Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
I mean she was going to kill herself anyway probably.
Let's not do this.
as the basis for his education policy?
and even more so that the Labour Party don't seem to try to make anywhere near enough capital out of it.
They're pushing policies that the proprietors of 80% of the newspapers in this country are in favour of.
With marckee's point about the papers, I only partially agree. I mean certainly newspaper owners' interests have something to do with policies in certain areas but, at the same time, newspapers react to public needs and are motivated by wanting to sell copies - for example even the right-wing papers were happy to savage the banks and Fred Goowin when that became the news. Obviously the right has an advantage in terms of vested interests but right-wing commentators also tend to be a lot better at selling 'stories' and putting a simple easy-to-follow narrative together. I think the left needs to become a lot more cynical and canny about how it presents news...
Some right-wing people do of course but I knows lot of left-wing people who do that too - my Facebook feed is full of people who are willing to repost absolutely anything negative about the Tories, even when it defies all logical sense. But anyway...
I sincerely doubt that the majority of right-wing journalists and newspaper editors really think the world is an incredibly simple place and all solutions are obviously - they just know that people buy into coherent stories so present things as such...
and left-wing people aren't.
Obviously this a massive exaggeration, but it's also sort of true.
It's a problem that there's always been with the left - an assumption that if you explain the issues rationally, compassionately, logically and with evidence, that people who are rational and capable of empathy will agree with you. I do think that it's reactionary and insulting to bypass all of that for a few cheap headlines or laughs, and as much as it might not win you votes or opinions, making your argument simplistic, as opposed to simple, and avoiding analysis, rather than presenting as much information as possible, is a pretty low tactic.
In terms of Westminster politics, anyway.
Doesn't seem to be working insofar as they're on a hiding to nothing cos they'll always be a watered down version of the Conservatives whilst they play that game.
Doesn't seem to be working in terms of Holyrood politics, either. But the curious thing about that situation is that there's a (more) left wing party taking a more positive and nuanced line on most issues, and they're getting the votes.
So by being so lame, they're losing on all sides.
I say Labour, rather than The Left, because there are plenty of traditional shouty over-simplifiers on The Left who can't muster up a substantial vote. So it's certainly not true to say that over-simplification = votes. More a case of Tories are always gonna do right wing pandering over-simplification better than (non Blair New) Labour ever will.
It's why placards at protests have 3,000 word essays on them rather than one line slogans...
I'm simultaneously fighting your corner /and/ issuing a smackdown to ya.
Do try to keep up, old bean.
Kind of like how MPs never really savage each other for affairs/expenses fraud etc, because every party has their fair share of crooks and bellends.
Just then decided to address Marckee's point.
You know, in theory they represent that wide spread of society, but they themselves mostly all came up from the same part of society and so they have loads more in common than they disagree on.
But IMO he constantly shouts himself in the foot when caught out by things like this, and the fact that his patronising tone does nothing to endear him to anyone
apoplectic with rage between repeats of Keeping Up Appearances, and then remember he's in a position of authority and curl up into the foetal position and weep
I strongly suspect that if you had any idea how rapidly things have deteriorated for families in areas like this in the last few years, you would feel a bit shitter about your hilarious insinuations and cheap online point scoring.
Or maybe not, IDK ...
I didn't even put a "hmmm, interesting..." as it would have demeened the tone of the thread.
OK, I know his reputation precedes him and all that, but he has been restrained in this thread so far.
Well, that's a first for me
has failed to disguise your intent.
heartless, transparent, ignorant and ugly.
But this thread isn't about me; it's about a national news story. That's what should be being discussed in this thread.
By leaving out your usual OP trimmings and not replacing them with anything of worth, and then claiming some sort of benign innocence, you're basically just rehashing the classic ``Shit myself on purpose, guize!`` getout.
is a really passive-agressive, cowardly way of shit-stirring.
It isn't. I'm sorry you jumped to that conclusion.
Shame its already turned into what I feared
Don't really want to get into the rights and wrongs of the bedroom tax, but it's pretty mad how so many young unskilled people earn relatively big money nowadays and piss it up the wall, and a woman, with kids, grandkids, other family and friends can't find £20 an extra week. Maybe that's just how society has to work, idk, but lots of us take money for granted nowadays, for sure.
but I think most people are. There's a section of society that gets sidelined, and nobody wants to know about them - they're basically just locked in schemes where generations of the same families live, and only occasionally will people get out. For the majority of them, they get to their late teens and move into another house in the scheme with someone else and have kids - a lot don't have jobs because they've never known that life, they're 2nd and 3rd generation unemployed.
