Skirmisher Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 ?!? Hold on, lets rewind. If you don't have a problem with implicit generalisations like that then how do you explain your objection to Anna B's post which started this particular tangent? Anna B said... No. Your wrong. That's the problem, he wasn't wrong at all but you decided to jump in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xenia Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 So equally, as a broad principal, poor people are not hardworking? They're poor because they're lazy? Poor people tend not to invest at all, neither wisely nor badly, so I don't think that point stands. The issue, if you will allow me, is not "the poor" . No one in this country or this community is actually poor, they have shelter they have food, they have free medical facilities. Anyone who does not avail themselves of this generosity does so because they delibrately exclude themselves. The issue it seems to me is the differential between those who have accumulated wealth and those who have not. People who have modest incomes have, by prudent investment in standard financial products accumulated substantial amounts of cash. Sensible property specualtion has traditionally seen persons of limited means substantially enhance their wealth. What we have seen in the last few years is the end of the "buy now pay later" mentality where saving was anathema, HP at high interest rates the norm. Debt has risen to disgraceful levels fuelled by advertising and the media generally. The "poor" include those who are victims of the Ocean Finance generation, they are not really poor but feel deprived due to their past profligacy. I exclude those who are poor due to illness infirmity or are in any way of limited ability. These are the nearest to being genuinely poor. They are entitled to our sympathy and our support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 The issue it seems to me is the differential between those who have accumulated wealth and those who have not. People who have modest incomes have, by prudent investment in standard financial products accumulated substantial amounts of cash. Sensible property specualtion has traditionally seen persons of limited means substantially enhance their wealth. Whilst pushing other people with limited means into deeper poverty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xenia Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Whilst pushing other people with limited means into deeper poverty. Mr Smith, life is competitive, I for one am not content to go at the speed of the slowest. When I have bought property I have modernised it to a high standard I have then either sold it on, at a profit, or rented it out to suitable tenants. I have sympathy for people of limited means and have been able to assist them from time to time. However, I am not my brothers keeper, we live in a welfare state were usually charity is either unwelcome or inappopriate. In this country there is no real poverty, no one starves no one is without accomodation no one is refused medical treatment. Except those who exclude themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Mr Smith, life is competitive, I for one am not content to go at the speed of the slowest. When I have bought property I have modernised it to a high standard I have then either sold it on, at a profit, or rented it out to suitable tenants. I have sympathy for people of limited means and have been able to assist them from time to time. However, I am not my brothers keeper, we live in a welfare state were usually charity is either unwelcome or inappopriate. In this country there is no real poverty, no one starves no one is without accomodation no one is refused medical treatment. Except those who exclude themselves. And deprived someone with limited means the opportunity to buy an affordable house, greed is after all just human nature and one persons gain is usually always someone else’s loss. I have sympathy with the younger generation’s ability to afford housing which is the reason I didn’t buy the housing that they could traditionally afford and contribute to their plight for my personal gain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xenia Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 And deprived someone with limited means the opportunity to buy an affordable house, greed is after all just human nature and one persons gain is usually always someone else’s loss. I have sympathy with the younger generation’s ability to afford housing which is the reason I didn’t buy the housing that they could traditionally afford and contribute to their plight for my personal gain. A decision I am sure you took for pefectly honourable reasons. Not one the majoity of people would subscribe to however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saunaman Posted June 13, 2012 Author Share Posted June 13, 2012 Yet another threat to transparency and openness ? Whistleblowers in LARGE PRIVATE COMPANIES will now possibly have to prove that their revelations are " in the public interest" ..........( Can anyone think of any large private companies ?) (Section14 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill , for the pedants) This comes just a week or so after Eddie Hutchinson , top auditor at Working Links , made allegations of fraud at both Working Links AND A4e, ie "blew the whistle" to MPs . Nick Herbert , Justice Minister , is now apparently a "commercial development manager" at Working Links , think he backs Winsor for the police review job but not entirely sure . And I believe Case and White (Winsor's legal firm) also do work for A4e . So "we're all in it together" , eh ? Whatever happened to Freedom of Speech ? The rich seem to be tightening their grip over freedom of speech as fast as they can ! On a lighter note , the Olympics opening ceremony seems to include peasants and sheep ........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xenia Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 Yet another threat to transparency and openness ? Whistleblowers in LARGE PRIVATE COMPANIES will now possibly have to prove that their revelations are " in the public interest" ..........( Can anyone think of any large private companies ?) (Section14 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill , for the pedants) This comes just a week or so after Eddie Hutchinson , top auditor at Working Links , made allegations of fraud at both Working Links AND A4e, ie "blew the whistle" to MPs . Nick Herbert , Justice Minister , is now apparently a "commercial development manager" at Working Links , think he backs Winsor for the police review job but not entirely sure . And I believe Case and White (Winsor's legal firm) also do work for A4e . So "we're all in it together" , eh ? Whatever happened to Freedom of Speech ? The rich seem to be tightening their grip over freedom of speech as fast as they can ! On a lighter note , the Olympics opening ceremony seems to include peasants and sheep ........... It is probably a good thing. A lot of so called whistle blowing is done by those who for whatever reason are disaffected failures. They seek to convert thier envy and resentment into a noble cause. If they have genuine evidence fair enough, but so much nonsense has been published and reputations damaged by schneid unsustantiated garbage that it is time it was regulated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Graham Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 Yet another threat to transparency and openness ? Whistleblowers in LARGE PRIVATE COMPANIES will now possibly have to prove that their revelations are " in the public interest" ..........( Can anyone think of any large private companies ?) (Section14 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill , for the pedants) This comes just a week or so after Eddie Hutchinson , top auditor at Working Links , made allegations of fraud at both Working Links AND A4e, ie "blew the whistle" to MPs . Nick Herbert , Justice Minister , is now apparently a "commercial development manager" at Working Links , think he backs Winsor for the police review job but not entirely sure . And I believe Case and White (Winsor's legal firm) also do work for A4e . So "we're all in it together" , eh ? Whatever happened to Freedom of Speech ? The rich seem to be tightening their grip over freedom of speech as fast as they can ! On a lighter note , the Olympics opening ceremony seems to include peasants and sheep ........... Freedom of Speech? Look what happened to whistleblowers in the public sector under Labour. Remember that bloke in Sheffield who blew the whistle on Blunkett rubber stamping visas from everyone from Romania? He got sacked and we got a country full of beggars and thieves. Time after time nurses who blow the whistle on crappy NHS hospitals get fired on trumped up disciplinary charges. One very good reason that the public sector is not fit for purpose is because the management will never take responsibility for failure. Any employee who challenges them is driven out and loses their livelihood and future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockjaw Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 Freedom of Speech? Look what happened to whistleblowers in the public sector under Labour. Remember that bloke in Sheffield who blew the whistle on Blunkett rubber stamping visas from everyone from Romania? ....... Any employee who challenges them is driven out and loses their livelihood and future. How embarrassing for you, Jim. The person to whom you refer has, since being sacked, become an author, a TV "talking head" and a parliamentary candidate. One could suggest that all those are as a consequence of his challenging "them". Don't you ever check your facts before posting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.