Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Intelligence has been shown to be roughly 50:50 genetics and environment? By who, exactly, and using what methodology. Intelligence is poorly defined and the tests we use to measure it are biased and flawed, favouring particular types of intelligence over others. Yes, genetics have something to do with it, but the level of stratification in UK society is above and beyond that genetic variation, in my opinion. What has a much bigger effect is home environment. If kids are getting looked after properly at home, they'll be reading and writing and doing maths at a much higher level than neglected children. Placing a child in a lower set does all sorts of negative things to them. It knocks their confidence, kills their motivation, and realigns their self image into a negative one. They'll see school work as something that is "not for them". Not only that, but by setting rigorously, as you go further down they lose the positive effect from their peers. Broaden that into a systemic picture and you get schools where results are low and nobody thinks it's strange because all the "smart" kids who did better on their SATs or whatever are in a different school. The teachers in these schools become burnt out, staff turnover is higher, time is spent more on control and less on education. If you want, I can see if I still have access to the research papers that document all of the things I am talking about. Putting kids in a top set or better school simply magnifies what they already have- and generally what they have comes to them from their upbringing. Middle and upper class kids will get more exposure to intellectual pursuits and more support of them than working class kids. This advantage is then magnified by going to a better school whereas the environmental disadvantage of a poor school is magnified for the working class kids.Class has everything to do with it, because the values of your home life and the amount of money you have determines in many ways what sort of chances for extra curricular learning you will have, how much help you will have with your homework and how much encouragement you will get in your schoolwork.

Once a kid is in a lower set, it is nearly impossible for them to move out. This is generally due to logistical reasons, but the fact is there is very little movement between sets. The other factor is motivation. If you're the best kid in your school on a C, and your parents are delighted with you because no one in your family has ever done so well before, you're not going to be motivated to work harder to get a B or an A. A kid of the same ability in a school filled with peers who are doing better will have massive motivation to work harder. The school environment is a huge incentive.

I think you should really examine your thesis that the system is based on merit- it has an ugly flip side. If the successful are successful because they are intelligent and hard working, then the unsuccessful are unsuccessful because they are stupid and lazy. I think we both know the world is more complicated than that. I'm not by any margin saying that genetics don't have a part to play. But without the right environment to stimulate that genetic potential, someone will never reach it. The streaming of kids benefits the middle and upper class kds far more than it does the working class. I'm telling you this as someone who has previously taught in a disadvantaged working class school in Ireland, and is now teaching in a heavily setted comprehensive in the UK.

I do feel very strongly on this issue- but I accept that any solutions will be radical and probably deeply unpopular. If I had my way, I'd assign children to schools randomly within a certain catchment, to ensure the maximum amount of diversity within the schools, and I would only set very loosely and with a lot of flexibility.
Obviously, in cases where there are specific learning disabilities, other arrangements must be made.

Working class children tend to be exposed to a much less stimulating mental environment from infancy. This retards their social and mental development in various ways.

Middle class children tend to be stimulated, encouraged and given all sorts of chances to develop their intellect. For example, I bought all the Jolly Phonics materials for my daughter before she entered primary school. We played the CDs on car outings and played the games with her.

This lack of this sort of influence means that many working class children get to the age of seven with reading difficulties, and the age of eleven as functional illiterates.

By that stage they require serious remedial education to bring them up to speed. Instead they are sat at the back of the class and are unable to learn anything. Bored and frustrated, they are either permanently truanting or have been excluded due to bad behaviour within a few years.

Such people have absolutely no job prospects beyond seasonal fruit picking, in modern society. Those are the kind of people who made up the majority of the rioters.

This doesn't deny that there are over-privileged thickos and middle-class people who have joined in rioting.

The fact that a lot of working class women drink and smoke whilst pregnant doesn't help their children either.

Interestingly, BBC Breakfast news had an interview this morning with a chap whose shop was burned down by the thugs on Monday. He made what I thought was a very salient point regarding the so-called socio-economic excuses being trotted out to explain the riots. He ran a charity that was involved in setting up schools and providing education for poor Asian kids in Vietnam, Laos, that sort of thing. When asked if the riots could be blamed on socio-economic deprivation, he looked a bit peeved and said 'most of the rioters have iPhones, are well fed and have a roof over their heads as well as living in a society that offers them ample opportunity to better themselves. That's not being poor or deprived'.