When these people appear on TV for whatever reason, they're laughed at or people get angry at them for scrounging or whatever, nobody wants to engage in what has happened to these places.
People who write mis-spelled txt message suicide notes. Jesus.
Reminds me of that Bill Hicks bit about the guy on LSD who jumped off a building. why don't you try take off from the ground first??
or why you appear to be associating illiteracy with poor ability for rational thought but I'd say this is pretty much the exact kind of ignorance, prejudice and mocking the disenfranchised that SenorDingDong is is getting at.
But isn't this another in a neverending line of examples of below-standard individuals who choose to blame everyone but themselves (but typically any form of authority) for their own shortcomings? This lady scribbles a cliched, illiterate, txt speak suicide note in which she blames the 'grovement' for her death, but fails to mention how as an illiterate 53 year old she may have sought to help and better herself in the preceding years. I don’t doubt that she's had some struggles through her life, but at some point you surely have to take stock of who you are, where you're going, and what you need to do to get where you want to be.
Have you ever actually read The Mirror?
To Tories like cat_race.
The idea of personal responsibility is anathema?
But I didn't think the idiocy of this woman was in question here
Spelling, grammar and handwriting are usually a pretty good watermark for a person's general intelligence and social worth.
you must've written this reply in honduras
You're right about "social worth" or, at least, "perceived social worth" and you could stretch it to academic ability. Intelligence is a very different and far less quantifiable thing.
Did we just sort of agree?
I accept the fact people will look at her spelling and grammar, judge her social worth and academic ability and make assumption about her intelligence. I still don't think they're necessarily fair assumptions about her intelligence but I guess that does depend on how you define intelligence.
But rectangles are not squares.
GOOD WORK VIRGINS
It is a horrific indictment of a chain of decisions, large and small, and certainly cross-party, that we have allowed the governing classes to take since the late 1970s.
The systematic destruction of social mobility, the blind belief in the ‘morally neutral’ market and its welcome presence in every aspect of public life, and the pulling up (and burning) of ladders by the early political and economic beneficiaries, as most powerfully exemplified by Thatcher.
Simultaneously, top earners have been permitted, and encouraged, to take more and more, and at greater speed, while those at the bottom have been stagnant at best, and degraded, shamed, humiliated and silenced at worst.
All of which (and more) has created a society in which we seem to think it is acceptable (and perhaps inevitable) that within a very wealthy nation, there are 100’s of thousands who cannot afford to feed themselves or heat their homes.
And that an individual flowering of this situation can be fed into an on-going discourse on a music website alongside discussions about toast, rucksacks and duvets without it seeming (overly) odd or unusual.
I'm pretty sure we haven't.
You seem very intent on causing an argument in this thread and making pre-judgements on what other people thnk. A shame.
I provided a link that I thought you might not dismiss as lefty misinformation. What's the problem?
Here are some others ...
It was meant to be a place for reasoned discussion on a topic of national interest. Still, I suppose I shouldn't have expected so much from DiS.
As an aside, I happen to disagree with those articles.
partially due to the passive/aggressive manner in which you start them, then ignore or disagree with almost anyones response without attempting to clarify your own position
This thread is a lesson in CG 101
This isn't the thread for this discussion. Please be a bit more respectful.
Social inequality has been widening and widening; university qualifications and often Daddy paying you to work for free are needed to get on the ladder in pretty much any career. The days when my Dad could scrape his A-Levels, train as a Catholic Priest, decide he didn't want to be a priest, get a job as a clerk in local government, train as an accountant, work his way through the ranks and wind up as a Chief Executive in the NHS are pretty much over...
and Im not even getting put up anywhere else! Should I think abotu committing suicide?
was a laugh for a bit
Our hero GuyGuava tries to weasel out of a sticky situation and pretends not to have a little cry.
Having been at the sharp end of a mass consensus on DiS myself, everyone piles in to attack the one quaking lamb who's decided to go against the flow, without listening to what they're actually saying. Assumption makes an anus out of you and Smee.
