Quote from: PeterGrant on October 27, 2020, 08:13:55 am

It is always the right thing to force more from the government. That’s what they are there for. Charities and foodbanks are a failure of government.

Far too often the government gets let off the hook. Help for Heroes and the Earl Haig fund are prime examples. They exist as businesses for the purpose of keeping themselves going and never criticise or lobby government for their failure to provide for veterans and their families.

Depends how you look at it mate.

I'd say people living within their means, a return to families looking after each other, people planning ahead in case of the worst happening, less blowing of disposable income and a culture of responsibility rather than dependency would stop the need for as many handouts or charities.

I don't think it's the government's responsibility to make people have comfortable lives, but they should indeed provide a safeguard to those who are in the very worst of situations until they can get back on their feet.  They can provide the levers for people to better their lives, but throwing money at people just creates laziness that other people pay for and which often doesn't solve anything, just creating further problems instead.

I'd say foodbanks are largely a failure of people to run their lives properly rather than anything to do with the government, especially when they already give folk money through benefits.  There will, of course, be exceptions to this.

My aunty/uncle had 7 children and the two of them worked their fingers to the bone and sold possessions to get them presents at Christmas and the likes.  I doubt they blamed the government for their skintness.  Of course, once the weans grew up and moved out they lead stressfree lives with appreciative children who look after them well into their old age.  Short term pain for long term gain.  I'm not saying the government can't help people, but we've gone too far with everyone looking to the government for everything in my opinion.  You don't get anything easy in life.

I'm not even saying the taxpayer-funded school meals shouldn't happen, but there needs to be a sensible discussion rather than everyone reverting to the default of just calling the Tories evil and heartless 

You are not far wrong there at all mate.Families ,being careful with what money You have .living within your means are good protestant values.Id go as far to say Catholics or the ones i know in England share the same values.In fact a lot of faiths do.
As someone who's marriage aint great with 3 young kids i do not want to sound a hypocrite .Im gutted with Regards to the situation but I will be there for my kids and fight to get fair access rights.
In my view the Government should provide the playing field for people to prosper.That means the the climate is right for work.If a man works He should recieve help if the wages are not livable.Better still the Government should make companies pay decent wages.Even at the detrement of theirselves regarding collecting less tax off companies who are going to be paying less if they pay out more.Its stil a win Win for the Government as they will get less tax but because wages are higher the tax credits will be lower and the need to employ people on loaded pensions to basically send tax back in the form of tax credits will be less.
i dont sit and churf over people who dont work but its plain wrong if they are capable of doing so.why should I or You pay for someone to sit on his cracker and watch TV?Genuine unemployed with good work records could recieve more for a short time to soften the blow if we were not doing money in on dossers.The problem with turning a blind eye to the workshy is one day they may reach a figure where they eat up the tax revenue collected.then we will have a real problem.Also it sets bad examples to kids

if kids are struggling to get fed properly it maybe because the parents have fell on hard times but it may also be because they like gambling,smoking,bevvy or drugs.
I actually like young Rashford.a lad driven by his own childhood problems and a lad with a accent that represents the area he is from.Not a thing to gain for Him financially here.i will say though the money these chaps are on can leave a sour taste in a struggling working mans mouth .Especially when they are the ones who will be paying for it through their taxes.Dave from Amazon cant squirrel his wages way in image rights can He?
iv watched with interest since the lockdown at football clubs.The shambles the Republic of Scouselands Red team problems over furloughing their staff when they made 33m profit last year.Surely a team of well paid superstars could just find out how much the wage bill is for non footballing staff and put a fraction of their wages to good use?.Ozil at Arsenal decided to pay the wages of the laid off mascot which is all very nice and fair play to him but what about the hordes of other staff who got laid off?imagine the feel good factor around a club where the players are paying the wages of the non football staff!.
Harry Kane has effectively sponsered Orient because He was loaned to them.He hasnt forgot His time there when all He wanted was to play first team football.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Quote from: Hardliner on October 27, 2020, 08:32:26 am

Quote from: PeterGrant on October 27, 2020, 08:13:55 am

It is always the right thing to force more from the government. That’s what they are there for. Charities and foodbanks are a failure of government.