He then went on to compare them to the Asian kids who really do show a drive and determination to better themselves when presented with the opportunity and education. Kind of makes me think we have lost our way a bit in this country; that certain elements of society demand that the country suddenly owes them a living. The idea that you educate yourself and work hard to better your circumstances seems to be slipping away. I don't know what the solution is but I can't help agreeing with Cameron when he says that certain sections of society are sick and broken.

filbert wrote:Interestingly, BBC Breakfast news had an interview this morning with a chap whose shop was burned down by the thugs on Monday. He made what I thought was a very salient point regarding the so-called socio-economic excuses being trotted out to explain the riots. He ran a charity that was involved in setting up schools and providing education for poor Asian kids in Vietnam, Laos, that sort of thing. When asked if the riots could be blamed on socio-economic deprivation, he looked a bit peeved and said 'most of the rioters have iPhones, are well fed and have a roof over their heads as well as living in a society that offers them ample opportunity to better themselves. That's not being poor or deprived'.

He then went on to compare them to the Asian kids who really do show a drive and determination to better themselves when presented with the opportunity and education. Kind of makes me think we have lost our way a bit in this country; that certain elements of society demand that the country suddenly owes them a living. The idea that you educate yourself and work hard to better your circumstances seems to be slipping away. I don't know what the solution is but I can't help agreeing with Cameron when he says that certain sections of society are sick and broken.

Exactly. How the feth can you riot about deprivation when your organising the riots on blackberrys and Iphone 4?

I love saying I told you so, and If everyone thought like me, the country would be in better shape. Its got nothing to do with a lack, and everything to do with an abundance. These little gaks have more money for clothes/fags/booze than I do. And I work for a living.

They have a sense of entitlement thanks to pinkos and hippies and Guardian readers raising them that way. They think they are entitled to everything that I own.

feth em.

Give them less, not more.

Slash the dole in half, give them food stamps so they cant get booze and fags as easily. Stop all child support once you get past 2 children, boot them out of their fething houses and if anyone breaks the law lock them up for twice as long. Starve the scum into submission. Leave the civilised people on the streets and leave the scum to rot in the cells. Problem fixed.

In short, cancel fething Christmas!



My life is better, your life is better. feth the fething fethers!

filbert wrote:Interestingly, BBC Breakfast news had an interview this morning with a chap whose shop was burned down by the thugs on Monday. He made what I thought was a very salient point regarding the so-called socio-economic excuses being trotted out to explain the riots. He ran a charity that was involved in setting up schools and providing education for poor Asian kids in Vietnam, Laos, that sort of thing. When asked if the riots could be blamed on socio-economic deprivation, he looked a bit peeved and said 'most of the rioters have iPhones, are well fed and have a roof over their heads as well as living in a society that offers them ample opportunity to better themselves. That's not being poor or deprived'.

He then went on to compare them to the Asian kids who really do show a drive and determination to better themselves when presented with the opportunity and education. Kind of makes me think we have lost our way a bit in this country; that certain elements of society demand that the country suddenly owes them a living. The idea that you educate yourself and work hard to better your circumstances seems to be slipping away.

Very true.

I don't know what the solution is but I can't help agreeing with Cameron when he says that certain sections of society are sick and broken.

Yes, including his own section of society

mattyrm wrote: give them food stamps so they cant get booze and fags as easily

I had a similar idea that instead of some benefits people should be given food credit cards that could be spent in Asda, Tescos etc but not on alcohol or cigarrettes.

Unfortunately, you have to wonder whether the treasury could survive without all the tax it gets from sales on alcohol, tobacco etc.

Flashman wrote:

mattyrm wrote: give them food stamps so they cant get booze and fags as easily

I had a similar idea that instead of some benefits people should be given food credit cards that could be spent in Asda, Tescos etc but not on alcohol or cigarrettes.

Unfortunately, you have to wonder whether the treasury could survive without all the tax it gets from sales on alcohol, tobacco etc.

Theyd still be able to get them, they would stand outside Morrisons and sell you their £50 voucher for £25 in desperation.

I would get my shopping cheaper and they would have even less money for food as they buy their precious booze and fags and scratch cards and micro chips.

We both win.

darkPrince010 wrote:@Albatross: Your post didn't offer any explanation for the rioting beyond "They simply are bad people, doing abd people things. It's their own fault they're doing these bad people things."

