First of all, you are now warned this thread is likely to be highly contentious. If you feel you are incapable of doing so in a dispassionate, mature manner, please do not contribute.

So, looking into the future, what becomes readily apparent? To me, two things.

1) We have already over populated the world.
2) Crime seems to be getting out of hand.

Despite being a lefty liberal, I can only see extreme measures sorting out these particular problem.

For the first, Birth Licenses for all. You want to have a kid, then you had better prove you can support it and pay for it yourself, otherwise no sprog for you. Easyish to achieve, as you add contraceptives to the water supply, and once you are licensed, you receive a drug which reverses the effects. Simple and effective. If applied globally, the requirements for a License would need to vary. After all, if we applied purely Western levels of provision, nobody in the 3rd World would ever be granted a license.

As for the other? Move towards Judge Dredd style instant justice. It seems ludicrous to me, and a total waste of time that in the modern age trials can take so long. Even when criminals are caught red handed, they still get a trial. Now I'm not advocating a change to innocent untl proven guilty, but if you are caught midway through beating the daylights out of someone, you have clearly broken the Law, and should be incarcerated immediately. No more soft touch Policing. Caught with illegal Drugs? Off to the slammer. Rapist, Murderer, Paedophile? This is Mr Gibbett, and he'd like to get to grips with you. Obviously, where the death sentence is applied, a full and rigorous trial is necessary, unless you are literally caught up to your nuts in someone you shouldn't be. Kind of hard to argue innocence when you blatantly have just diddled that kid....

So, what do you think? Do we need progressively harsher treatment as the world itself gets harsher? Please feel free to discuss my ideas, present your own ideas, and indeed discuss the moral implications of the various ideas put forward. Just. Keep. It. Civil.

Depends a lot on where you get your news:

Today’s fall in fertility is both very large and very fast. Poor countries are racing through the same demographic transition as rich ones, starting at an earlier stage of development and moving more quickly. The transition from a rate of five to that of two, which took 130 years to happen in Britain—from 1800 to 1930—took just 20 years—from 1965 to 1985—in South Korea. Mothers in developing countries today can expect to have three children. Their mothers had six. In some countries the speed of decline in the fertility rate has been astonishing. In Iran, it dropped from seven in 1984 to 1.9 in 2006—and to just 1.5 in Tehran.

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14744915

US violent crime rate

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm

It's all in the way you look at the issues imho. Population will probably stabilise around 8-9 billion, food production is improving consistently and water distribution can meet those demands. Crime rate is based upon modernising societies which includes better reporting, stupid white collar IP crimes and minor drugs getting counted in the mix, etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
oh and fwiw, the solution for both in my opinion is government provided xboxes for all.

X-Boxes? That's quite the punishment!

I guess I'm just sick to death of Britains self created underclass. Those who sit on their arses all day, living off Benefits. They drop sprogs like there's no tomorrow, are noted for their criminal element (though this is likely due to media distortion in many cases) and nobody seems to do much more than aim the occasional 'tut' in their direction.

Seriously, Britain BS Gang Culture (imported from Hippity Hop tripe) isn't that big a problem right now, but if we brought back the Death Sentence, all those wannabe hardmen knifing each other can be neatly removed from the equation. These morons actually FILM some of their attacks. I'd predict a very busy executioner for the first couple of years, before things drop off as the message finally permeates their thick minds.

Bloody Hell, Mad Doc, are you channelling the Daily Mail today?

I bloody hope not. Though it does seem I have a few Right Wing bones in my body, and I need to release my bile from them in safe bursts.

My employer (Southampton City Council) briefly flirted with the idea of compulsory contraceptive injections for teenage girls in deprived areas. It was not met with much support...

I agree with your sentiment Mad Dok, that generally speaking you should not be allowed children unless you can demonstrate that you can raise and support it without state aid, but this is a minefield that no politician is going stroll through.

Someone is going to have the balls sooner or later.

Teen Pregnancies are a problem, as the Mother gets not chance at her early adult life, and the kid is looking at a less than good early life. Don't get me wrong, the media blows crap teenage mothers out of proportion, and I certainly know most Teen mothers (and indeed fathers) do their utmost for their child. But so few are planned. Better education is one thing, but sadly isn't enough right now. It's a nasty circle. People from poorer backgrounds are more likely to repeat the cycle, so perhaps intervention is the only answer. The forcible breaking of a cycle isn't especially pleasent, but becoming necessary IMHO.

I agree wiht everything MDG is saying.

Also, if someone wants to keep living, they must have a liscense.

Goodbye ghettorats and chavs.

Golden Eyed Scout wrote:I agree wiht everything MDG is saying.

Also, if someone wants to keep living, they must have a liscense.

Goodbye ghettorats and chavs.

I have a license.
here it is.



Remember there's no attack dog like a wiener attack dog.

Judge Dredd law? Are you serious?

That means you will have to trust the police entirely. You will have to put everything in their hands. They can do whatever they want, to whoever they want. All they have to say is that they saw whoever they didn't like doing something wrong. Some of these officers will be susceptible to bribes. And what happens next?

If you are willing to do away with the legal system then good luck. :p

Legal System doesn't work that well nowadays anyways. Well, not in Britain.

If you feel you are incapable of doing so in a dispassionate, mature manner, please do not contribute.

Dude! Harsh...



Hmm... I can see what you're driving at (although it's not that leftie or liberal IMO!), but I think it's more of a problem in smaller countries with high population density like the UK and to a greater extent, Japan. Isn't there a limit to the amount of kids you can have in China? I can't see it ever happening in the UK, but you never know....
As for the death-penalty, I can honestly see it being reinstated within 20 years or less. I have a funny feeling Britain may start to drift over to the right-wing in a big way over the next few years - lots of talk of national pride, increasing grumbles about political correctness 'gone mad', 'buying British' is becoming trendy, plus the Tories are coming in next year (probably)... It could just be my perception, but there are even more Union Flags knocking about on the streets, on products and in shop-windows (The Co-Op for example). Not that that's neccesarily a BAD thing, mind.

Plus, when Dakka's biggest Leftie, Comrade Grotsnik, starts advocating forced sterilisation and 'hang 'em high' as a solution to our crime problems - you know SOMETHING'S up.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

As for the other? Move towards Judge Dredd style instant justice. It seems ludicrous to me, and a total waste of time that in the modern age trials can take so long. Even when criminals are caught red handed, they still get a trial.

Disgraceful. Clampers, for example, should be armed and simply shoot the owner of any car illegally parked when they return and/or the vehicle can then be seized and sold off for the benefit of the nation.

Kind of my point!

Something has to be done about the Underclass, because it is largely self imposed. They have the same options and chances I do, but choose to piss it up the wall and lead a life on Social Security. As a tax payer, I fricking object to it being a lifestyle viable enough to be a choice!

We do need Social Security to help people survive rough times. But when you live your life on it, you can feth right off and die for all I care.

Definitely agree that raising kids should require some kind of license but I DO NOT want to give more power to the police or legal system than what they already have; or at least not to the point of Judge Dredd.

Also don't think there's much of a hope for a strong and united government for Earth unless aliens invade or another world war ensued.

Imo:

1. Decriminalize drugs and acts that don't really hurt society like marijuana and prostitution. Frees up prisons for the real criminals, creates jobs, and you'll have a more peaceful populace. No secret that a lot of the more violent criminals have poor sex lives and maybe this would help some of those cases.

2. Population control: Definitely should be a license or some legal standard in areas that have overpopulation. Doesn't make much sense that one needs a license for cars, guns, fishing, etc. but any Joe Schmo can have kids when raising kids is arguably more important and has more of an impact on society than anything else.

3. Better education: Have more trade skills and other fields taught so those that don't pursue higher learning can graduate with a potentially work-ready resume. A lot of schools already do this with autoshop and the like but more options the better.

4. Mandatory military/civil service : Imo you'll get a better overall population if everyone's gone through the same kind of boot camp experience. People become stronger and more confident after they had a pissed off person yelling at them to do more push ups. Also a lot of common sense skills and teamwork is taught here; learn to value eachother and people will probably be less likely to shoot eachother if they know they're dealing with someone with military skills.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, military service also gets people accustomed to a relatively healthy diet and plenty of exercise - two things the Westernized population does poorly in largely. Could help counter obesity and in turn make a healthier population.

And we do have a scale of qualification for Parenthood already in place. Look at would be Adoptees.

Pass that, and boom, one antidote until you're pregnant. Fail it, and come back when you've improved the areas you were deficient in.

Totally agree about autoshop schooling etc. In Britain, our state system is predominantly academic, but in a very half arsed way. This fails academics like myself, and also practicals, who excel at physical tasks, but struggle with academic studies. Grammar Schools are only lame when you remove the Technical Schools!

Civil Service I like the idea of, but it would have to be more inventive than just Armed Forces.

1: Birth licensing:
Basic competency testing and training for parenthood. Implementation might be a bit odd, due to the cryptofaschist implications involved. Approve of the concept, but have no objective answers as to how to implement it.

2: Instant Justice (TM)
As much as a great storytelling tool this is, I think its almost as bad an idea as getting a bachelor's degree in medieval history. People are inherently corrupt and corruptible. Instituting a fascist state that's not being ruled by an omniscient benevolent dictator and enforced by incorruptible Serpentor-esque distillations of wisdom and mercy is begging for trouble.

I dont trust the police, i dont think they are professional or train properly, so i cant say im all for Judge Dredd style coppers...

Death penalty, well.. id say that is certainly viable, as im pretty sure one of the primary reasons it got axed was because of mistakes?

Well, with CCTV and DNA testing i think if your only 99.99% certain someone did it, then you can jail them for life. But if you have 100% proof, you know.. like.. DNA on a womans corpse from finding the dudes skin under her finger nails and gak like that.. i think we could end them yeah.

I mean, i think most criminals can be rehabilitated, sure.. druggies and burglars and such. But a guy like Ian Huntley, he aint ever gonna be released so.. as dirty Harry said.. why cant we just "save the tax payers lots of money?"

My point exactly.

Even if it's a crime of passion, you'd have to apply the law evenly.

