|
Post by jetsetwilly on Jan 7, 2013 18:23:59 GMT 1
You seriously need to get a life or pull your thumb out of your arrse
|
|
|
|
Post by nickd on Jan 7, 2013 19:54:38 GMT 1
Now now folks let's keep it tame and not be reverting to any form of personal insults towards one another on the forum please - I'm all for a bit of banter between members but it's not good or necessary to use any form of insults towards members; it just detracts from whatever topics are up for discussion and doesn't look good for those looking in and thinking of joining up. I'd like to think - whatever our individual beliefs - that we are all on the same side on here and our real battle is with those on the outside and who shape the policies and law which we seek to challenge.
Mylegal isn't a site where we have an obsession with rules (there's quite enough of those flying around on the outside!) but there is a need to respect the views of others - however much you may disagree with them. The only rules we have are at the foot of the page and you are reminded that there is a 'report to moderator' facility if there's something bugs you enough to feel you have to use it.
There we are - enough said :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by dunserving on Jan 7, 2013 20:01:59 GMT 1
I think the insults are purely one way, at least I don't think I have insulted him. It'll stop me calling him a tw*t though  |
|