Don't be a smart-arse. I didn't post anything like that, you patronising tosser. What I posted, if you'd bothered to read it, was:

There is a sector of society that has effectively been told for the last 13 years that their actions have no consequences, that every crappy decision that they make is someone else's fault, and that somehow the rest of us 'owe' them. They have been convinced that WE have let THEM down. The upshot of all this is that they don't really care about anything but fulfilling their most base desires, and misguided liberals have provided them with a playbook of excuses should they be brought to book for their actions: 'It's the economy/cuts/bankers, innit?'

To be honest, I think most of your posts in this thread seem to bear this viewpoint out. You're very quick to absolve the rioters of a large share of the blame for their actions, and frankly, I find it disgusting. People like you are the problem, because you provide people who don't wish to take responsibility for their lives with a set of ready excuses.

The reasoning I gave is why there's the Generational Gap you mentioned (By which I assume you mean gap between their morales and principles and those of the previous generation

For someone so smug, I would have expected you to be able to read a little better. I didn't say anything about a 'generation gap', I said that these riots where the manifestation of a generational problem. There is a generation of kids who grow up in households where no-one works - their exemplars are parents who are content to loaf around on benefits and game the system. They drink heavily, take drugs and feed their children (and babies) junk-food for breakfast lunch and dinner. These kids have parents who had babies whilst in secondary school, but it was OK because the state fed them and housed them. They have irresponsibility bred into them. Again, I'm speaking from personal experience, but also the experience of my mother, who is a youth development worker. I grew up amongst that sort of work (hell, I was in a lot of the programs myself - free babysitting...), and I can tell you, the best it does is put a band-aid on the problem. The very worst kids treat such schemes with contempt, believe me.

The government was not just cutting benefits (Which I personally belive should be reduced slightly or at least more thoroughly stated to prevent loopholes and abuses) but also cutting non-monetary aid such as the youth shelters/support systems I mentioned.

Central government doesn't do that. For the most part, such programs fall under the remit of local authorities - i.e City or Borough councils. Guess which are the some of the worst offenders for cutting front-line services? That's right, Labour-run councils. And why? Fancy having a guess? It's OK, I'll tell you - they aren't motivated to make sensible cuts, because they aren't in power. If they remove front-line services, and the area goes to gak, they can blame the Coaliton AND make the required savings, so it's a win-win.

I appreciate that you're from this environment, but can you really say that you and your friends wouldn't have turned out for the most part as upstanding individuals (As I'm assuming you are) if it weren't for strong parental, teacher, and/or community support?

Who says I'm an upstanding individual? I made terrible choices, but d'you know what? I owned them. They were nobody's fault but mine.

Holy cow, like 12 pages since I last posted so I've only skimmed the last couple of pages.

My father moved to this country as a non-English speaking immigrant in 1963. He grew up in Hackney and Haringay (and in fact still does a lot of work with failing schools there). Large parts of my family and family friends still live and work in these areas and the surrounds (like Enfield). Some of them are even undesirables (though I have no idea if any were involved in this, more likely they would have turned out with the rest of the Turks to defend the area to get their fix of trouble for the week).

Anyway.... people keep trying to blame it on the Tory cuts or the last Labour government and that's wrong. These places have been poor and deprived for 50+ years, this is not a new phenomenon. What has now happened is we have 2-3 generations of children and parents that don't aspire to be better*, do not aspire to want better for their children, and on top of that there's a general reduction in the teaching of behaviour and discipline from public bodies such as schools, and the cycle of gang culture reinforced by it's glamorisation in the media and the failure of the legal system to remove bad eggs from the area that probably do more teaching (and not the good kind) than the children learn at school if they turn up and bang - undesirable subculture.

Anyway, my point is this has been going on for a very, very long time and whilst Tory policy or the police action may have been the final straw, they aren't the root cause, and they aren't really relevant to the solutions IMO.

*He and his brothers "got out" because his step-dad put his foot down at 16 and told him he was going to college.

EDIT: and good on the above poster for pointing out that most of the areas these stem from are (and have always been) Labour run areas, so a lot of the blame falls on the leaders of these communities as well.

Flashman wrote:The fact that a lot of working class women drink and smoke whilst pregnant doesn't help their children either.

My mother smoked and drank when she was having me.