Someone mentioned about legalising drugs. Covered that in a previous thread, and I semi-agree, in so far that I advocate treating them all evenly, be they legalised, or criminalised to the same degree. Yes, carring an eighth of solid would carry the same sentence as a kilo of Heroin. Drugs is drugs, and if they are illegal, it's the slammer for you.

I fully support complete legalisation of all narcotics, but that's a whole 'nother thread!


@ Cane - 3) and 4) on your list are actually current BNP policies, believe it or not!

Lol, this is reminds me of Starship Troopers where you had to become a citizen in order to have babies and the only way to become a citizen was to serve in the military.

@ Mad Dok, you mentioned that having babies deprives teenage girls of their early adult years. Teenage girls are having babies just so they can avoid the responsibilities of early adult years. "You have a baby and no means to support it? One free house coming right up."

God, nothing was more depressing than that documentary a few months ago that highlighted that the British government pays out more in benefits, than it receives in income tax. The working population in Britain literally pays for the unemployed to sit around and watch Sky TV. I work and I don't have Sky TV! (though this is more to do with Sky TV being rubbish).

Yet, when the tories slash the welfare-state - and they will, considering 'super-Dave' is a serious Thatcherite - we will all be complaing about how heartless they are, no doubt.

I would hate to govern the British people.

Albatross wrote:Yet, when the tories slash the welfare-state - and they will, considering 'super-Dave' is a serious Thatcherite - we will all be complaing about how heartless they are, no doubt.

I would hate to govern the British people.

Hmm... think Super Dave is more moderate, but I will not complain if he get's people off their arses and back into McDonalds where they belong. Not sure this would be a good thing, as I much prefer all of the foreign staff members you get in McDonalds these days. Was served by this Indochina girl the other day and was pleasantly bemused by her euphoria at the priviledge of being able to serve me a Bacon and Egg McMuffin. Mind you, I think she was new...

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:First of all, you are now warned this thread is likely to be highly contentious. If you feel you are incapable of doing so in a dispassionate, mature manner, please do not contribute.

So, looking into the future, what becomes readily apparent? To me, two things.

1) We have already over populated the world.
2) Crime seems to be getting out of hand.

Despite being a lefty liberal, I can only see extreme measures sorting out these particular problem.

For the first, Birth Licenses for all. You want to have a kid, then you had better prove you can support it and pay for it yourself, otherwise no sprog for you. Easyish to achieve, as you add contraceptives to the water supply, and once you are licensed, you receive a drug which reverses the effects. Simple and effective. If applied globally, the requirements for a License would need to vary. After all, if we applied purely Western levels of provision, nobody in the 3rd World would ever be granted a license.

As for the other? Move towards Judge Dredd style instant justice. It seems ludicrous to me, and a total waste of time that in the modern age trials can take so long. Even when criminals are caught red handed, they still get a trial. Now I'm not advocating a change to innocent untl proven guilty, but if you are caught midway through beating the daylights out of someone, you have clearly broken the Law, and should be incarcerated immediately. No more soft touch Policing. Caught with illegal Drugs? Off to the slammer. Rapist, Murderer, Paedophile? This is Mr Gibbett, and he'd like to get to grips with you. Obviously, where the death sentence is applied, a full and rigorous trial is necessary, unless you are literally caught up to your nuts in someone you shouldn't be. Kind of hard to argue innocence when you blatantly have just diddled that kid....

So, what do you think? Do we need progressively harsher treatment as the world itself gets harsher? Please feel free to discuss my ideas, present your own ideas, and indeed discuss the moral implications of the various ideas put forward. Just. Keep. It. Civil.

Smartass mode on:

So Doc, how'd that conversation people advised you to have go with your Italian girlfriend?

Mad Dok is a bit like Mr Benn. Seducer of Women one day, Stand Up Comedian the next. Today the Shopkeeper has issued him with the Revolutionist costume.

(For non-UK people, Mr Benn is an old BBC cartoon where the central character visits a fancy dress costume shop and goes off on adventures determined by his costume choice).

I used to love that show as a kid, Ben being my own name.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Something has to be done about the Underclass, because it is largely self imposed.

You do realize that for competition, and therefore capitalism, to work someone has to lose, right? I'd guess that something on the order of 75% of social policy turns on the notion of how to properly placate the underclass.

Ah yes, but capitalism isn't the only system is it?

No, but there aren't any viable economic systems that I know of which do not require the existence of an underclass.

You can't simply redistribute all the wealth as that removes the incentive to work, but you also can't simply ignore the poor because that tends to end in violence.

MGS wrote:Easyish to achieve, as you add contraceptives to the water supply, and once you are licensed, you receive a drug which reverses the effects.

This is outright crazy talk, no question... I will scan through the thread, before I comment any further.

dogma wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Something has to be done about the Underclass, because it is largely self imposed.

You do realize that for competition, and therefore capitalism, to work someone has to lose, right? I'd guess that something on the order of 75% of social policy turns on the notion of how to properly placate the underclass.

The consequences of prosperity, and the notion of a capitalist country, all hinge on this facet; even if indirectly.

Taking advantage of a system such as capitalism, and not understanding any of this; anyone in this group, needs to get a license to speak on the internet...
By the little information I have to gauge (Oops, I said MGS by accident.) Mad Doc's sentiment (and a few others in this thread), anyone who is poor, should be neutered due to the fact that they even present a hazard... of being alive.

There are a million and a half ways to appropriately solve some of these issues; but if you expect to be able to accomplish a 'utopian' society, basically killing the poor is a terrible place to start. I feel like I am watching someone scream in agony... because of a stubbed toe. Don't get me wrong, it hurts; just wait until you sprain both ankles and dislocate both arms. You'll probably pass out .

(this is a comment on the thread, not Dogma)

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Something has to be done about the Underclass, because it is largely self imposed.

Wouldn't that logically mean that nothing needs to be done about the underclass?

No, but there aren't any viable economic systems that I know of which do not require the existence of an underclass.

Which system REQUIRES an underclass? If you'd said working class, I'd agree - but an underclass would have very little in the way of meaningful purchasing power, by definition would be jobless and so would soak up public money, thus making it inefficient in terms of a capitalist society. An underclass would exist, but wouldn't be required to drive the system. In fact it's more of a by-product.
But anyway he wasn't really talking about 'The Underclass' as a concept in it's wider context - he was referring more to the expansion of the British underclass due to the effects of an excessive welfare state. At least thats how I read it.
It's theoretically impossible to starve to death in the UK, or to be homeless - yet here we find ourselves. The Government help you find work, and there ARE jobs out there. The problem here is the system works in such a way that you don't need to work. If you have kids you get a council house (not that bad, really - I grew up in one), Child Benefit, Child Tax Credits, Income Support, free healthcare + prescriptions (THAT old chestnut....), milk-tokens, subsidised childcare, free higher education (well, part of it IS a loan) - plus you could pretend to have a long-term illness and claim Incapacity Benefit, Disability Living Allowance... and the more kids you have, the more money they give you.
There is no incentive to have a stable and productive family, and the kids grow up in this atmosphere and do the same, getting pregnant at 15 so the whole fetid cycle starts all over again.

They are parasites - IMHO after 6 months of being jobless, the gov't should say: 'Right young man/woman, so you still haven't found a job then? Ok, I have JUST the job for you...Army, Navy or Air Force?'

Albatross wrote:The Government help you find work, and there ARE jobs out there.

You do realize that by choosing to work in a full time minimum wage job, the majority of people in that situation, have effectively locked themselves out of a more lucrative career? Right?

From my family's mouth to your ears... the economy sucks so badly now, that they are all worried. All professional, and all with at least one degree. The only family member that is not worried, is a Doctor, with decades of experience in his field. My cousins are lucky to find work, and they are all rather proper, hard working people. (This is my British family... you really don't want to know how bad it can be/ is, in the U.S.)

So in short, how many people here want to shovel poo? Okay, that is harsh... clean up vomit? No? Hmmm...

Stiffen penalties for Hard crimes, Legalise slight drugs. (Not prostitution as that involes a sex slave trade, Had drugs and Abusive pimp daddies). It's easy to blame a certain culture. Forcing the underclass to do anything is the first step to tyrany IMHO. Right now it's "Underclass and thier hippity hop are lazy crimminal scum who shouldn't breed". How long till they shouldn't be allowed on the good parts of town. Or should be allowed to do any of the things us good job having citizens do. It's easy to blame the poor, or the rich, or government, or some unliked minority.

I always argue that repressing any Class, Minority, or Religous/political belif. It always ends in to ways, massive riots, or genocide, just look at history. Even worse some crazy extremists might use these poor repressed jobless people to spread crazyness, MDG, I have to disagree with you this time.



Edit: Conscripting poor people into the armed forces is the worst Idea ever. Take a person born by say a 15 year old girl. trash his mom, family, and living conditions, force him into the Armed forces to protected the same people who mock and scorn his mom and family. Teach him how to wage war, and surround him with other people who have suffered foced sevice because they were born poor and can't find a job, and all in what is supposed to be a free democratic country. I'm sure that would end well.

sexiest_hero wrote:I always argue that repressing any Class, Minority, or Religous/political belif. It always ends in to ways, massive riots, or genocide, just look at history. Even worse some crazy extremists might use these poor repressed jobless people to spread crazyness, MDG, I have to disagree with you this time.

For some reason, a lot of people assume that everyone 'has the same opportunities', (and I am agreeing with you, just to be clear) where the reality is so much different; that any assumption along these lines could be considered delusional.

How much harder does that 'Chav' have to work to actually achieve something like becoming an architect, or an engineer? Guess what, most of them don't stand a chance, regardless of how you may view their lifestyle. By separating humanity from any portion of the population, you are distancing yourself, from true prosperity; not some nonsensical 'utopian babysitter state'. Mainly due to the fact that something like that is more than bound to collapse due to inefficiencies, and 'human' interference/ outright error.

First I'm going to reply to the whole issue with "child" license, is that it is a sure formula for a revolution, since average people would never stand for it, and it infringes on personal rights(where they are known), I not saying this doesn't happen, but you couldn't really introduce it to a society based on personal freedom(ex: US constitution)
I do think that if a mother is found to be an unfit parent, then the child should be taken away and raised by foster parents, (now for my more radical side) I think that any child not adopted by say their teens should be inducted into gov't jobs, such as military, etc. . .