CG's been cool in this thread. Not a single bit inappropriate. I support you CG. Come nest under my warm wing.
If you reckon you've ended up getting ragged on because of a few against the grain points in the past, then... join the club. And MTFU.
But CG doesn't do (and isn't doing) that. ``Controversy`` is his MO. And we all play along. Everyone wins.
but he's done nowt in this thread.
Also, a lot of the tie he posts political views that most people don't agree with. Doesn't mean the majority of people on here are right, or he's not allowed to have those views.
He's a bit of a kicking post, although he does revel in it I can't deny that. But who doesn't like a political debate?
But as pointed out by others, his method of "debate" is not to have a debate. He starts a thread with his passive aggressive link and "Hmmmmmm interesting" meme, then proceeds to disagree with almost everyone who posts their opinion on teh matter, without fleshing out his own.
I'm sure he loves his trolling threads, but he can't have his cake and eat it when he attempts to (allegedly) post something serious and gets pilloried
That's not a troll. That's a chap who likes political discourse.
*does shooty dance on top of smashed monitor*
*goes to PC world to buy new monitor*
Can we get an idea of what that is?
On the whole, he normally posts his link, sits back, lets people bite, comes back with his other standard memes regarding "Dacre" or "Rusbridger", and then rubs his hands in glee.
He almost never gives his own opinions, therefore is not debating.
That's the thing. He rarely sets his views out. All we have are implications. And when challenged the best you'll ever get out of him is something along the lines of ``fwiw, i don't actually agree with the general tone of the article`` or the equivalent. On occasion, it wrongfoots his (often legitimate) targets, but more often than not he just ends up looking like an evasive div.
The whole point of the CG persona is that he's a kicking post. He set himself up as that from day one and he's done nowt to shed the persona since. You're a mug if you feel any sympathy whatsoever for his creation. (I've no doubt that the person behind it is a reasonable guy to knock about with, but that's not what's being discussed.)
Compare that with Bamnan, who also got a dogging for basically being a jelly that invited you to nail him to the wall. And rightly so. But Bammers has (intentionally or otherwise) shown himself to be a good-natured user with actual human qualities and has knocked the ``lone wolf`` stuff on the head.
The point being made in this sub-thread is that people started laying into him immediately despite the OP being nothing more than an uncontroversial question and a link to an article. That, my friend, is prejudice, pure and simple. How very un-left-wing.
ad hominem beguiles all
And almost exactly the same applies to you to, minus the penchant for threadstarting, and the unknown about whether you're alright to knock about with (you're a sweety pie). CG just has more love for the game than you. Not sure your heart is in it, pal, to be tbh.
And playing devil's advocate in political threads on the DiS Social board is usually more effort than it's worth.
so you're not actually the devil?
Margaret Thatcher was?
when 99% of your social board threads are of the type we expect from him, you can't be surprised or moan when this one (allegedly serious in tone) is ripped to pieces in the same way
consider this a googly
before administering the proverbial
So accusations of "hilarious insinuations and cheap online point scoring", for example, when all he's done is post the OP are jumping the gun a little, no?
whether you add 1 to that or not, it's still getting rounded up to and dealt with as if it's a 100.
ah here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2M3EYPVDW2o
that's what its all about
but in a fair more pertinent way
I probably wouldn't have heard of this story without this thread
directly influenced by the policies of a Conservative-led coalition government (and the decidedly neo-con Labour government before it), and yet his reputation as a pro-Conservative troll means that you're all stumbling over yourselves to denounce him?
Sounds very confusing to me. If it's truly a bait-and-switch troll from the master then I'm very impressed - changing sides like this was probably bound to knock most off their rocker. It's almost like you all WANT him to keep posting (rarely if ever heartfelt) Tory propaganda and finding this one constant missing creates a greater antagonism than if he'd blamed it on evil Lefties
I've been respectful to the lady and her family in this thread by not trolling, but I wonder, morally, how much 'respectful silence' they are due? They (the family, and seemingly the lady in question) have chosen to make as much political capital out of this as possible. By consciously making it a public a debate and putting themsleves in the public eye, does that mean it's ok to criticise this lady's choice, even criticise it aggressively? Or must it still go largely unchallenged due to the upsetting nature of the 'protest' against the goverment's policy?