Far too often the government gets let off the hook. Help for Heroes and the Earl Haig fund are prime examples. They exist as businesses for the purpose of keeping themselves going and never criticise or lobby government for their failure to provide for veterans and their families.

Depends how you look at it mate.

I'd say people living within their means, a return to families looking after each other, people planning ahead in case of the worst happening, less blowing of disposable income and a culture of responsibility rather than dependency would stop the need for as many handouts or charities.

I don't think it's the government's responsibility to make people have comfortable lives, but they should indeed provide a safeguard to those who are in the very worst of situations until they can get back on their feet.  They can provide the levers for people to better their lives, but throwing money at people just creates laziness that other people pay for and which often doesn't solve anything, just creating further problems instead.

I'd say foodbanks are largely a failure of people to run their lives properly rather than anything to do with the government, especially when they already give folk money through benefits.  There will, of course, be exceptions to this.

My aunty/uncle had 7 children and the two of them worked their fingers to the bone and sold possessions to get them presents at Christmas and the likes.  I doubt they blamed the government for their skintness.  Of course, once the weans grew up and moved out they lead stressfree lives with appreciative children who look after them well into their old age.  Short term pain for long term gain.  I'm not saying the government can't help people, but we've gone too far with everyone looking to the government for everything in my opinion.  You don't get anything easy in life.

I'm not even saying the taxpayer-funded school meals shouldn't happen, but there needs to be a sensible discussion rather than everyone reverting to the default of just calling the Tories evil and heartless 

You are not far wrong there at all mate.Families ,being careful with what money You have .living within your means are good protestant values.Id go as far to say Catholics or the ones i know in England share the same values.In fact a lot of faiths do.
As someone who's marriage aint great with 3 young kids i do not want to sound a hypocrite .Im gutted with Regards to the situation but I will be there for my kids and fight to get fair access rights.
In my view the Government should provide the playing field for people to prosper.That means the the climate is right for work.If a man works He should recieve help if the wages are not livable.Better still the Government should make companies pay decent wages.Even at the detrement of theirselves regarding collecting less tax off companies who are going to be paying less if they pay out more.Its stil a win Win for the Government as they will get less tax but because wages are higher the tax credits will be lower and the need to employ people on loaded pensions to basically send tax back in the form of tax credits will be less.
i dont sit and churf over people who dont work but its plain wrong if they are capable of doing so.why should I or You pay for someone to sit on his cracker and watch TV?Genuine unemployed with good work records could recieve more for a short time to soften the blow if we were not doing money in on dossers.The problem with turning a blind eye to the workshy is one day they may reach a figure where they eat up the tax revenue collected.then we will have a real problem.Also it sets bad examples to kids

if kids are struggling to get fed properly it maybe because the parents have fell on hard times but it may also be because they like gambling,smoking,bevvy or drugs.
I actually like young Rashford.a lad driven by his own childhood problems and a lad with a accent that represents the area he is from.Not a thing to gain for Him financially here.i will say though the money these chaps are on can leave a sour taste in a struggling working mans mouth .Especially when they are the ones who will be paying for it through their taxes.Dave from Amazon cant squirrel his wages way in image rights can He?
iv watched with interest since the lockdown at football clubs.The shambles the Republic of Scouselands Red team problems over furloughing their staff when they made 33m profit last year.Surely a team of well paid superstars could just find out how much the wage bill is for non footballing staff and put a fraction of their wages to good use?.Ozil at Arsenal decided to pay the wages of the laid off mascot which is all very nice and fair play to him but what about the hordes of other staff who got laid off?imagine the feel good factor around a club where the players are paying the wages of the non football staff!.
Harry Kane has effectively sponsered Orient because He was loaned to them.He hasnt forgot His time there when all He wanted was to play first team football.

Another fine, thought provoking post, JTC.  You bring a new dimension to the board mate.