Now on terms of criminal activity, I personally think that most of the reason that people think there are high crime rates is that media tends to focus on it. . .a lot since it sells rather well

You do realize that by choosing to work in a full time minimum wage job, the majority of people in that situation, have effectively locked themselves out of a more lucrative career? Right?

Well, of course! But that doesn't mean the jobs don't exist, or that you can't change jobs as soon as a more suitable one becomes available. I'm in the process of doing that now. My fiancee has 2 degrees and had to work in Blockbuster until a teaching vacancy became available - it didn't hurt her prospects. And exactly which lucrative career would a benefit junkie who's never worked be locking him/herself out of? I was talking about the voluntary unemployed, not people who've lost their jobs due to the credit crunch.

Just to keep this conversation toned, I would like to see the actual numbers, indicating the portion of the population you are actually talking about.

I do not doubt that there are some rather lazy people, but I really don't care about that. You speak of it as an epidemic, whereas I feel that you are using context (basic hyperbole would be my guess), rather than substance to make your points.

At any rate though, this 'problem' (whatever it is in actuality), is simply being used as a rather diluted talking point... all attacking your fellow citizens...

Okay, wasn't aware that this was a court of law, but fine....

The number of people claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance (the claimant count) in October 2009 increased by 12,900 on the month to reach 1.64 million, the highest number of claimants since April 1997.

Taken from the Telegraph on the 14th October 2009

The number of British people out of work has risen by a smaller-than-expected 88,000 to a fresh 14-year high of 2.47m

This is from the BBC

Fewer than a third of the 2.7 million people claiming incapacity benefit are legitimate claimants, a government welfare adviser has said.

and

Incapacity benefit costs the Treasury about £12bn a year.

According to 24 Dash, the number of working-age adults who are claiming benefits will reach six million this month.

The centre-right Policy Exchange forecast the rise using official government figures on benefit claimants and the latest unemployment figures, and they calculated that the cost of benefits will reach £193 billion next year.

Sounds like a problem to me. Those numbers are not hyperbole. You seemed to have based your opinions on the UK recession situation on what your middle class British family has told you. I actually come from the section of society that could be considered the 'underclass' and have first hand knowledge of that culture and the system under which it flourishes.

Whilst I personally agree with you Albatross, those figures are indicative of nothing except that a lot of people are unemployed during a period of recession. It does nothing to substantiate claims that a significant number of able people are simply sponging off of benefits.

A significant number of people would be a very hefty number indeed. There will always be 'leeches', but on that same note, to effectively block these individuals from the get-go; would inevitably mean that you would likely be denying benefits to those who deserve them as well.

Personally I would expect more of a problem with the actual services provided to get people back on their feet, rather than the fact that they get a check in the first place. Services in the U.S. can be downright offensive, and professionally lacking so highly, that I would say that those employees are by far the bigger problem.

It is very easy to blame a 'group' of people, for a problem that they have most likely not caused. I won't comment heavily in this thread, I just feel that most of this, them vs. us, mentality is based almost completely on nonsensical ideals.

Like I said though, there will inevitably be people that leech, but I take that as a problem with the existing system. Not a reason to start nuetering people... downright insanity is what that is. Crazy talk to the max.

Don't worry, there will be a war or pandemic soon enough, or Yellowstone will blow or something. There are always regulating factors just waiting to be triggered. 75,000 years ago, a super-volcano blew and reduced the entire Human population to around 4,00-5,000, yet here we are. And yes, there will always be scumbags who are perfectly happy to live off of the state and pop out unwanted children. There are also people out there still living the same way people did 10,000 years ago who have no idea that there is any other way to live. MDG, sometimes you just think too much and let yourself get wound up. It used to happen to me, but then I decided that it's just not worth the stress.

Albatross wrote:
Which system REQUIRES an underclass? If you'd said working class, I'd agree - but an underclass would have very little in the way of meaningful purchasing power, by definition would be jobless and so would soak up public money, thus making it inefficient in terms of a capitalist society. An underclass would exist, but wouldn't be required to drive the system. In fact it's more of a by-product.

As I understand the term is meant to reference the lowest rung of the working class. Not necessarily jobless (though probably not employed steadily), or unproductive, but simply not living above the poverty line. Its very possible to be employed, and below the poverty line in the US.

There will always be people like this, because there will always be jobs which require no skill to perform, and people who lack the financial resources to acquire skills to perform other tasks. This will only become more problematic as the increasing acceptance of technology pushes the cost of engaging with the society ever higher.

Albatross wrote:
They are parasites - IMHO after 6 months of being jobless, the gov't should say: 'Right young man/woman, so you still haven't found a job then? Ok, I have JUST the job for you...Army, Navy or Air Force?'

You may as well re-institute debtors prisons.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Kind of my point!

Your point is you should have been shot ? Really ?

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Someone is going to have the balls sooner or later.

There once was an Austrian Corporal with one testicle who...oh, balls, that's plural. Never mind.

About this whole move to take children away from their parents becuase they can't rasie them properly...yeah...Aussieland kind of has a bad rep for that kinda stuff. We sorta reaseoned in the 50's that aborigines were no good at raising thier kids so we took them away. Raised them to be 'good and proper whitey lovers.' What's to say a similar situation won't rise again?

@Dogma - Ah, I think we probably had different notions of what the 'underclass' to begin with . I understood it to mean 'long-term jobless on benefits' - perhaps 'benefit class' would work better as a term. Unskilled workers would still be part of the working class, IMHO.
And you CAN go to prison for being in debt in the UK - for non-payment of council tax or child benefit. The Military is a legitimate career - anyone who can't find a job within (ok, lets's change it to)12 mths is not trying IMO. I see nothing wrong with the government assigning people jobs, when said people have made zero effort to find one.

@Ketara - Which figures? The one that shows only a third of people are legitimately claiming Incapacity Benefit? That's £8 Billion stolen from the Government, and of course, from you and me.

@Wrexasaur - Which nonsensical ideals are these arguments based on? That it's wrong to sponge off the state? What are you talking about? I merely said that it was a problem here, because it is. I made no recommendations (apart from the army thing), and I didn't agree with the 'forced sterilisation' thing - which is what this whole discussion is about. I feel like you haven't read the whole thread, man...

Frazzled wrote:

Golden Eyed Scout wrote:I agree wiht everything MDG is saying.

Also, if someone wants to keep living, they must have a liscense.

Goodbye ghettorats and chavs.

I have a license.
here it is.

Unlikely.

@ albatross

Where are you getting that assumption from though? Do you have an article that would show this in some form? I get kind of pissed about this kind of thing, and I probably shouldn't, especially on the web.

I simply do not understand, how someone could judge so harshly. I have already established that I understand how there is more than likely to be several instances of what you are stating going on. This does not lead me to believe, in any way that you are basing your judgments on thoughtful rationale. Rather, I feel you are using the idea of 'lazy brits' to push a very strange point.

Who cares about the few individuals that no doubt get away with duping the system; this kind of thing happens everywhere, for many reasons. Law can get past the law, groceries can get past the groceries; but neither happens often, and it is most likely dealt with appropriately at any rate. Some random faceless figure, telling me that 2/3 of your welfare department is absolutely useless at their jobs, does little more than make me wary of your government employees... and in all honesty, I would be questioning your sources a damn site more than a faceless connection to a so far unidentified issue.

As to the information you provided, can you provide links, I am actually interested in understanding the core of this issue.

albatross wrote:...and I didn't agree with the 'forced sterilisation' thing - which is what this whole discussion is about. I feel like you haven't read the whole thread, man...

I have read the entire thread, and at no point did you make that clear. If I missed it, I apologize, but it was entirely unclear to me.

I am going to speculate here a bit, and say that sure, your right in some fashion. Who are these individuals? What is the main demographic that is partaking in this rather illegal activity. Could it be, that a large proportion of this majority holding welfare benefiteers, are actually average people? If that is not at all possible, for whatever reason, lets assume that only hooligans (I will pretend to actually know their backgrounds for the sake of my argument) and both legal and illegal aliens are the only ones doing this.

We should take away these peoples benefits, and stick them in the army, where they learn to shoot guns. Perhaps some of these people, will come back from service, and find gainful employment. Perhaps a handful of these people come back to find situations that many vietnam vets faced in the states. This handful of individuals, eventually become homeless, and/or criminals with no real access to any support. Some days people spit on these people, other days they just wallow in self pity, making our streets dirty with their drug filled bodies. Utter scum, every last one of them...

My uncle was in Vietnam... anyway though, please cite your sources.

Morning fellas!

Having read everyones replies so far, I think I need to define 'Underclass' for the purpose of this thread, and this thread alone.

The Underclass are those who rather than seek employment, any employment, would rather sit at home (funded by the Taxpayer) and receive various benefits (funded by the Taxpayer) and churn out children (funded by the Taxpayer). This sort of person simply cannot be defined as 'Working Class' on account they don't in fact work.

I fully understand and agree that soceity very much demands the lower rungs of the ladder exist. But, the way British Benefits work, it is possible (if distasteful to my mind) to opt out entirely from the system, the 'scum bubble' if you will.

Now, I reckon this can be traced back to failed Government Policies. Thatcher in particular, screwed entire communities in Britain by closing down Coal Mines etc, with no thought to the provision of those whose entire live had been those mines. This affect at least two generations in the short term. Those currently working the mines, and those just starting out in them, or whose school life had been weighted by the assurance of a job 'down t'mine'.

Such actions lead to said communities HAVING to live on benefits. Both sides have to shoulder the blame of course. Government for dumping the people right in the poo, and the community for such a narrow view (trying to balanced here) and overly dependant on the Mine.

So for the past 30 years of so, we've had shattered communities proving you can indeed live a life of sorts purely on State handouts. Before this, Welfare was about keeping you more or less on your feet until a new job/career could be found, and you provided for yourself.

The World has changed immeasurably since then.

Yet still, if not even more so, Britain still has a fair degree of class mobility. State Education isn't brilliant of course, but it is good enough. Every single person I went to school with had roughly the same opportunities as myself. Some excelled, some meandered through (hello!) and others dropped out.

