Famous Rich and Hungry

Mr_F_Dorsetty

Memory_Girl wrote: »

I'm just catching up ........... but I took a slightly different take to the post by Mr F. Just my personal viewpoint however.

Obviously this is a debate by intelligent, literate people (well we are literate enough to post on a forum) What Mr F seemed to do was to choose a mode of "speech" (albeit written) designed to provoke in us a strong reaction ..... ranging from mild irritation to anger.

I think the point is that those are the feelings most often experienced by those who are disenfranchised in our society ..... I work with single parents who really don't get that they should choose food for their kids over booze (because their parents never prioritised them like that) or feeding a dog V nappies for a child, because and I quote "whats the difference picking up dog S*** and kid S***?"

When someone "like me" comes along to suggest that might be an unreasonable stance (Mum, Professional, Literate, Educated) their reaction is the same as the one we had to Mr F. Anger and irritation.

Now - personally I hope Mr F has more EQ if he is in a client facing position - but he has, through my immediate gut reaction, taught me a valuable lesson in placing myself in someone else's shoes.

Whether that was his intention or not - I got the lesson anyway.

MG

Yes, exactly.

I did say it wasn't personal but that of course was missed.

Unfortunately when 'poor people' are created by the system it isn't personal, if it was it would be easy to cure but as has been proven time and again - it is nearly impossible to cure.

For Georgiegirl256...

The way I think about it is this, firstly you need to take a position of epoche'.

Myself I would then take reference to someone such as Charlesworth when he says:

"....... more distanced approaches overlook the essential truth of class that experience of it is always from amidst a world defining context experienced through the primordial realm in which selves take shape: That is, class is not a simple matter of understanding self through a role but locating the flesh through inhabiting a particular social realm"

So understand that Georgiegirl256 and you'll know how I think.

Have a nice day

Georgiegirl256

For Mr F Dorsetty....

For what it's worth I could see what your intention was, I knew what you were meaning, and I think Memory Girl has explained it very well.

I have no doubt you are an extremely intelligent man, I just wish you could come onto a thread and offer advice without trying to beat everyone down with intelligence, it's not a competition to see who can offer the best advice. I've witnessed it on other threads too, you could start an argument in an empty room....or maybe that's your intention!

You have a nice day too.

Mr_F_Dorsetty

Georgiegirl256 wrote: »

For Mr F Dorsetty....

For what it's worth I could see what your intention was, I knew what you were meaning, and I think Memory Girl has explained it very well.

I have no doubt you are an extremely intelligent man, I just wish you could come onto a thread and offer advice without trying to beat everyone down with intelligence, it's not a competition to see who can offer the best advice. I've witnessed it on other threads too, you could start an argument in an empty room....or maybe that's your intention!

You have a nice day too.

I hear you and if I caused offence I of course apologise unreservedly.

But in my defence, to understand what people in the lower strata's of society actually feel, then one has to feel it.

What Charlesworth and many others essentially say is that it is nigh on impossible to understand someone else's position as you come to it from your own understanding of the world.

I've talked to many 'poor people' and many people who have for whatever reason ended up in prison and the one thing they all display is that they essentially have no self worth, real anger, but no self worth. It has been removed from them by society, not intentionally, just by it's machinations.

It is estimated that maybe around 20% of the working age public actually fall into this category of under achievement.

Just imagine how much it would benefit all of society if they were allowed to take part. How that happens though, it a very different question which I personally will be leaving well alone on here

Georgiegirl256

Mr_F_Dorsetty wrote: »

I hear you and if I caused offence I of course apologise unreservedly.

But in my defence, to understand what people in the lower strata's of society actually feel, then one has to feel it.

What Charlesworth and many others essentially say is that it is nigh on impossible to understand someone else's position as you come to it from your own understanding of the world.

I've talked to many 'poor people' and many people who have for whatever reason ended up in prison and the one thing they all display is that they essentially have no self worth, real anger, but no self worth. It has been removed from them by society, not intentionally, just by it's machinations.

It is estimated that maybe around 20% of the working age public actually fall into this category of under achievement.

Just imagine how much it would benefit all of society if they were allowed to take part. How that happens though, it a very different question which I personally will be leaving well alone on here

No offence taken. :beer:

thorsoak

Mr_F_Dorsetty wrote: »

I hear you and if I caused offence I of course apologise unreservedly.

But in my defence, to understand what people in the lower strata's of society actually feel, then one has to feel it.

What Charlesworth and many others essentially say is that it is nigh on impossible to understand someone else's position as you come to it from your own understanding of the world.

I've talked to many 'poor people' and many people who have for whatever reason ended up in prison and the one thing they all display is that they essentially have no self worth, real anger, but no self worth. It has been removed from them by society, not intentionally, just by it's machinations.

It is estimated that maybe around 20% of the working age public actually fall into this category of under achievement.

Just imagine how much it would benefit all of society if they were allowed to take part. How that happens though, it a very different question which I personally will be leaving well alone on here

How condescending of you! As my late father in law used to say "there's nobbut three generations from clogs to clogs".

SmarterNotHarder

Mr Dorsetty I think I love you.

I have words in my head tripping over themselves to add to this, but I shall refrain as I do not have your eloquence!

