Indeed. I mean, just the fact that she uses those words: like if she smokes a cigarette and the baby doesn't immediately fall out of her vagina coughing and puking then that means it's not doing any harm. She's obviously not got the maturity to raise a child if she doesn't even understand how any of one's actions can have consequences that are not immediately obvious.

That and it's just dumb in general.

But people like UNICEF when they look at teen pregnancy, etc. do go into these areas. Statisitics alone mean nothing unless you can draw conclusions from them and a part of that process is speaking to the people it affects, but not just in one area. That's why I consider their research to be in a better position to give a true reflection of the national picture than the 'experiences' of either you or me alone.

And how many times do I have to go over with you that what you see in your own little world cannot be the basis for a national examination of the general picture? You can give me your life story all you like, but it still doesn't change that it's just your experience, and that you cannot form a picture of the reality of the wider situation based on experience alone. When you say that what you describe is the reality of where you live, I believe you, because the chances are that you're right, but your enviorns are not the UK.

Show them to me.

But, as I've shown, it may look like there are a plethora of jobs out there, but only a small group of people could apply for them. This stems back to a failure in the education system in industrial areas which tailored the curriculum to local economic needs, e.g. schools in mining areas only ever trained miners and miner's wives. Now that we have a more diverse curriciulum which is student-centred, we will, I expect, see more and more people going for either more 'advanced' jobs or go onto higher education, but this only came in with the introduction of the National Curriculum in the 1980's, so we are still yet to see the full benefits of this.

Again, this all goes back to a question of agency. The NHS is in a pitiful state but you cannot project the problems of the NHS onto the DWP. These departments are seperate for a reason. When the Tories merged them into one (the Department for Health and Social Security) it was a disaster.

If the NHS is failing in it's responsibilities, then what can you expect the DWP to do? Of course, there should be teamwork but the team is only as good as it's weakest member. And what can you do? Deny genuine people help they need because the NHS can't get it's act together and you don't want to get ripped off?

Treating things like anxiety with work-training schemes doesn't solve the problem. Neither you or I are qualified psychologists or psychotherapists, and there is no one-size-fits-all approach to mental health - that's why there are several schools of thought in psychology, after all. If the answer really was as simple as you make it out to be, then it would have been enacted a long time ago. But nothing like this is ever simple.

All that report actually shows is that there has been a sharp increase in the number of people who are economically inactive due to disability. Given the sharp rises of cases like RSI, asbestosis, vibration white finger, lung diseases, and these days severe depression, nervous breakdowns, and all sorts of new diseases/illnesses that have only come about in the past 20 or so years, this isn't surprising to me. Lynn doesn't appear to take this into account.

But is this the fault of the welfare system? The job of the welfare state is not to provide job creation (this is, in theory at least, the job of the Department for Trade and Industry), but to provide for where there are no jobs. If there are no jobs, then you cannot blame this on the welfare state.

The areas Lynn identifies are former heavy industrial areas, and he completely bypasses the whole plethora of industrial diseases that have come about in the past 20 years since the time a lot of the labour relation and health & safety laws which protected workers were stolen from us by Thatcher, not to mention her near mothballing of the NHS (carried on by Blair) by underfunding it. He makes the same mistakes you do - to not see things like this in a wider light. That's why he appears to back you up.

But again, you keep blaming the effect, rather than the cause. If there was a healthy economy in these areas then there would be something to strive for, there would be a point and there would be no need to have kids (if we ever get around to instituting a decent sex-education and sex health system in this country and take a leaf from the Dutch on this on). Instead, there is nothing but decay and dispair.

But you've yet to really flesh out how the welfare system is actually seriously excacerbating the problem. The job of the welfare system is to provide for people when they need help. It is not responsibile for job creation and for tackling the root causes of relative poverty and economic decline - these are the tasks now of the Department for Local Government & Communities (nee the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister), the Home Office, and the Department for Trade & Industry, so again we go back to a question of agency. If the DLGC, Home Office and DTI are not doing their jobs properly, then neither can the DWP. As I said before, the team is only as good as it's weakest member. The other agencies need to get their acts together before we can focus on the welfare state.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hedgehog Resorting to the Daily Hate Mail argument just shows how pathetic your stand on this is. If you don't want to believe someone with my opinions hasn't recieved it from some right wing press quarter than go ahead, you're kidding yourself. It's the equivalent of a child putting it's hands over it's ears and screaming "NO BUT THE FACTS! THE FIGURES!"

Where? Apart from one time. I've not said it for pages.

Quote:

It's funny how evasive you are.

Me? Evasive? I've answered nearly every question you and your minder have thrown at me properly, and if I haven't, it's because I'd be repeating myself.

By trying to talk about my background, and ignore the points I have raised, it's you and beefbrain over there who are being evasive.

Quote:

Nope, wrong again. I've worked since I was 16 part-time while at school and full time for the year I had out of school. This is my longest stint of unemployment because I'm a full time student and I decided to keep this year for being a student because I had already saved money to get me through it. I applied for every job I could before my exams even finished so I've had two telephone interviews already and more for the end of the week and next. I also, like I've said come from a family where both parents worked (until my dad died) and then my mother struggled to work and take care of us.

So you basically have the same background as me (apart from the fact that my dad is still alive), but somehow I have no experience of the topic at hand, but you have.

The Black Eyed Peas asked "where is the love?" but I ask "where is the logic?"

Quote:

I had my smurf days when I was a teenager, so you don't need to quote me the communist manifesto according to wikipedia - it's part of why I questioned the authority of what you were saying in the first place.