To me, this is to do Role Models. When I worked for my old Secondary School, I had my desk next to the Deputy Head for a while following two arson attacks on the main building. And we got talking about how to raise expectations for the students. Note not of the Students, but for the Students. This was when I brought up Role Models. School was in a crappy little commuter town called Tonbridge, which has precious little going for it. The Role Models the kids were exposed to were largely negative. Pissheads sitting around on Park Benches drinking cheap and nasty Cider, smoking cigs and weed, being offensive. Yet the school has produced literally world class Students over the years. Probably the most famous would be double Gold Olympic Sprinters, Kelly Holmes, whose P.E. Teacher had taught me, and was still teaching when I quit the job.

Ms Holmes came from a broken home, never had a great deal, but clearly made a real go of her life. You can be a natural runner, but to get to professional level takes a crapload of work and dedication, and to win Olympic Gold once, let alone twice, requires frankly herculean efforts to achieve. So why wasn't she the role model? Out of sight, out of mind.

And that is the problem with soceity. This year, Jade Goody died of Cancer. Jade Goody was symptomatic of everything wrong in the UK. Thick as you like, famous for feth all, racist, moronic and work shy. She turned up on Big Brother, flashed her fanny, embarassed the nation, let alone herself, and yet somehow became a media darling. Even her Cancer turning terminal was a result of gross idiocy. Got a letter form her Doctor saying 'we've detected pre-cancerous cells, you had seriously better come in for further tests'. But no. She went on Indian Big Brother in an effort to shake off her 'Racist Chav' tag which had ruined her mindless 'career'. And thus she developed Cervical Cancer, which turned terminal. Now some good has come out of her pointless death (and indeed life) in that record numbers of young women are having the relevant tests now, having seen how quickly Cancer claimed her. And now rather than being remembered as a National Embarassment and Racist Oik, she is idolised once again. Mainly by fellow terminally thick people.

So why do we promote blatant losers in life over those who dragged themselves out of the mire? Is it any surprise our self-imposed Underclass just lounges around dreaming of Fame for Fame's sake, rather than doing something with their lives?

We need to start controlling the population. And I do not mean just limiting the Underclass. Everyone. Something in the water with antidote available when you have passed adoption approval (like I said, system is in place, lets use it!). Thus, if the Underclass wish to have children, they had better get off their arses and join those of us who pay our own way.

I have no problem whatsover with the Working Class. Hell, I'm pretty much Working Class! But the Underclass has to be stamped out. Control the National birth rate, prevent benefits being a viable alternative to work and given a couple of decades, their numbers will be vastly reduced, and Britain the better for it.

The army doesn't want to be filled up with members of the underclass. There was a general on Radio 4 the other day saying he wanted a high standard of recruit.

@Wrexasaur

I can't see it ever happening in the UK, but you never know....

This is the only time I mentioned the forced sterilisation thing - I take no position, but you seemed to have assumed I did.

You have based your assumption that false benefit claimants are NOT a problem in The UK (a country in which you are not resident) on absolutely nothing. I will repeat: You know nothing. You've basically said: 'Nah, I don't agree with that, so it's not true'. Well it may be unpalatable, but I have based my opinions on facts like this:

Fewer than a third of the 2.7 million people claiming incapacity benefit are legitimate claimants, a government welfare adviser has said.

and

Incapacity benefit costs the Treasury about £12bn a year.

The Benefits Agency estimated Income Support fraud last year had risen to £1.7bn from £1.4bn in 1994.

Spending on benefits for the long-term sick and disabled has doubled since the early 1990s. It is estimated by the Department for Social Security as £23.9bn for the current financial year.

And also my experiences of growing up and living on a council estate in one of the most deprived areas in Britain for 20 years. If you want to find out more about the scale of the benefit problems in the UK, do your own research. You are sitting in front of a computer. I have justified my opinions to you far more than I should have done.

I hasten to point out that Disability and Incapacity Benefit are two different things.

Disability is when you have a genuine, recognised and measurable Disability, like being Wheelchair Bound, bad respiration, crippling Epilepsy etc, which severely limits your work option. As this can be freely measured, I'm fine with this.

Incapacity Benefit is when you've knackered your back, and your Doctor has reccomended a period of time off to rest it, or you've broken both your legs, preventing you from working. Essentially any medical complaint which prevents you working in the short term, Incapacity Benefit is applicable. This is the one often abused (like the guy caught refereeing a football match despite claiming he could only walk a few feet before needing to rest)

albatross wrote:This is the only time I mentioned the forced sterilisation thing - I take no position, but you seemed to have assumed I did.

You have based your assumption that false benefit claimants are NOT a problem in The UK (a country in which you are not resident) on absolutely nothing. I will repeat: You know nothing. You've basically said: 'Nah, I don't agree with that, so it's not true'. Well it may be unpalatable, but I have based my opinions on facts like this:

Meaning you simply will not provide me links to ANY information... None at all.

Mad Doc wrote:We need to start controlling the population. And I do not mean just limiting the Underclass. Everyone. Something in the water with antidote available when you have passed adoption approval (like I said, system is in place, lets use it!). Thus, if the Underclass wish to have children, they had better get off their arses and join those of us who pay our own way.

I have no problem whatsover with the Working Class. Hell, I'm pretty much Working Class! But the Underclass has to be stamped out. Control the National birth rate, prevent benefits being a viable alternative to work and given a couple of decades, their numbers will be vastly reduced, and Britain the better for it.

I have a campaign all ready to steam roll you come election time Mad Doc.

First, our anti-Mad Doc party ad...



Second, our community works...



And last but not least, our alternative...



Thank you, thank you very much... /

Dude, you have the quote as being Albatross, not me...

Then please explain what you mean. Only just woken up and the old grey matter is still one foot in the land of nod.

Sorry about the quote, that was a mistake.

I am merely parodying your political rant... which I really hope is blatantly clear, and funny in a blatant way.

1.)Mad Doc's party is going to poison the water supply with an unknown substance...

2.)Here is some water with the Wrexasaur party ad, just so we can help out in the fight.

3.)We will get you more jobs, and create more opportunities, none of which involve poisoning your water.

VOTE WREX!

Edited to get you more jobs.

(vote Wrex!)

It is funny...just didn't get it at first

Albatross wrote:@Ketara - Which figures? The one that shows only a third of people are legitimately claiming Incapacity Benefit? That's £8 Billion stolen from the Government, and of course, from you and me.

There's only one figure up there to give that 'fact' any credence, and it comes from the government. The same government which claims we're currently leaving the recession, we have the worlds best education system, and that they still have a chance at the next elections. If you choose to believe what they say, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you......

Having said that, I personally agree with you that it exists, having gone to a state run school filled with the 'scum bubble', and lived on a council estate where the neighbours were arrested twice a year for anti-social behaviour, theft, fraud, drugs and just about everything else. None of them had jobs and all claimed benefits, as did the better part of the entire estate.

The fact is, they're unemployable. Would you want them? Some gobby chav kid who's as likely to nick stuff as do the job he's paid for? Because they all hang out together, they get into their 'gangs' and terrorize the neighbourhood, and inevitably turn to petty crime to supplement their income.

When my mother moved with us back to England from Africa and was living on benefits, she had to struggle to make ends meet with three kids, as the benefits were just barely enough to scrape by on. They're not lucrative by any stretch of the imagination, that's just a fallacy whipped up by the mass media. No Sky TV for us. We could barely afford to eat and pay the bills, with a pittance set aside to buy an ice cream or two at the park after school twice a week. Anyone regular decent person who's ever actually been on the dole will say that its not a viable form of living. It literally is subsistence level.

The reason that the 'scum bubble' (I like that term) manages to survive and even prosper on welfare is because they are usually the ones responsible for all the local petty crime. Need a new TV? Nick it. Like that dress in the shop? Shoplift it. Need some money for fags? Purse snatch an old lady. Want some Sky TV? Sell stuff that 'fell off the back of a lorry'.

Ketara wrote:The fact is, they're unemployable. Would you want them? Some gobby chav kid who's as likely to nick stuff as do the job he's paid for? Because they all hang out together, they get into their 'gangs' and terrorize the neighbourhood, and inevitably turn to petty crime to supplement their income.

This is the main part of the problem. I am not going to disagree with you, but I really cannot envision a real solution, without seeing more government support.

It could come in the form of rehabilitation, which is really what a lot of these kids need, regardless of how they might view their behavior. The main issue is obviously with the parents, and it really seems outright unfair to call every single one of these people lost causes. Clearly many of them will have little regard for any solid change in their lifestyles, but on the other hand, with proper support many of them could become functioning members of society.

Call me a loon, but moving towards nothing but police intervention, seems like a fantastic way to breed an entirely new, permanently embedded criminal element to the U.K. By all means, take the criminals off welfare; I can almost guarantee it will raise crime rates by that much more.

Speaking of crime rates, apparently crime has gone down by an average of 4% from last year, in the last crime report. To me, this seems like this problem should be getting better, but only by a little.

I have lived in some very bad areas in the U.S., and I have no doubts about the fact that there were inevitably people doing all sort of illegal, and morally reprehensible things. On the other hand, I have also seen the general lack of support this very same communities receive, and some of the horrendous problems that they have to put up with on a daily basis. I do not mean to discredit your perspectives, I just need serious data, or all I will understand from this is your opinion. This whole subject is very complex, and has a whole lot to do with the societies themselves.

Here's a tip Wrexasaur. Relying on British government statistics these days is a no-no. So much of it is made up it's unreal.

You're correct that removing welfare would probably generate more crime. The problem is the lack of a solution. These kids are raised in a council estate environment, and have no willingness to learn any better. They scorn hard work and intellect and look down on it. Unless you're one of them, you're against them. This mentality makes it very difficult to deal with them. How can you help someone who doesn't want to help themselves?

Ketara wrote:Here's a tip Wrexasaur. Relying on British government statistics these days is a no-no. So much of it is made up it's unreal.

You're correct that removing welfare would probably generate more crime. The problem is the lack of a solution. These kids are raised in a council estate environment, and have no willingness to learn any better. They scorn hard work and intellect and look down on it. Unless you're one of them, you're against them. This mentality makes it very difficult to deal with them. How can you help someone who doesn't want to help themselves?

I suppose you don't help that person. It is not quite as simple as you make it sound though... after all, we are mainly talking about children here mate. That was what I got from reading the OP at least, and headbutting with Albatross as well.