Back in the early 60s it was good for you.

They don't get more money. They just need to pick what areas to slash more carefully in the future

So...where then?

Mr Hyena wrote:

They don't get more money. They just need to pick what areas to slash more carefully in the future

So...where then?

Achilles tendon, then across the jugular.

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/looters-return-stuff-to-games-workshop-201108124191/

(language warning)

Roy Hobbs, manager of Games Workshop in Birmingham, said: "Welcome home my children. Let me bathe you in the healing milk of Fagnarbarak.

"I knew we would meet again."

htj wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

They don't get more money. They just need to pick what areas to slash more carefully in the future

So...where then?

Achilles tendon, then across the jugular.

Isn't that more something someone on the brew/a liberal would say? As we'd still be under the same debt just...worse.

A liberal would advocate the cold blooded execution of civilians? Interesting interpretation.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Flashman wrote:The fact that a lot of working class women drink and smoke whilst pregnant doesn't help their children either.

My mother smoked and drank when she was having me.

Back in the early 60s it was good for you.

To be fair, you grew up to be a chinese woman with a moustache, so clearly the long-term effects are not yet properly understood...

Da Boss wrote:Intelligence has been shown to be roughly 50:50 genetics and environment? By who, exactly, and using what methodology.

Interestingly enough, this has been a bone of contention/debate between me and a friend of mine who studies Psychology for some time, so I've done a bit more research into it than the standard, 'I read something on the internet or in the paper' approach to internet debating. I've had several conversations with various qualified academics in both the Biology and Psychology departments, and read a few academic papers on the subject. I wouldn't claim to be an expert in either field, far far from it, however my knowledge is relatively well informed I would think. Of course, if you can cite sources claiming differently, I would actually be very interested, as said, this is a regular topic of discussion over afternoon tea for me!

Intelligence is poorly defined and the tests we use to measure it are biased and flawed, favouring particular types of intelligence over others.

It is true that intelligence is a nebulous subject to define, and that smartness (or academic intelligence) is generally measured over and above that of brightness (or general mental acuity). However, there are certain things which it is possible to analyse as a general indicator of intelligence, from memory capacity, to analytical capability. When you claim all tests used to measure it are biased, I think that you're generally referring to such indicators as IQ tests, which I would agree are generally about as accurate as a height/weight for judging how obese someone is (i.e., not very, it gets the gist but is rather lacking).

Yet there have been several more reputable tests than that on the origins of intelligence performed. Identical twins are usually an apt research subject, as they are about as genetically identical one can get in research subjects. There was a particular case where one scientist measured the intelligence (through several methods, from mental calculation capacity, to general knowledge, to more study related things) of identical twins raised in different surroundings and social circumstances. He found that something along the lines of eighty percent of identical twins, despite coming from completely different backgrounds and circumstance since birth, were of on par intelligence. This dropped to about seventy percent for un-identical twins, about fifty percent for siblings, and there was no correlation whatsoever between people who were unrelated.

Whilst one study can never be given too much weight in this field, there was another study published last month (in the Molecular Biology journal I think? I might be hazy on the name) indicating general intelligence (defined in the same way:- analytical skills, mental agility, etc) was down to the inter-relations of several hundred different genes.

Generally speaking, it is widely accepted now that genetics do actually play significant part in determining one's intelligence and mental potential. Not everything, but a significant part.

What has a much bigger effect is home environment. If kids are getting looked after properly at home, they'll be reading and writing and doing maths at a much higher level than neglected children.

I agree. That's the where the 50% upbringing side comes into the equation.

Placing a child in a lower set does all sorts of negative things to them. It knocks their confidence, kills their motivation, and realigns their self image into a negative one. They'll see school work as something that is "not for them".

Quite possibly. However, the flip side of the coin is where everyone gets given a degree regardless of actual merit involved, because someone might get hurt feelings. The fact is, when you start taking that line of reasoning, you have to apply it to things like football teams, where you HAVE to pick the morbidly obese child for the team, in case you hurt their feelings. Everyone gets a degree, because 'Everyone should go to University'. You end up with a system where academic merit is valueless, as no-one is allowed to stand out, in case it damages the self esteem of people not as talented as them.