I think the bottom line of what I was going to try to say is that we have to remember that not everyone thinks in the same way as everyone else. The mindset of someone who is the nth generation on benefits will be drastically different to that of the person who has worked for the last 30 years and then got made redundant. And they won't have the same mind set as the left middle classes who have their hearts in the right place but no understanding of the problem. And they again are different to the feudal upper classes who want to keep us all in our place. I am of course making MASSIVE generalisations and there will be sizeable exceptions to these scenarios, but I do not have the time to list them all!

This "having stuff" is so important to folk. I'll use an example from the people I work with. Most of my team (mostly in their 20s) have Sky multiroom, a brand new car on HP, paying rent on bigger houses than they need, always have the latest phone/gadget/playstation, on credit half the time. And always skint at the end of the month.

Here I'll tell you that we earn a small amount over minimum wage. There is a company pension, but most of the people I'm talking about above won't pay into it as they can't afford to/it's a waste of money.

That I don't have a car, and walk most places, though I can drive is an anathema to some of my team. That when my mobile contract ended, I went onto a cheap SIM only deal because I did not need a better phone did not compute.

Why? Because this is how people value themselves. It has nothing to do with keeping up with the Jones, and everything to do with our self worth. Loreal tells us every day "Because we're worth it" So in denying myself I must be deliberately making myself unhappy? Why would I do that? That's really sad, and they feel sorry for me because I don't value myself.

I can't explain that this isn't the case and my happiness lies in security and knowing that I could survive if everything went belly up, and I can't understand their reasoning. Luckily we know how to laugh at each other

The point I'm trying to make is that it's so difficult to understand each others positions when you're in the same boat, how much harder is it for the kids on benefit and the old etonians? they would have no grasp of "getting it"

margaretclare

balletshoes wrote: »

for me its had the opposite effect - i've googled to find out where my nearest food bank is, and i'll be donating there.

This is what our church is doing for Lent this year, instead of having 'Lent lunches', soup and bread once a week, we're giving extra food items to the Storehouse food bank.

missprice

SmarterNotHarder wrote: »

Mr Dorsetty I think I love you.

I have words in my head tripping over themselves to add to this, but I shall refrain as I do not have your eloquence!

I think the bottom line of what I was going to try to say is that we have to remember that not everyone thinks in the same way as everyone else. The mindset of someone who is the nth generation on benefits will be drastically different to that of the person who has worked for the last 30 years and then got made redundant. And they won't have the same mind set as the left middle classes who have their hearts in the right place but no understanding of the problem. And they again are different to the feudal upper classes who want to keep us all in our place. I am of course making MASSIVE generalisations and there will be sizeable exceptions to these scenarios, but I do not have the time to list them all!

This "having stuff" is so important to folk. I'll use an example from the people I work with. Most of my team (mostly in their 20s) have Sky multiroom, a brand new car on HP, paying rent on bigger houses than they need, always have the latest phone/gadget/playstation, on credit half the time. And always skint at the end of the month.

Here I'll tell you that we earn a small amount over minimum wage. There is a company pension, but most of the people I'm talking about above won't pay into it as they can't afford to/it's a waste of money.

That I don't have a car, and walk most places, though I can drive is an anathema to some of my team. That when my mobile contract ended, I went onto a cheap SIM only deal because I did not need a better phone did not compute.

Why? Because this is how people value themselves. It has nothing to do with keeping up with the Jones, and everything to do with our self worth. Loreal tells us every day "Because we're worth it" So in denying myself I must be deliberately making myself unhappy? Why would I do that? That's really sad, and they feel sorry for me because I don't value myself.

I can't explain that this isn't the case and my happiness lies in security and knowing that I could survive if everything went belly up, and I can't understand their reasoning. Luckily we know how to laugh at each other

The point I'm trying to make is that it's so difficult to understand each others positions when you're in the same boat, how much harder is it for the kids on benefit and the old etonians? they would have no grasp of "getting it"

I started another long post then gave up because you got the point across admirably.

Oh and I think I know either Mr Dorsetty or a clone of.

And if it is who i am thinking of, I moved off that estate, me and the kids did ok and we are all grown up now. And this would have been in around 1994.

paulineb_2

Deanied wrote: »

Actually I have had many pets that I loved dearly. I simply value humans above animals.

I'm not saying the animals should be put down, just given to another owner so that those families can concentrate on their children.

It's not fair to have a pet that you can't afford to feed adequately or care for should it fall sick, however much you love it.

What other owner? I support a charity who helps rehome and rescues pound dogs, pounds are overflowing, there arent enough people out there to rehome all the pets that need homes as it is.

It would be very nice and convenient if there was always a spare owner going when people needed help, but thats often not the case.

Also as Ive said before, someone who isnt looking after a pet properly wont necessarily spend the saved money on their kids.

Removing one expense is just part of a solution, a bigger solution is to try and sort out a budget going forward.

Also, those kids might be very attached to the family pets.

paulineb_2

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

Seems entirely right to me to include housing benefit.

If I work and earn £300 a week after tax etc, I have to pay my rent / mortgage. You wouldn't say I earn £200 a week because my rent's £100, would you?

So if you get £50 a week in your hand, and £100 paid towards your rent, your benefits come to £150.

I was responding to someone elses post who said that someone might get £290 in benefits a week and cant budget with it, my point being that they might actually see much less than that in cash.

I do think some people when they see a headline saying family X gets 25 000 a year in benefits, dont realise that HB and council tax benefit will be counted in that as well, a lot of people think the figure quoted will be the cash they have to budget with and therefore not understand why they might be struggling financially.

I wasnt saying whether it was right or wrong, just what the figures could include.