I know plenty of these people myself, and not taking the time to really get to know them all that personally, there probably is not going to be a solution coming from me. The thing about all of this, is that community activity, is basically the only option. That would include police involvement, as well as people that have experience working in that environment. Regular hard-ass, no fething around, professional social workers. These people exist, and many of them might have come from that very same background, as hard as it was for them to do so.

All of my experience with any of our social services in the states, have felt like little more than a pat on the head, and support lacking in almost every single way... wait... yeah, in every single way. One of the main reasons people in these situations seemingly do not want help, is that they feel what they are being offered is not help. I do agree of course, that it does take some doing to actually get people to open up to meaningful help. Chances are that the help is not there at all, and probably never will be.

If the majority of this demographic is addicted to drugs, you are all in for a very long haul... It takes time, patience, and effort that sadly will likely never be provided. This is the main reason I never thought too long about getting into a career of that nature.

Anyway, there seems to be no solution at all, so focusing on other things that can be positively changed (of which I am sure there are many), would be a very good alternative.

I mean... if this were my dojo or something, every single one of those dickheads would be carrying bricks for my castle... or they would face my unyielding wrath... beware the wrath of Wrex...



"GET BACK TO WORK YOU WHELPS..."

Albatross wrote:There is no incentive to have a stable and productive family...

If there's no incentive why don't you just quit and line up for the dole tomorrow?

Is it maybe because that life, just sitting about watching telly and cashing a small monthly cheque, is actually a pretty crap life? And once we recognise that it's a pretty crap life, we have to start looking at how people get there. How welfare schemes actually financially penalise people who look to re-enter the workforce. How long lay-offs make it very hard to get a new job, as skills are outdated and the unemployed fellow gathers a stigma. And the biggest issue is how a lack of confidence from an extended lay off can lead to people giving up.

Because in looking at those things there's a chance you'll move towards a solution. Improve re-skilling programs. Bring in work for the dole programs, to get people active again. Subsidise apprenticeship schemes. And most importantly pay a decent minimum wage.

There's plenty of other options out there to deal with the problem, and they're well worth talking about. Or we can talk about forced sterilisation.

They are parasites - IMHO after 6 months of being jobless, the gov't should say: 'Right young man/woman, so you still haven't found a job then? Ok, I have JUST the job for you...Army, Navy or Air Force?'

Army don't want 'em. Navy and air force certainly don't. Thing about modern militaries is that they need skilled, highly motivated and disciplined volunteers and anyone else is a money sink.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:Sounds like a problem to me. Those numbers are not hyperbole.

The rate of illegitimate disability claims is based on a single report, and are extremely unlikely to be as high as 2/3. Regardless, there are undoubtably illegitimate claims on welfare, especially long term disability claims.

But it is very odd to me that so much focus is placed on welfare claims when it is already about as tightly monitored as is practical, and there are so many other forms of fraud that utterly dwarf false welfare claims. Tax fraud alone is an order of magnitude greater than welfare fraud. Corporate malfeasance takes vastly more money out of society than welfare fraud ever could... yet here we are in the wake of one of the great corporate scandals and we still won't look up to see who's stealing the big pots of money, we continue staring down.

There's a sociology paper in there somewhere.

If you have ever been to a third world country and seen all of the billions of people living in abject poverty I think you might be more inclined to advocate birth control. If it were up to me I would have planes fly over shanty towns and dust them with sterilization potions. You could solve the over population problem in one generation. People that are extremely poor are not educated. Sex is one of the very few past times they have access to. I remember once flying into a Latin American country seeing people from the plane living in dirt hovels as far as the eye could see. It really gets you down.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:If you have ever been to a third world country and seen all of the billions of people living in abject poverty I think you might be more inclined to advocate birth control. If it were up to me I would have planes fly over shanty towns and dust them with sterilization potions. You could solve the over population problem in one generation. People that are extremely poor are not educated. Sex is one of the very few past times they have access to. I remember once flying into a Latin American country seeing people from the plane living in dirt hovels as far as the eye could see. It really gets you down.

G

Depressingly true the above.

Population control does need to stop being danced around. We have very finite resources, and to let those resources be stretched thinner and thinner is asking for a great deal of trouble. At this point, I would argue that non-voluntary population control becomes very much the lesser of two evils.

If you think about it the majority of all the world major problems such as pollution all stem from over population. So by solving the over population problem it would also automatically solve a lot of other problems as well.

G

Our resources are so finite in fact, that the U.S. pays farmers to NOT grow corn...

Just think of all the mud being used by those poor, hovel dwelling third worlders... the waste... absolutely unimaginable.

I mean seriously, I can't imagine that you are being anything less than silly after hearing you both talk this way... absolutely preposterous...

I don't know if they'd solve them, but it would go someone to alleviating things.

And before anyone enacts Godwins law fully, I am not advocating the killing or culling of any peoples of the world. Just stating that we seriously need to consider our numbers, and how sustainable they are.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:And before anyone enacts Godwins law fully, I am not advocating the killing or culling of any peoples of the world. Just stating that we seriously need to consider our numbers, and how sustainable they are.

'Fully' enacts Godwins law? Are you taking the piss mate?

We need to seriously do a lot of things, none of which involve sprinkling madness dust all over a third world country. The amount of waste produced by the middle class, makes the lower class of any country look like a minute hill of unnoticed beans...

Albatross wrote:And you CAN go to prison for being in debt in the UK - for non-payment of council tax or child benefit. The Military is a legitimate career - anyone who can't find a job within (ok, lets's change it to)12 mths is not trying IMO. I see nothing wrong with the government assigning people jobs, when said people have made zero effort to find one.

The military is indeed a legitimate career, but it isn't an easy one. People that refuse to work retail jobs, which border on equivalence to home life with an annoying parent, are not going to succeed in the armed forces if put there against their will; assuming they don't wash out immediately.

You can't make people work if they simply don't want to do so. If the various social factors at play don't motivate them, then there isn't much left beyond compulsion through the instinct for self-preservation. However, I doubt you want to start executing the unemployed unless you literally want to turn the workplace into a cutthroat environment. You could try simply not supporting the destitute, but then you'll deal with increased crime and social unrest.

Its a balancing act. You need to maintain the incentive to work, while also placating those who can't, or don't want to do so. That's the price of living in contemporary society. You essentially pay people so they don't feth things up.

Kilkrazy wrote:The army doesn't want to be filled up with members of the underclass. There was a general on Radio 4 the other day saying he wanted a high standard of recruit.

This.

Well I find it funny socialism and lefty ideas are all the rage as when back to the 50's and the witchhunts.

Wrexasaur wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:And before anyone enacts Godwins law fully, I am not advocating the killing or culling of any peoples of the world. Just stating that we seriously need to consider our numbers, and how sustainable they are.

'Fully' enacts Godwins law? Are you taking the piss mate?

We need to seriously do a lot of things, none of which involve sprinkling madness dust all over a third world country. The amount of waste produced by the middle class, makes the lower class of any country look like a minute hill of unnoticed beans...

Oh I quite agree, and all are problems which need a solution. So far, the soft approach isn't working, so increasingly we creep closer and closer to the stick method.

The biggest problem in this world is responsibility, or indeed the lack thereof. The Underclass accept no responsibility for their situation. The Working Class accept no responsibility for passing up chances. The Middle Class accept no responsibility for their wasteful lifestyles, and the Upper Class, well, they wouldn't know what responsibility was if it jumped up and bit them. Me, I'd love to see some kind of world wide catastrophe which culled humanity severely, and rendered technology useless. Back to the primitive, and start again, this time hopefully learning from our mistakes.

I find it funny people are okay with all the suffering in the world because the thought of enforced birth control and sterilization makes them feel bad. If you live in a nice place you never have to see any of the suffering... Don't think about it and everything is suddenly alright again. It reminds me of people that keep their pets alive long past their natural life span because they would feel bad if they had the pet put under.

G

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Oh I quite agree, and all are problems which need a solution. So far, the soft approach isn't working, so increasingly we creep closer and closer to the stick method.

The biggest problem in this world is responsibility, or indeed the lack thereof. The Underclass accept no responsibility for their situation. The Working Class accept no responsibility for passing up chances. The Middle Class accept no responsibility for their wasteful lifestyles, and the Upper Class, well, they wouldn't know what responsibility was if it jumped up and bit them. Me, I'd love to see some kind of world wide catastrophe which culled humanity severely, and rendered technology useless. Back to the primitive, and start again, this time hopefully learning from our mistakes.

I get the fascination with apocalypse and what not... I guess. Learning from our mistakes... comedy freaking gold in this context... jesus freaking christ, that is all I have to say.

How does one jump from living in the woods, which seems like a reasonable alternative, to wanting most people to die, so you can jump to living in the woods? I cannot follow the string on that one, it seems to lack any connection.

I truly feel like I am listening to a satire act at this point, so far as I remember your previous posts in other threads. You should move into the woods, before you implode due to thinking to much about thinking about too much to thinking... thinking about the... too much.

Green Blow Fly wrote:I find it funny people are okay with all the suffering in the world because the thought of enforced birth control and sterilization makes them feel bad. If you live in a nice place you never have to see any of the suffering... Don't think about it and everything is suddenly alright again. It reminds me of people that keep their pets alive long past their natural life span because they would feel bad if they had the pet put under.

G

I find it mindblowingly hilarious that people assume they are the ones to make decisions, based on opinions they have about their own lives. Who in the flying feth, are any of us to say that people are suffering so much, that we should nueter and/or kill them.

The whole just don't think about it line is good for some, but not for others. I will not disagree that most people do not care very much at all, but you seem to be leading the pack in terms of perverted fantasies of heavenly retribution.

Hopefully the meteor only lands directly on you, and others such as yourself, so that I can sit back with other folks, sippin beer, and eating popcorn.

The last time I looked out the window it appears hoping and praying aren't working out that well. Enjoy.

G

The hoers was better.

G

I find it mindblowingly hilarious that people assume they are the ones to make decisions, based on opinions they have about their own lives. Who in the flying feth, are any of us to say that people are suffering so much, that we should nueter and/or kill them.

I agree with you.

@Ketara - I come from an almost identical background to you (substitute Africa for Northern Ireland, though) - when we came to England, we lived in one room for months. Me, my sister and my mum just about survived, similar to your story. Benefits under the Tories were pretty grim, dunno what it was like when you came over...