The fact is, at the end of the day, some people are stronger than others, some more attractive, some smarter. It's the way of the world. When you start trying to force everyone into line, and telling all kids that they are all identical, and everyone's a winner, when they are generally so clearly not, you're setting them up for falls later on in life, and leading them to believe something that is generally not true.

That's not to say that what you're saying is without merit. I believe the system should be dedicated to shuffling a child to wherever their talents are. If they're good with their hands, open up the vocational colleges and polytechnics, and give them more hands on work. If a child is fat, you wouldn't try and make them sports stars, why make non-academic people feel like they have to go to University and college?

Not only that, but by setting rigorously, as you go further down they lose the positive effect from their peers.

See, I strongly disagree here. Coming out of a schooling system in Africa three years in advance of my peers at the age of 12, and moving to a school generally accepted as alright over here had a horrendously detrimental effect on my capability to study. There was no positive effect on my schoolwork, rather, being situated in the same classroom as loudmouthed and disruptive children made my own results suffer accordingly. Despite being able to do simultaneous equations at 12, my previously intense education went down the pot when placed into the same room as children who swore loudly at the teachers, and did no work. The influence tended to be more of one directional thing. I found those kids with a decent upbringing or work ethic did well, those who didn't, didn't. They just had a detrimental effect on everybody else.

However, I'm only mentioning those who did not wish to learn, those 'problem children'. There were of course, other children, some not as good at maths as others, some not as good at science as others, and so on. This is because sticking everyone together regardless of talent, academic suitability, background, or anything at all in common, is not the ideal solution here. You'll see what I'd give as a good example of a system further down my answer.

Broaden that into a systemic picture and you get schools where results are low and nobody thinks it's strange because all the "smart" kids who did better on their SATs or whatever are in a different school. The teachers in these schools become burnt out, staff turnover is higher, time is spent more on control and less on education.

This is because certain schools end up with all the problem children that are expelled from many others. You end up with teachers trying to teach Geography to kids who don't know, and don't care. I generally agree. However, if this were 100% the case, you'd have schools made up only of the brightest and best students, which is not quite the case. The fact is, you get schools that have a higher proportion of good to bad students (slanted in either direction), but every school has its share of people who are neither particularly, and are there because they live close or whatever.

If you want, I can see if I still have access to the research papers that document all of the things I am talking about.

No, I know that what you're saying is generally pretty accurate. I also know you work in a school, and know a fair bit about these things, as well as being quite intelligent yourself. No need for burden of proof.

Putting kids in a top set or better school simply magnifies what they already have- and generally what they have comes to them from their upbringing.

This is bad why? Surely promoting talent is a good thing?

Middle and upper class kids will get more exposure to intellectual pursuits and more support of them than working class kids.

This is where I disagree. Strongly. Being working class is no barrier to intellectual pursuits. Ever heard of the Ashington Group? Especially in this day and age, where schools have libraries, EMA, and the government provides the means to carry on with their education, regardless of wealth. Add this to the fact that my parents are working class, and I've done alright for myself.

I think you're confusing work ethic and general upbringing with class here. Being working class does not mean you have to be ill-educated, mistreated by your parents, smoke forty packets of fags a day, and live in Mcdonalds.

This advantage is then magnified by going to a better school whereas the environmental disadvantage of a poor school is magnified for the working class kids.

Again, I think you're confusing class with upbringing. I won't deny that those with lots of money have access to better schooling, but there ways and means to address this issue, but shuffling kids into the same set and telling them they're all identical is not the solution here.

Class has everything to do with it, because the values of your home life and the amount of money you have determines in many ways what sort of chances for extra curricular learning you will have, how much help you will have with your homework and how much encouragement you will get in your schoolwork.

So.....you're saying that all teachers look at the working class children and actively deny them help?

More the case that teachers look at problem children and want nothing to do with them. I doubt you'll find a teacher around who would deny a not particularly bright, but hard working child extra help. And if you did, they clearly shouldn't be teachers. I don't think that was quite what you meant to get across, but re-reading that statement, that's all I can get from it.

Once a kid is in a lower set, it is nearly impossible for them to move out. This is generally due to logistical reasons, but the fact is there is very little movement between sets.

Aha! Now we're on common ground! I believe the system should be reformed to make transition between sets easier. Definitely. No doubt. That is one of the damaging things about placing children in sets, and it should be rectified. Otherwise you're placing the children in a slot, and telling them that they have to stay there because its where they belong, as opposed to telling them if they work harder, they'll get into a better one.