I'm not sure.
True artistry never reveals too much.
Really, the questions in ^this post are what I was trying to get a feel for when I started the thread, but people seemed to want to talk about irrelevant things instead.
There is no evidence they searched out the papers etc. Plus they aren't the kind of people who are looking for "political capital".
My thoughts are that suicide is rarely about one issue. The change in her benefits may have been the straw that broke etc etc, but it's wrong to blame one issue for this tragic event.
First, that the family haven't gone all-out to push it. And second, that individual cases should, in general, not be used for political purposes.
However, it's hard to even engage with the discussion on the terms you've set out above when only a couple of months ago, George Osborne and David Cameron both blamed the Philpott case on welfare culture.
Or at least, when approached, not only let the Mirror run the story but took pictures etc for it as well. They clearly haven't kept it, or even tried to keep it, a private matter.
We can't say how much 'effort' they've made to push it. A story like this is pushed by the papers, not the people it happens to. They're not running a dedicated social media campaign. They're not hiring Max Clifford (is he even allowed to work right now probably not). They're just talking to the papers when they come knocking.
Granted, they could choose not to, but their mother has just killed herself. They're probably really fucking angry and looking for someone to blame. Osborne and Cameron can't claim that red mist defence, in any case.
what you're trying to do is not in any way rendered invalid by saying "OH, WELL by making a political protest or point or trying to get publicity for your political ideas you're just making a political protest or point or trying to get publicity for your political ideas!!"
Even more depressing though.
and your girlfriend too
surprised an OCD techie like yourself is still using it.
Dunno why everyone doesn't use imgur, tbh.
would do usually, but couldn't be arsed on this occasion
Would be more appropriate
Im fairly friendly with people who do LARPing and historical re-enactments, wargames, card games - spend most their free time on online MMORPGs....but 'cosplay' is just something else.
(It's because the default assumption of putting on a costume is that you're going to have some fun. If you had to wear a costume as part of your work you'd say, "I wear a costume *for work*," to stop people assuming you were having a good time. So making a word out of Costume Play is basically annoying because of the pointless new word creation and also because it's borderline tautological.)
http://www.howtosteampunk.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/steampunkclothes.jpg has turned into me being Mr Steampunk. Yeah, its the word more than the actual activity. L_T might be right its a bit hateful when its only the word used. Fuck it.
the brilliant photo of meo & cg
We both like to go to comic book/anime/sci0fi conventions. Nothing wrong with it.
and I won't lose my rag at you
I'm wearing the top hat.
and now i'm crying
That she's almost definitely not going to be the last person to feel they can't go on living because of what this government has done to their lives, makes it even sadder. Be good if the NHS was in a good position to deal with the massive increase in mental health problems but somehow the tories have managed to destroy that too.
Also cant believe how much people are criticising her for not claiming disability benefits, cause that's otherwise so encouraged right.
But yeah let's have a conversation about why a disabled woman was no longer allowed to live in the house where she single-handedly raised her children.
And she was allowed to continue living in the house she single-handedly raised her children.
Do tell us more about what this woman hadn't done for herself though, I'm not sure what you mean.
If you can't afford the house you're in, you move to one you can. Especially if that house is beyond your requirements.
thought for a short moment you'd almost recaptured your old form, but you're not even trying now are you?
Where was she supposed to go?
When you've got a financial buffer, yeah, you move to adapt to your circumstances. When you're already at the bottom, you die.
She was actually probably entitled to disability benefit which would have exempted her from the "bedroom tax". But seeing as she couldn't work, was not offered suitable replacement housing, she has to lose an extra £80 from her housing benefit
It very likely to be one of those statistically anomalous cases (like Philpott)
which could house a family in need of somewhere and therefore they should have rehoused her in a smaller property, one of the many they were encouraged to build under the Thatcher Gov-
this one was doomed from the start
I just wonder if he thinks the bedroom tax is a good policy
had short hair.
Nah she was called Gemma, actually.
It's short for Bob.
So heartbreaking...I feel bleak about having no prospects and comparably I have tonnes! Human worth isn't measured in how much abstract shit you can produce for nobody's benefit ffs! Urgh suicide is just the worst...thinking about how her son must feel; so sad.