But it does SEEM a bit excessive when you hear about stuff like this:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article5299182.ece

£286.60 a week? That's more than you get working the average minimum wage job! This is what I'm talking about when I say there's no incentive.

But dropping 'contraceptive gas' on african villages - come on guys. Even YOU must know that sounds a bit evil. And stupid.

Then put it into the Water Supply. Not saying it's without moral quandry, but if people won't control themselves, something has to be done.

I'd love to see how many Dakkaites would actually support covert birth control if governments were already doing it.

Apparently 'they' already put flouride in our water, to strengthen our teeth.

Ugh, for once I have to agree with Albatross (damn, I need to up my med intake).

Killing or neutering the "underclass" because we think they are suffering is selfish. Maybe they are happy sucking off the system.

I don't know much about the rest of the US but in Minnesota a good majority of those sucking off the system are proud of it. My parents tell me when they were teens that it was something to be ashamed of to have to get government assistance, that standing in line to get the free cheese and peanut butter was not something you wanted to do.

Now everywhere I look I see a single mom with 3 or 4 kids behind her (or even a married mom) go up to the counter with 2 or 3 carts worth of food, whip out her electronic "too lazy to work" card and easily pay for her $600 worth of groceries without so much as even batting an eyelash or feeling embarrassed knowing the taxpayers paid for her groceries.

Living on welfare may not be glamorous to the lower and upper middle class and high class but it pays out better than most minimum wage jobs and the attitude I've gotten from most welfare moms/families is that "the government owes it to us" or "why should I go out and work, I've got everything I need and I don't have to lift a finger"? Contrary to popular belief welfare does not ONLY pay you JUST enough to avoid living on the street. I've stood in line behind people who swipe their "im too lazy to work" card, make sure all 4 or 5 kids are with them and then they walk out the door in front of me as I'm going out to my 11yo clunker only to see said person start piling kids and groceries into a brand new Honda or Ford or Chevy.

I've been called out in the past for making that claim. Believe me or not but how fethed up is it that someone gets ANY kind of government assistance at all regarding food that can somehow afford a brand new car? The welfare people should be taking a harder look at what the recipients life style is like before just stamping the application approving that person/family so they can make their quota and go home.

Some people claim "welfare queeens" don't exist. I'm sure there are no millionaire welfare moms in this country but it used to be you got JUST enough to scrape by food wise and normally would have to get free commodities (such as peanut butter and cheese) to help get by. Now in addition to a vastly disproportionate amount of money per kid per month for food they also get WIC, which for those of you who don't know is essentially free food on TOP of the free money the government is handing out and of course free medical.

I don't know about the rest of the world but the US would be a better place without welfare. Perhaps employers should pay hourly wages based on how many kids you have then welfare wouldn't need to exist and the single moms/dads with 4 kids could still earn what they do for sitting around watching oprah/football; the difference is they'd actually be helping to contribute.

As far as gangs. Take every known gang member in the US, dump them on an island 500miles from any shore and let them kill each other off or maybe make it into a televised sport like Running Man.

So is it better to let the third world to continue to swell? How many of you have been in actual third world slum? I have driven through the largest shanty town (Bombay) several times... You can't even begin to imagine the suffering you'll see and there's not really much you can do. Why is it bad to sterilize people living in these circumstances?

G

Population will not stabilize, mass starvation and environmental destruction will lead to draconian measures on food and water control, lack of resource will take care of the rest. After that who knows how people will handle things, but in all likelihood it will be much more socially acceptable to control population than it seems now. Freedom doesn't work forever.

Oh there is a practicable alternative to Cash benefits.

Ration Books.

And yes, I am deadly serious. Think about it. Benefits are there to feed and clothe you, NOT for luxuries. You want a PS3 for your kid, get a job. You want to enjoy a couple of nights up the pub a week? Get a job.

Benefit Token Books would cover things like Nappies, Gas, Electric, Rent, Foodstuffs. The basics and essentials. You want anything else? Get. A. fething. Job.

Doing it this way, even those on low incomes can be offered Token Books to help with the basics.

Where is the difference? Well, there's a lot less reward for taking the piss out the system.

Luxuries are just that. Luxury. I have a laptop, because I paid for it through my wages. Everything I have, I paid for. With my Wages. I fething hate the perennial whine of certain people about their kids going without at Christmas, and why can't Donna-Sheree-Sheran have an X-Station Wii like the kids from school? BECAUSE THEIR PARENTS HAVE A JOB YOU fething BUM.

Grarrr! Sorry. Got a bit het up there.

People trade rations for drugs.

G

Not when there's people with cash to pay for Drugs.

I agree with MDG.

Welfare in the states consists of:

Money for living expenses (which is grossly over extended)
Money for food (again grossly over extended)
Free medical

Some phone companies and cable companies have programs in place to allow people with low income (mostly aimed at welfare recipients) drastic cuts on phone and cable tv (wft? $10/month for cable because you want to sit around and do nothing and I pay $60/month for cable on a minimum wage job)

Also, some of the "low income homes", aka "too lazy to work" homes are equivalent to what would cost around $6-800/month to mortgage and they cost those that are deem qualified $50/month.

That's the problem with the current welfare system in the US. It encourages people to sit around and do nothing because they live just as good as most lower-middle income families who have 2 working parents working 40 hours per week.

Again, the US needs to cut the current system (especially to illegals).

hows about mandatory drug and booze testing for everyone on the dole... you come up positive you lose it, no ifs and or buts

if your so fething poor you need a handout to buy food... you got ZERO bussiness boozing it up.

So this is about the US?

No GBF, don't put words in my mouth. I'm just agreeing with MDG and using examples to back up my claims. You know, because apparently I don't ever think before I post.

The topic is welfare problem in the UK. I'm in the US. I can't join this topic of discussion without something to discuss. I'm as free to post here as you are GBF so me using examples about the US is not dragging the thread off topic as it's still about the topic at hand (welfare losers).

Read before you post, mkay?

Calm down grasshopper.

ShumaGorath wrote:Population will not stabilize, mass starvation and environmental destruction will lead to draconian measures on food and water control, lack of resource will take care of the rest. After that who knows how people will handle things, but in all likelihood it will be much more socially acceptable to control population than it seems now. Freedom doesn't work forever.

Righto.

Agreed. It takes a strong mind to tackle these problems and solve them.

G

The evidence shows that overpopulation is cured by two things.

1. Women gaining control of their fertility.
2. People becoming richer and moving away from a subsistence level economy.

The reasons are:

A. Most women don't actually like being a baby farm. It's like being the Alien Queen in Aliens, except with a lot more work and a lot fewer perks.

B. For the fathers, once you can be sure your children will survive childhood, and you can't employ them on the farm, you need to pay for their education instead. They become a financial liability. That's why nearly all first world nations are actually suffering from low birth rates.

Are there any Zen techniques to defeat being totally pregers? I think moer peops will drink green teas and hibernates. : )

G

I'd just like to point out that since my state has a population of half a million, I feel safe for the moment.

What if all hte womens suddenly started pouring out quintiplets? I am telling you right now that's lots and lots of diaper rash happening.

G

Ugh, for once I have to agree with Albatross

OMG - That's it, if Fateweaver agrees with me I'm changing my mind before I turn into a right-wing lunatic who polishes his gun more often than he brushes his teeth.

(damn, I need to up my med intake).

Be my guest, in fact, take the whole bottle.

I brush twice a day my teeth and I don't ever recall polishing my gun more than that.

Exactly WHICH gun are we talking about Albatross.

Cheese Elemental wrote:I'd just like to point out that since my state has a population of half a million, I feel safe for the moment.

It's actually smaller if you count the heads and divide by two.

To be honest, some people ARE only alive because it IS illegal to kill them.

Green Blow Fly wrote:If you think about it the majority of all the world major problems such as pollution all stem from over population. So by solving the over population problem it would also automatically solve a lot of other problems as well.

G

Except the areas with the greatest population density are not the greatest consumers of resources, nor the greatest polluters. The primary driver of both of those is industrialisation.

Green Blow Fly wrote:I find it funny people are okay with all the suffering in the world because the thought of enforced birth control and sterilization makes them feel bad. If you live in a nice place you never have to see any of the suffering... Don't think about it and everything is suddenly alright again. It reminds me of people that keep their pets alive long past their natural life span because they would feel bad if they had the pet put under.

G

It hasn't nothing to do with feeling bad, and everything to do with not solving the proble. China has had their one child policyl, but the poor are still very poor, and the country is polluting more than ever. I can't say this clearly enough, the problem with your idea isn't that it is too tough and so people shy away from it, the problem is that it's a really bad idea that won't help with any of the problems you think it will.

Green Blow Fly wrote:So is it better to let the third world to continue to swell? How many of you have been in actual third world slum? I have driven through the largest shanty town (Bombay) several times... You can't even begin to imagine the suffering you'll see and there's not really much you can do. Why is it bad to sterilize people living in these circumstances?

G

Yeah, I've been through the slums of Calcutta. But I've also done more than look around and then navel gaze afterwards. I've heard talks from leading sociologists talking about population. Funny thing is there are three powerful controls for population - women's rights, education and social welfare. These three things will birth rates from ludicrously high levels to lower than the death rate in a generation, and this has a real, observed effect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Not when there's people with cash to pay for Drugs.

No, that's a fail. The drug dealer himself will probably only take cash, but a market quickly forms where third parties will buy the vouchers at discount, then on-selling them for full redemption by grocery stores. The welfare recipient ends up with cash, and now there's another black market out there.

On the other hand, work for the dole schemes have been quite effective at getting people back into the workforce. Providing the emphasis is on building skills and the confidence of the welfare recipient, not shaming them publicly. So, why not just talk about the programs that actually work?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

chromedog wrote:

Cheese Elemental wrote:I'd just like to point out that since my state has a population of half a million, I feel safe for the moment.

It's actually smaller if you count the heads and divide by two.

To be honest, some people ARE only alive because it IS illegal to kill them.

Some? Most? All?

I mean, if I had a gun that could shoot through the internet...

sebster you are out of your tree.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:sebster you are out of your tree.