So, just because I'm a communist, that means I'm automatically wrong? How disrespectful is that? I've taken on your arguments properly and to the best that I can, but you choose to discount me because I'm a commie. Speaks volumes.

Quote:

Yes, some of the people I'm talking about are the lumpenproletariats - the chavs, what you're calling into question is how many of them there are. I'm telling you I know alot on the dole, so they're not as rare as your figures are making them out to be, and the system is encouraging some people to become one instead of forcing or helping them out of it.

Look, anyone who wears a baseball cap inside a Nike hoodie is a 'chav' these days. I have a hoodie, so in theory I'm a chav, but I'm not. On the more menials jobs I've done, I worked with 'chavs', and they worked bloody hard, too, since they left school or sixth form. Never claimed benefits and everything to their flashy clothes or 'pimped-out' Vauxhall Novas, they've gotten off the back of their own hard work, and saving up. But to look at them, they would be 'chavs'.

"Chav" is a meaningless word when it comes to this. If they work, then they are a part of the proletariat - if they choose not to, then they are a part of the lumpenproletariat. I know people who choose to drop out of the system and set up hippy communes, and despite the fact that they like to think of themselves as artisans, they're lumpen too because theyhave dropped out of the wage-labour system.

Quote:

We've been through this before too, I was born in a poverty-stricken area, my mother and father both worked, we had a bought house, they sometimes even went without food so that we could eat in the 80s - fact is, much like you, I didn't have a fucking clue what was going on in council estates or with people on the dole.

So, if we've had near enough the same experiences, how come your experience trumps mine? How does this work?

<pointless insults snipped>

Quote:

I'm saying there are more than what you're making it out to be. Your figure quotes what the government know about or suspects - think about it - it's like asking for the number of illegal immigrants in the country when by nature they're illegal so you can't really do a headcount.

But that doesn't mean the Government can't estimate. In fact, take a look at this:




Click.


Now, we don't know exactly, but there are methods which could give a fair estimate.

Quote:

I'm saying the welfare system should make it harder to stay on the welfare system and should encourage people back into work quicker.

But what you've yet to explain to me is that without job creation, how is this going to have a real effect?

Quote:

I'd love for them to give my boyfriend the help he needs to get off the dole now instead of fobbing him off like they did yesterday by telling him they can't do anything with him until his 13 week interview, which they've already postponed. And even at that they do fuck all. Neither of us want him to be on the dole, he's begging them for help but when he applies for even the crappy jobs he's told that someone's on it for a week trial, it comes back up again after the week trial he applies again and he's told it's taken, call back Thursday and it might be free again....uh thanks. He's applied for others and because his work history (see above) is so fucked up he doesn't get them, even though he's qualified.

Yeah? The same happened to me numerous times. The jobseeker system is far from perfect, so what's your point here?

Your boyfriend can ask for a meeting to review his Jobseekers Agreement at any time and they have to comply with this. They will bullshit with you, in which case I'd get down the local Citizens Advice Bureau if I were you, they'd be in a better position to help.

Quote:

I'm advocating programmes like this one http://www.personneltoday.com/Articl...+back+into.htm which is helping people stuck on the dole off it. Because they're not all on it because there's no jobs - they're on it because noones helping them to get the jobs.

I wouldn't be advocating that kind of scheme because I value my nose too much. 360 may sound like a lot, but in what perspective is this? Plus, this is incapacity benefit, not JSA.

This sounds much better, what SHOULD be happening:

Quote:

The point was, I'd like to see the specifics of that figure. Or did they not matter to you because they backed up what you want to believe?

I told you, I can't access the article because I do not have a subscription to the LRD anymore.

Quote:

I'm really not sure what you're talking about there LeftTurn.

Because the number of times I'd have to correct you when you've tried to relay what I've said doesn't inspire me with confidence.

I laughed. You are full of wit but a cock none the less. That is not a personal attack by the way it is yet another observation. You might have your cut and paste skills or blah blah jibberish but i have the ability to walk away after this post sound in the knowledge that in a few years time you will probably have changed how you think. I forgive you for the comment because i know how intelligent i am and in what areas.

Oh dear. You seem to think i am some kind of thick cunt. Well, I don't need to prove how clever i am to you. From where i am sitting nobody is being evasive at all. The difference between us is that i prefer not to waste my time looking for pointless numbers that really prove nothing whereas you seem to have all the time in the world to do just that. Again i forgive you.

Now i will go back to my nationalist websites and leave you to continue with your Ian Paisley like ranting. As for Hedgehog, she is well able to defend herself and doesn't need a beefbrain like me to step in when she is not around.

---

I'll think I'll take it as a compliment...

Empires have come and gone and yet the courage of my convictions have remained. You can wait all you like, but it's going to take a lot more than what you've put up to change me.

As for your delusions of adequacy, well, I'm not a monster. If ignorance is bliss...

No, the numbers do back up my points, otherwise I wouldn't have made them. I've debated more important people than you, and they wouldn't dispute figures from respectable organisations. Neither would they spend 3/4 of their time attacking me personally as a means of avoiding the points.

Ian Pasiley? Granted, I'm overweight, but I can't say I have a tendency for yelling out "NO SURRENDER!" every five seconds...

Ah, well, they do say that nationalism is the last scourge of the rascal? Something like that.

Yes, but every time you say you're going to leave it at that, you bounce back. You're a yo-yo in denial! Either do what you say you will, or don't say it.