Kerry Katonas spent the lot

Abbafan1972

bo_drinker wrote: »

I just saw a front page of one of the papers said she can't afford a pint of milk .

Isn't that why mum's go to Iceland? :rotfl:

dopester

vivatifosi wrote: »

Wow dopester, that's harsh. We shouldn't take it out on any kid, no matter how bad the sins of the parent are (and I don't think Kerry's are that major). I would want at least care and compassion added to that list of basic provisions - how much would it cost to provide those - they are more about mindset. If you give people just food, shelter, clothing, education and security you're not giving them any nurturing, don't you worry what sort of adults that will turn out?

I sort of intended that to be covered in "food/shelter/clothing/education/security"...

Cambridge Dictionary
- Nurture
1 to take care of, feed and protect someone or something, especially young children or plants, and help them to develop:
She wants to stay at home and nurture her children.

And by education, I meant providing schooling and education (good fair schooling) and sporting games, field trips to museums and access to items like games in leisure time, newspapers and television.

However.. if by nurturing you mean trying to establish close bonding / replacement parenting of a child in full-time care... I doubt that is particularly good for the child in all instances, and don't agree it should be the state's role. Yes maybe if child was given up for adoption... but in full-time care with lots of other children to take care of.... at what stage does the state's level of responsibility and providing care stop?

The additional costs, the fact it might not be suitable for the individual, perhaps resentment from other children who don't get the same level of nurturing as others who are more favoured.

If you give people just food, shelter, clothing, education and security you're not giving them any nurturing, don't you worry what sort of adults that will turn out?

There are limits to what we can or should do in providing full-time care for children. I was suggesting a fair basic minimum, if they don't have parents who are capable of giving it to them, which I'd hope would prepare them for the world and see them develop as best as could be.

oldMcDonald

dopester wrote: »

Looks a bit cheap to me, but I'm no expert, and the material around the upper button looks worn.

Dopester?:eek:

I have to say, I didn't look at the guys a*$e long enough to notice!

oldMcDonald

:DSorry Dopester, I read button as buttocks!

(what the hell does that say about me?)

rammy007

No wonder they fell out with the MIL (marks mum) i read she had tried to warn kerry that he was only after her money, then they fell out.

dopester

oldMcDonald wrote: »

Dopester?:eek:

I have to say, I didn't look at the guys a*$e long enough to notice!

Only menioned it for the fact of having little trust left in me, and now always try and take and analyse the whole picture, to look for anything out-of-place.

You know.. self-interested big banking groups to manage your affairs and investments but shunt you in to things like high risk "split-level-trusts" or whatever of a few years back, or IFAs with self-interest, or even Madoff types around - or just plain stupid wealth managers around who don't really have sufficient expertise..

And the fact I was with a top firm of solicitors the other day, flicking through their own range of brochures of wealth management which perhaps I'd feel more comfortable with partly having access to look after wealth if I was in such a wealth situation. There are many a company willing to help you look after your wealth and affairs - and probably some are much better than others.

oldMcDonald

dopester wrote: »

Only menioned it for the fact of having little trust left in me, and now always try and take and analyse the whole picture, to look for anything out-of-place.

You know.. self-interested big banking groups to manage your affairs and investments but shunt you in to things like high risk "split-level-trusts" or whatever of a few years back, or IFAs with self-interest, or even Madoff types around - or just plain stupid wealth managers around who don't really have sufficient expertise..

And the fact I was with a top firm of solicitors the other day, flicking through their own range of brochures of wealth management which perhaps I'd feel more comfortable with partly having access to look after wealth if I was in such a wealth situation. There are many a company willing to help you look after your wealth and affairs - and probably some are much better than others.

...and to think I thought you were just looking at his bum

dopester

oldMcDonald wrote: »

:DSorry Dopester, I read button as buttocks!

(what the hell does that say about me?)

:rotfl: hahahaa

dopester

oldMcDonald wrote: »

...and to think I thought you were just looking at his bum

:rotfl: hahahaa

lostinrates

I've skimmed, apologies.
Surely the bigger, more important story is that financial knowledge so poor in general that someone 'ordinary' who stirkes lucky can't figure out that her large sum of money won't cover her over sized outgoings- and neither can the scores of magazines/fans that inevitably oooh and ahhh over the purchases someone in this postion makes?

And that ambition is so poor that this is a person who is considered 'enviable?