G

Well, it's hard to argue with such a substantive, considered opinion. Good work, GBF.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:First of all, you are now warned this thread is likely to be highly contentious. If you feel you are incapable of doing so in a dispassionate, mature manner, please do not contribute.

So, looking into the future, what becomes readily apparent? To me, two things.

1) We have already over populated the world.
2) Crime seems to be getting out of hand.

Despite being a lefty liberal, I can only see extreme measures sorting out these particular problem.

For the first, Birth Licenses for all. You want to have a kid, then you had better prove you can support it and pay for it yourself, otherwise no sprog for you. Easyish to achieve, as you add contraceptives to the water supply, and once you are licensed, you receive a drug which reverses the effects. Simple and effective. If applied globally, the requirements for a License would need to vary. After all, if we applied purely Western levels of provision, nobody in the 3rd World would ever be granted a license.

As for the other? Move towards Judge Dredd style instant justice. It seems ludicrous to me, and a total waste of time that in the modern age trials can take so long. Even when criminals are caught red handed, they still get a trial. Now I'm not advocating a change to innocent untl proven guilty, but if you are caught midway through beating the daylights out of someone, you have clearly broken the Law, and should be incarcerated immediately. No more soft touch Policing. Caught with illegal Drugs? Off to the slammer. Rapist, Murderer, Paedophile? This is Mr Gibbett, and he'd like to get to grips with you. Obviously, where the death sentence is applied, a full and rigorous trial is necessary, unless you are literally caught up to your nuts in someone you shouldn't be. Kind of hard to argue innocence when you blatantly have just diddled that kid....

So, what do you think? Do we need progressively harsher treatment as the world itself gets harsher? Please feel free to discuss my ideas, present your own ideas, and indeed discuss the moral implications of the various ideas put forward. Just. Keep. It. Civil.

wow this was the most insane and lunatic thing i've ever read...let me tell you something about LIFE:

1)you only got ONE
2)which means you are FREE to do whatever you want to do without physically or psychially harming someone...

if anyone says thats wrong, i have a desert eagle under my pillow and i will stand in front of your door in 30 minutes...

Wait, what?
Serious thread?

It's quite surprising to find people whos argument is literally, entirely GET-A-JOB. Wow. Clap, clap, clap. In this economic time, if that really is the smartest argument you can think of I laugh at you. It's NEVER that simple.

However, ration books did sound like a good idea.

Even in this climate, it is that easy. Jobs are out there. And the Jobs are there to be done.

It is no coincidence that the long term unemployed are also the ones complaining about Immigrants 'coming over here. Taking all our jobs'.

Perhaps, if you got off your mardyarse and took a job, any job, there would be less job for the 'Immigrants' to come and do. You know, like Streetsweeper, Jizzmopper etc. None of them are great jobs, but it's a job.

So how is it more complex than that? There are jobs. They refuse to work. They instead live on state handouts.

MDG FTW!

G

For 3 easy payments of 19.99 you too can save the world by getting a damn job... of which there are a million or something...

Young and unemployed? Looking to make some cash?

Gather up a bucket, sponge, bottle of mild detergent, and a chamois leather.

Then go round your neighbourhood offering an onsite hand carwash service. Charge under the going rate, and boom, a little cash in your pocket, a little pride in your heart.

If that fails, grab some lemons, and make lemonade. I met a bloke who made a whole 5 dollars, and it only took him an entire day. If that isn't something to be proud of, I don't know what is.

Nope, swap Chamois for a Ladder and Squeegee, and see about window cleaning.

And if you are claiming benefits whilst looking for a job, why not consider Charity Work in the meantime? Keep the braincells ticking over, and do some good for the world.

Other ideas include 'Wheelie Washers'. They come round and wash you bin for you, £2.50 a time. Sure it's not exactly something a kid can do (needing a Yute type vehicle to carry the watersupply and pressure washers) but it's a pretty high profit yield work.

I await your disregard of this article in it's entirety... try not to surprise me or anything mate.

Britain: Youth Unemployment Reaching Crisis Level

Seriously though, just go and get a damn job you lazy bastards, what the hell is wrong with you? You are worthless worms...

(Mad Doc should do motivational seminars... for 3 easy payments of 19.99, you too can be motivated by the M Doc!)

(Don't delay, Call today! For only 3 easy payments on 19.99...)

There was a system I read of once where each person is entitled to 3/4 of a child. Thus when two people had a child together, they would have enough "child points" for half of another child.

These child points could be traded through government markets for a fixed fee (depending on how many children you already had), which means that anyone who does not want children can get some money, and means that if people were to abide by the system (which probably would not happen in some cases unless there were suitable deterrents, or even manditory abortions for unsanctioned children), population would be gradually and fairly reduced to more sustainable levels.

It also means that if you want a large family, you will have to demonstrate that you can afford to pay for it, with the first set of points being "x", the next set of points being "2x", then 4x (or whatever) on an exponential scale.

Interesting article that. In places, it does indeed back you up. And in others, backs me up.

First of all, I have no problem with the poor sods leaving University Education who cannot get a job in their field. First inaccuracy in the article crops up here though. UK Student Debts don't start getting paid back until you earn a specified annual wage (Think it's around £17k, would need to research that though).

This is harsh for them, as the jobs market they have entered is not of their making.

But it goes on, and I quote

The Trumpet wrote:The result is unrealistic expectations, and a nation unwilling to fulfill many of its manual job needs. To increase the number of university graduates without increasing the number of grad-level jobs reflects a short-sighted strategy.

A nation unwilling to fulfil many of it's manual job needs.

Well, isn't that telling. People see themselves as above certain jobs. Like shitshoveller, and instead do nothing. They don't want to sweep the streets, seeing it as below them, so they do nothing.

There is a large difference between those who CHOOSE to be unemployed, and those who FIND themselves unemployed. I'm going after the former, who as far as I'm concerned have no right to exist in this society.

I left university just when the job market went south and have been temping for over a year in a job that, quite frankly, I am vastly over qualified for. However, I deliberately took a job somewhere that I could gain experience in an area that I want to work in (I work as a medical secretary in a hospital).

As a result, I am in line to hopefully get a 6 month training contract to do a job that I actually want to do, with the possibility of full time employment after that.

I've already helped run 3 sessions with patients which I think were quite successful and I am not actually even being employed to do it yet

Nicely done geezer!

Taken me well over a year of mind numbing temp work, but the end is (hopefully) near

And that is an attitude nobody can criticise!

Hell, I'll do any job until I can find something more suiting.

Sir, my Hat is eternally doffed in your direction.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Interesting article that. In places, it does indeed back you up. And in others, backs me up.

Can you imagine, Wrex trying to be balanced...

A nation unwilling to fulfil many of it's manual job needs.

Well, isn't that telling. People see themselves as above certain jobs. Like shitshoveller, and instead do nothing. They don't want to sweep the streets, seeing it as below them, so they do nothing.

Sucks to be in a position where you are limited to a job in gak-shoveling or goo-mopping. The minimum wage indeed plays a role here, and the actual work environments do as well. People that are force into a life of shoveling gak, deserve to be able to make a substantial living (raising the minimum wage in essence), as well as the ability to work in a safe environment.

There is a large difference between those who CHOOSE to be unemployed, and those who FIND themselves unemployed.

I would like to see those numbers, but since I cannot trust government data... the cycle continues. No worries though, I have plenty of popcorn for myself.

Minimum Wage in the UK rises every year. It's up to £5.80 now for over 23's. Get it up to £7 and we're rocking.

There is good reason for slowly raising it, as had they just gone straight for the jugular, and the higher amounts, many people would have been made redundant by companies who simply couldn't afford their workforce on such monies. Slowly increasing it works after a fashion, as the increased wage leads to increased spending (in theory at least) and thus makes it more affordable, as the cost is recouped (again, in theory) by suitably higher takings.

Trick is, to keep it above inflation lest it become an execise in futility.

The problem is that minimum wage is linked to the minimum income it is predicted that will allow for a person to live on. As it rises, so too does the cost of goods and services (though inflation, supply and demand, etc more so than the rise in minimum wage I would imagine).

Thus people on minimum wage are facing a loosing battle in terms of increased wage vs increased cost of living.

Though as you say, by increasing the wage above the rate of inflation, we should hopefully mitigate those factors and make it a relatively fair wage for the least well paid jobs. Though I am sure people will still be happier on benefits than working...

I for one would be interested in bringing back some form of national service. The first areas of call for the new recruits would probably be dicipline, followed by training in how to run the postal service, and public transport services.

Renationalise the rail and bus networks and get them running properly with the aid of National Service workers.

SilverMK2 wrote:I for one would be interested in bringing back some form of national service. The first areas of call for the new recruits would probably be dicipline, followed by training in how to run the postal service, and public transport services.

Renationalise the rail and bus networks and get them running properly with the aid of National Service workers.

This sounds like a pretty good idea, we could use something like this in California... ... fething California.

As I understand it, your economy is doing quite a bit better than ours, especially in certain areas. I could be projecting a little bit here, but that article definitely spoke to what I was talking about.

To be entirely honest, I can understand entirely why someone would simply get fed up trying to get by on minimum wage, after spending years training for a career. When it comes to people who do not apply themselves to their studies at all, I can't imagine them doing anything but lower wage jobs at any rate. What it sounds like though, is that there simply is not enough work to employ all of the people who go in for degrees. On top of this, many are likely to receive little to no solid career guidance, making their transition from school into the economy, that much worse.

I would go into the emotional aspects of what many would consider failure, and how those emotions left untended can lead directly to depression and suicide. This is a very heavy subject, and most just ignore it entirely. For a kid growing up in a slum, they will be more than likely to pick up behavior patterns (just as any of us do, within whatever environments we were raised in) and continue the trail set by their parents. With guidance and support, many of the people facing this type of negative environment can go onto further themselves, and their communities.

Many of the popular degrees (usually humanities) appear to me (an engineering graduate) as essentially a waste of 3-4 years. Labour has tried to shove as many people through university as possible in the last decade, but has given no real thought as to what kind of degrees people would be doing, or creating any jobs for people with degrees.

As a result, there is a huge number of people with degrees which have no appreciable practical use other than to demonstrate (to one extent or another) the holders ability to study. It also means that now a large number of entry level jobs for pretty much anything require graduate level applicants (rather than pretty much anyone who can stand upright).