The other factor is motivation. If you're the best kid in your school on a C, and your parents are delighted with you because no one in your family has ever done so well before, you're not going to be motivated to work harder to get a B or an A. A kid of the same ability in a school filled with peers who are doing better will have massive motivation to work harder. The school environment is a huge incentive.

I kind of agree, but don't at the same time. A teacher should also be involved in motivating a child to do well academically, possibly as much as a parent. Other students? Not so much. Its not their problem. Retarding the development of one student to promote growth in another is not the solution. I think the key is the school environment to a large extent, definitely, but lumping children in the same class has many cons and few pros.

I think you should really examine your thesis that the system is based on merit- it has an ugly flip side. If the successful are successful because they are intelligent and hard working, then the unsuccessful are unsuccessful because they are stupid and lazy. I think we both know the world is more complicated than that.

Definitely. My personal belief is that everyone should be encouraged wherever their talents lie. You wouldn't make a fish fly, why make a fat kid run, or a dyslexic kid into Shakespeare? The academic system should be based on merit, because if it isn't, it removes all incentive to stand out from the crowd for the brighter ones. The solution is to provide alternate routes to making a living and wellbeing for those not good in certain fields and endeavours. Forcing children into the same set doesn't make kids bad at mathematics good at mathematics, it just makes them feel inadequate in comparison to their classmates, or become disruptive, because they don't want to be there.

I'm not by any margin saying that genetics don't have a part to play. But without the right environment to stimulate that genetic potential, someone will never reach it.

I agree.

The streaming of kids benefits the middle and upper class kds far more than it does the working class. I'm telling you this as someone who has previously taught in a disadvantaged working class school in Ireland, and is now teaching in a heavily setted comprehensive in the UK.

And I'm disagreeing as someone who has experienced both modes of education. Streaming in private schools, and shuffling in comprehensives. One encouraged me to learn, and made use of what I was capable of. One degraded my capacity for those things. I'll leave you to guess which.

I do feel very strongly on this issue- but I accept that any solutions will be radical and probably deeply unpopular. If I had my way, I'd assign children to schools randomly within a certain catchment, to ensure the maximum amount of diversity within the schools, and I would only set very loosely and with a lot of flexibility.

I disagree that 'diversity' is what lumping everyone together achieves. It smacks more of 'conformity' to me. It's hammering down the nails that stick up, and telling everyone they get a prize. I personally, would prefer an academic system that makes everyone a nail that sticks up in the given field/talent, and promotes every student in achieving their maximum potential.

Ketara: Good arguments, I appreciate them. I may not get to reply til much later as I'm off up to dublin today, but I want to acknowledge that that was thought provoking. I will ruminate on it and tackle my own pet psychologist (everyone should have one) this evening about it.
Cheers.

I would tend to agree that being from a poorer background does not always mean that you do not have access to education. Both my parents are teachers in a not too brilliant area and I work in Student Financial Aid.
In terms of support offered I find that it is often the students from middle income families who have to stuggle the most in terms of paying for university as they are not elligable for the same support as poorer families (I regulaly see students with support packages that total more than my annual gross wage) and can in turn not as easily afford to support their children especilly if they have multiple dependants.
I believe that it does come down to work ethic in the main, my parents both came from quite poor backgrounds and worked hard for what they have now and this set of values has been passed onto me.
I think that you have to look at why people think it is acceptable to have their young children running around unsupervised at night joining in with this sort of despicable action. To me at least this is the crux of the matter parents that don't give a gak about their kids who then grow up with the same attitude and pump out more sprogs that compound the situation. You cannot expect schools/the state to do the job that parents should be doing in the first place.
Just because you are poor(or rich or whatever) dosen't give you the excuse to be a terrible person. Likewise these idiots can wail about wanting repect as much as they want, they won't get it because they have failed to understand that respect is earned.



End rant.

Albatross wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Flashman wrote:The fact that a lot of working class women drink and smoke whilst pregnant doesn't help their children either.

My mother smoked and drank when she was having me.

Back in the early 60s it was good for you.

To be fair, you grew up to be a chinese woman with a moustache, so clearly the long-term effects are not yet properly understood...

