Nice people thread part 4 - sugar and spice and all things

vivatifosi

sss555s wrote: »

That's an oxymoron if I've ever seen one :beer:

I don't really know why what I actually typed fell foul of the swear filter, but you're right, the way it has turned out is one heck of an oxymoron!

michaels

We'd probably best keep this conversation out of the nice people thread or MsK will have to sensor us for going on topic Shall we adjourn to the drawing room* to discuss further?

I was waiting to sign Martin's petiton until I was person 100k and DS has just vomited and I missed out <shrug shoulders smiley>



*The other place

fc123

GDB2222 wrote: »

Umm, what is 'S' store?

Miss Kool did it for me...was going to send a PM. I am stocked in there and we did a Pop up this summer...and later I will go back and delete this post:) However, I have nothing neg to say as it was a wonderful moment and an absolute priviledge...and our sales were surprise to the powers that be....hence we got to stay.

misskool wrote: »

Welcome back pobby. Glad to hear things are improving.


I'm reading but have too many things going on (and are much much too boring to be detailed on here) and November is a washout already.

In what way a washout? We want the inside story as it is never boring (well to me anyway).:)

vivatifosi wrote: »

I think that's the thread I started on the John Humphreys programme. I've been a bit disappointed how its ended up. What was quite clear from the programme is that there is a broad middle ground between the "cut all benefits to !!!!less breeders" and "if I'm entitled I should get it" camps. A middle ground in which people like Sue can be treated fairly, but people can't milk the system. It's so blinklin' bloomin' obvious, I can't believe the positions taken sometimes:wall:.

Sometimes I think people do it just to bang heads, like a virtual Newton's Cradle.

It was a great thread and I logged on late last night in a desperate attempt to catch up here on everyones news and then failed as I got caught up in reading goodness knows how many pages on the prog which I watched earlier last night on catch-up (and I can't work out where to put the coma's in that sentence).

So sending big apols to all the NP's as I still havent caught up on all your news and feel an absolute traitor for not being 'in the know' on everyones stuff.:o But I do care ...truly.

I haven't looked at it today so will do so later on....did the naughty White Horse drop in again and who brought up the eugenics stuff? Nasty, nasty stuff.....sort of things that drive me away for a while from this board.

I will see how how it panned out but I know people like my OH get the right hump at subsidising those who won't take responsibility for their own...and SS's ex would come into that camp. He walked out + left her to it and was able to do so knowing that she would be supported financially by the state and also help from her family.

We read her life tales and he doesn't help in any way whatsoever......and it's dam hard bringing up 3 boys solo plus they have all those health issues too. It's a kind of arguement that goes beyond benefits......it's about men and their commitment. Society now enables them to walk if they don't like it and they know their kids won't starve or be on the street.

It is extra hard for the one left to carry the can but why should he be able to waltz away and not contribute to the bringing up of his own blood? OH has a sister whose ex did the same and, basically, left the state to pay for the upbringing of his 4 kids. I think that's the bit that rankles.
My very good friend (highly educated and driven) is now living on benefits with a 3 yr old as the partner 'changed his mind' and left. She's studying to become a teacher now so the hours fit in when said child is older but he had no worries about abandoning them at all. Did men used to behave like this?

silvercar

Did men used to behave like this?

They did in Downton Abbey, so I'd guess so.

lostinrates

fc123 wrote: »

Did men used to behave like this?

In the second world war I know of men who ''died'' or ''went missing'' as far as their children knew but actually had shacked up elsewhere.

People..not just men.. have always behaved ''selfishly'' or in a way we don't consider ''good''. Otherwise there would be no jokes about the milkman, and fewer families would have been on the wrong side of the sheets.

There has been a LONG thread on the family board about a woman having an affair with a married man (she's single). The disparate view on acceptability of this and where repsonsibility for behaviour in the relationship lies has been going on for weeks. Ultimately some people just want to do what they want in the moment I think. Whether thats what they wanted to do in retrospect, whether they'll look back and regret it doesn't matter. I don't think its a ''sign of the times'' that it occurs, but maybe that its able to occur so very commonly and without ''repurcussion'' perhaps is.

michaels

Sorry, just had a little smile on another thread where someone was described as 'reaping what they sew' and just thought what a brilliant moto this would make for FC

Davesnave

michaels wrote: »

Sorry, just had a little smile on another thread where someone was described as 'reaping what they sew' and just thought what a brilliant moto this would make for FC

That's pretty much what her old sig was about, or was that what you meant?

I loved your comment about trying to be the 100 000th petitioner. It reminded of the only time I ever sold shares on-line. At the moment when I tried to sell, I lost connection with the site. By the time I got it back, the price was well down.

Generali

For those that are interested in history and reading there are some great recommendations here:

http://m.thebrowser.com/interviews/norman-davies-on-europe’s-vanished-states

A good mention of The Republic of Subcarpathian Ruthenia, a Republic that lasted just one day that was home to Andy Warhol's parents.

tomterm8

LydiaJ wrote: »

I agree with lir. It is not at all obvious. I mean, it's obvious to most people that what we want is a system that provides a decent standard of living for people who have either temporarily fallen on hard times or are in longer lasting difficult circumstances like Sue's. It's obvious to most of the same people that we shouldn't be incentivising a lifestyle choice to breed like rabbits while having no intention of working. It is very very far from obvious how one system, to be delivered on a national scale without incurring vast expenses, can do the first of these without inadvertently also doing the second.

If you provide a safety net, some people will use it as a hammock. If you take the hammock away, the people who fall off the high wire will crash to the ground.

It's quite interesting watching what happened in America. They took away the safety net, and unemployment is at the highest it has ever been. There are more people on food stamps than ever before - more people depending on the state for a food hand out than ever did in the great depression. It has worked so well that there are more people who rely on charity simply to be able to eat than any civilised nation I know of...

And it really does not seem to have really helped their deficit either.

I don't know, everything I've seen is that these policies don't make the average person in the society better off, happier, or give them a better life in any way.

It doesn't even, ultimately, help business... because many of these people turn out not to be willing to beg on the street,or starve to death. There is a reason why America's prison population is 8 times higher as a percentage of population than China's. It isn't just because of drugs. For many people, the prisons are the safety net.

Davesnave

lostinrates wrote: »

In the second world war I know of men who ''died'' or ''went missing'' as far as their children knew but actually had shacked up elsewhere.

People..not just men.. have always behaved ''selfishly'' or in a way we don't consider ''good''. Otherwise there would be no jokes about the milkman, and fewer families would have been on the wrong side of the sheets.

Good comment.

At the age of 10, I was told that Mum's first husband was 'shot down.' By then I'd started asking awkward questions about my extended family. There's no reason to think that this explanation was untrue.

Dad's first wife was a different matter . She played around as soon as he was sent away for extended periods on war work. So, certainly not 'just men.'