And as you said, because so little thought was put into the policy, and so little career guidance is given, many people come out of university and fall on their faces (and then get crushed by their debt).

The whole thing is compiled at the moment by the ecconomy, meaning that many companies are laying off relatively experienced staff (compared to new graduates or school leavers), who are then competing for jobs with the educated but inexperienced, and usually taking the job, leading to high levels of young person unemployment being seen.

The increase in University Graduates is one thing, but the work markets expectations are quite another. A friend of mine is highly trained in Graphic Design, yet cannot find a job in that field. It's not that the jobs aren't there, they are, it's more that even the most junior position demands 'at least one years professional experience'.

This I personally blame on a sort of 'old boys network' of sorts. It's a sad fact that even in this enlightened day and age, it's still as much who you know, as what you know. I can't really criticise it too heavily myself, as I essentially kicked in the back door to start my IT Career. Working as an Office Junior for my old Secondary School, and two weeks in the IT Technician is fired for being a douche. Head Teacher offers me the role, despite knowing as much as anyone I was totally unqualified to do the job. He said that wasn't a problem, and that they'd train me on the job, which they did. With hindsight, this was an extremely jammy opportunity which I seized with both hands, and when I've recounted it in the pub, I've had people fall out with me because they have degrees in IT, yet cannot get even the most basic job.

It's an odd world we live in right now, sort of a bridging point between the old ways, and the new ways. Now when that bridge ends, I dunno, but I hope it does. Time to move away from nepotism and embrace a meritcoracy in the work place. Largely against human nature I know, but it can happen.

It is very important to show people that they can actually accomplish something worthwhile by showing exactly what they can do.

I have been trying to get into an apprenticeship for a ludicrously long time, finding only dead ends where I should have progressed into full journeyman status by now. The only people I know personally that are doing well in their chosen professions, are at least twice my age, and have positions that they are very unlikely to lose. Over time, this has only worsened the outlook of my career, especially when I see professionals with decades of experience lacking work entirely.

I am a hard worker, and I enjoy hard work, not something most can say. I just cannot compete effectively with most jobs being better suited for outsourcing on the whole of it. This is the main reason that I chose design, regardless of what kind of menial work I will end up locking myself out of. Getting a job at Mcdonalds, aside from being a job I would despise, will be next to literally impossible when I finish my degree.

I would like to see those numbers, but since I cannot trust government data... the cycle continues.

You're right, it's much better to trust an Amercian Conservative Christian website for accurate figures on Britain's unemployment issues .

On top of this, many are likely to receive little to no solid career guidance, making their transition from school into the economy, that much worse.

Based on...?

The careers service at my University is very good.
MDG has a very good point that expectations of students are too high in our education system - it seems that a good 80% of students on my course think that they will become succesful recording artists after finishing University, but the fact is that pretty much none of them will, including myself. There are people I study with who just barely merit the term 'musician', and who shouldn't be here. But I support the drive to get young people into education, someone from my background would have found it extremely difficult 20-30 years ago. I do actually the think the Tories have some good ideas on education, vis a vis the Engineering Schools they plan to open.

For a kid growing up in a slum, they will be more than likely to pick up behavior patterns (just as any of us do, within whatever environments we were raised in) and continue the trail set by their parents. With guidance and support, many of the people facing this type of negative environment can go onto further themselves, and their communities.

Finally! THIS is the whole point. It's not that there are no jobs - rather, it's the culture of social class they grow up in, that diminishes their appetite for hard work.

Finally! THIS is the whole point. It's not that there are no jobs - rather, it's the culture of social class they grow up in, that diminishes their appetite for hard work.

It is that there are very few jobs, of which I am sure you have worked all of them, knowing fully well that only you can have an opinion about this. I have no data pertaining to the actual state of your economy, I just picked something that looked rather on point, and I put it out there.

I do think that both of us are on a much more realistic page than GBF and Mad Doc at this point.

Providing appropriate services (which would include cutting of people that are actually in the wrong from welfare) to further the positive economic contributions from these communities (and society as a whole), is a great place to start. I just wanted to make it entirely clear to this thread, that ideas that border on genocide (besides possibly breaking Dakka Rules) are not only ludicrous, but completely inappropriate.

On a side note, I would like to know your opinion about the situation in Israel Ablatross. Just a random question.

This thread needs more angst.

G

And one way of breaking the cycle, and to my mind the most effective way, is enforced birth control.

The thread needs more Rock


and Overkill


And just a hint of regret

Wrexasaur wrote:If that fails, grab some lemons, and make lemonade. I met a bloke who made a whole 5 dollars, and it only took him an entire day. If that isn't something to be proud of, I don't know what is.

You Sir, made me laugh!

I'd make vodka sours but there is that whole "gotta have a liquor license and cant sell to minors bs"...$5 per sour for 50 cents worth of liquor and lemonade, just like the bars do it.

It is that there are very few jobs, of which I am sure you have worked all of them, knowing fully well that only you can have an opinion about this.

@Wrex - You're right! I've worked at every possible job in the UK - you may have seen me on the news . But seriously, yes, there are fewer jobs in certain sectors obviously, and no, I'm not trying to say that only my opinion counts in this matter, if that's what youre driving at. My position is this: Not ALL people on benefits are scumbags, but there is a relatively large number of people in many communities who can work, who choose not to. These people are not contributing to the 'Greater Good' of British society, and are raising a generation of kids who will not succed in education or in the workplace because they are following bad examples. According to official figures, nearly 5 million people have never had a job under this Labour government!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1209072/Five-million-job-Labour--raising-fears-Shameless-generation-benefit-addicts.html


As for population problems being solved by dropping birth-control gas on African villages - apart from the fact it's totally degrading and racist, infant mortality rates are ridiculously high in sub-saharan Africa - 1 in every 6 children dies before the age of five.

Almost half of all deaths of children under five occurred in sub-Saharan Africa. Yet only 22 percent of children were born there.

this is taken from: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jan2008/mort-j31.shtml

I think it's us we should be worrying about.

As for Israel - meh. Creating the country has proven to be a monumental error, to put it in (perhaps) overly simplistic terms. I have absolutely NO time for Zionism, and the settlement building needs to stop YESTERDAY.

Albatross wrote:My position is this: Not ALL people on benefits are scumbags, but there is a relatively large number of people in many communities who can work, who choose not to. These people are not contributing to the 'Greater Good' of British society, and are raising a generation of kids who will not succed in education or in the workplace because they are following bad examples. According to official figures, nearly 5 million people have never had a job under this Labour government!

This sounds like a huge problem with your welfare system.

Dailymail wrote:The Crompton family, nicknamed 'Britain's Biggest Freeloaders' by their neighbours in Hull, live in a seven-bed house and get £33,000 a year.

Harry Crompton, 51, has been out of work for 15 years and his wife Tracey, 41, has never had a job. Yet thanks to the generosity of the welfare state they receive £32,656 a year.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1209072/Five-million-job-Labour--raising-fears-Shameless-generation-benefit-addicts.html#ixzz0XYFjiqPV

I mean seriously... is this for real? How in the feth are they allowed to get away with this? Do these people have serious physical ailments?

Besides the fact that seems like the worst of most cases, it is really quite amazing that they are allowed to do this. That is an awful lot of money, to sit around doing nothing, teaching your kids to sit around and do nothing...

@Wrex - See? SEE? NOW do you get why I froth at the mouth about this stuff?
I don't disagree that it is a problem with the benefits system - I just feel that this has spread apathy amongst a pretty large section of our society.

To be entirely fair, it is two people, with... umm... their 10 children... or 9... I can't tell...

That could very well be what is required to take care of the bare minimum necessities. 11-12 people need an awful lot of stuff to survive. I am just trying to imagine a reason why they would both be eligible. After I dunno... the fifth kid or something, the state should have slapped them about a bit.

The kids have to be the main reason that they receive so much in benefits. It costs an awful lot of money to raise a single child... let alone near a bakers dozen.

Read the novel entitled Atlas Shrugged by Ann Rand (sp?). It is going to happen and I could see this seriously in the next 10 - 15 years. She was a bit of a facist so don't take it personally if you happen to have a leftist bent.

G

I think one of the main problems when it comes to the whole 'find a job' thing, is that if you want to gain qualifications whilst unemployed, you have to take some seriously convoluted routes to do so, none of which you are actually informed exist by the Job Centre. I mean, my Job Centre advisor had no information on apprenticeships when I asked about them, for example.

With regards to the more standard qualifications route though, it's a bloody joke. I was going to do an Access to Teaching course this academic year. 15 hours a week so I could still claim my Jobseekers Allowance, and then go on to better and brighter things. However, I never started the course- not because I didn't want to, but because the Job Centre wouldn't let me. Because I'm on New Deal, I have to be available to go on one of their 13 week jobsearch/training courses at the drop of a hat, and if you don't go then they stop your benefits. So therefore, instead of spending the last week doing something I want to do in order to progress my life, I've been sitting in a room full of people who have basically given up and decided 'screw it, I'll live on the dole, because it's easier'. And I'm there for the next 12 weeks as well.

Now as it goes, the work placement I'll be going on through this course sounds like it'll be in the fields I want to go into (teaching/social work), and I'm hoping I'll be able to develop it into an actual job, but you can't say that it's right that I had to not go into training that I wanted to do to instead do something I didn't want to do, purely because that's how the system works. Oh, the other problem: single male living alone with no dependants = sweet bugger all help should you want to go to college, but if you're a single mum with a kid they'll keep paying your housing benefit for you.

As to the actual 'Desperate Measures':

Overpopulation: One child/set of naturally occurring multiple children per couple, after passing a basic yet rigourous competency exam and being able to prove that you can support said child without state handouts.

Crime getting out of hand: Bring back the death penalty, and decriminalise every single illegal drug. Make prostitution legal. Actually make the punishment fit the crime, and stop all this 'Oh yeah, you're in jail for 7 years, but you'll probably be out after two and a half' crap we're forever hearing about. I also think that no matter what your age, if you commit a crime your name should be allowed to be made public, I'm getting sick of all these reports containing the words ''The 17-year old, who cannot be named for legal reasons''. If you commit a crime, you should be prepared to accept the potential societal backlash, no matter your age.

Dragonlover