Don't forget matching "heh heh heh" maniacal laugh.

mattyrm wrote:

Flashman wrote:

mattyrm wrote: give them food stamps so they cant get booze and fags as easily

I had a similar idea that instead of some benefits people should be given food credit cards that could be spent in Asda, Tescos etc but not on alcohol or cigarrettes.

Unfortunately, you have to wonder whether the treasury could survive without all the tax it gets from sales on alcohol, tobacco etc.

Theyd still be able to get them, they would stand outside Morrisons and sell you their £50 voucher for £25 in desperation.

I would get my shopping cheaper and they would have even less money for food as they buy their precious booze and fags and scratch cards and micro chips.

We both win.

Something similar is floated around think tanks from time to time. One of the proposals was to use vouchers for child support only. The basic reasons for that are:

1. Just someone is on benefits doesnt mean they are a scrounger, this sends the wrong message.
- Besides the system is allowed to penalise unworthy claimants, so any extant claimant is someone for whome no proof of lack of worth is forthcoming, and thus deserves the benefit of the doubt (sic) in common law.
2. People who deserve benefits have a reasonable entitlement to spend their money how they wish.
3. Food stamps etc might cause a stigma that is unwarranted.
4. If some people on the same benefit as others got stamps and others deemed more worthy or responsible got cash it would be discriminatory.
5. This unfairly penalises people who are responsible claimants but like to drink or smoke in moderation.
6. The underworld would more likely benefit from vouchers for cash sales rather than chancers outside supermarkets, it would fuel a black economy and it could/would get nasty.
7. There will be quite reasonable items on a persons list that is not available at qualifying supermarkets.
8. This will discourage local trade in favour of big chain stores able to support a voucher scheme (see below).
9. This will penalise rural persons who cannot access a big chain store easily.
10. Can a claimant spend their money at McDonalds? If not why not. McDonalds could possdible afford ther logistic cost of joining the voucher scheme. But how about a kebab shop that is too small to qualify.

The reasons why child support was looked into in seperation.

1. While it is not fair to judge what someone (who we must assume by default is a genuine claimant) can spend their JSA/income support money on, it is perfectly acceptable for society to demand that child support is spent on the children.
2. Child support cannot be denied and is by far the easiest benefit to swindle, the more kids you have the easier it is to feed and cloth them all on a decreasing fraction of child benefit.
- This might lead to the question, why not cut child benefit for multiple kids? This cannot be achieved because the rate calculated is a fair assessment of what is needed (at least from the governments point of view) if one gave a feth about the childs welfare. Three kids equals three times the cost. Only scum parents gwet the 'discount' because tins of beans, toast and chips are cheap and plentiful, cloths can be hand be down between kids in the family and this leaves lots of child benefit left over for fags and booze.
3. There is no justifyable stigma going to the checkout with child benefit stamps, working parents get them too.
4. No you shouldnt spend child benefit on kebabs and McDonalds, home cooked meals are strongly encouraged. If parents wants to 'treat' the kids to McDonalds they can do it out of their own wages or JSA.

However even with this in place there were bigger problems.

1. Polit schemes were tried for vouchers for some benefits in the past, and they were a failure, mainly through reluctance for shops to get on board. Only one supermarklet agreed to take the vouchers. I cannot remember which one.
- The principle reason for this is because getting cash in the till and getting vouchers the treasury will refund on are two different things. IIRC it took three months for the vouchers to be redeemed. I suppose this could be speeded up but I wouldnt hold my breath on that.
2. Frankly while being realistic and cynical at the same time. Supermarkets will be dead against any voucher. They get the majorty of benefit money anyway in white label goods and budget alcohol anyway so there is nothing in it for them but an administrative cost and a delay in funds. Of course the big supermarklets could afford that, but they just arent intrested in being altruistic. Last time they baulked at the idea, I do not see that changing.
3. Only large supermarkets could afford to get on board, smaller units could not afford the extra administration, especially corner shops etc.
4. If you allow the system to be 'adminstration lite' to enable smaler outlserts to join in then many will take child vouchers run barcodes for packets of nappies though the till and fill the bag with special brew and fags. This would be rife.



Now at this point I should add that a refinement was proposed that involved giving claimants a special swipecard into which qualifying benefits were paid into. This would solve the speed of refund problem, however this was considered 'too costly', mainly for set up and administration costs and partly because of security. A government swipecard is the government's problem with card crime being what this is it would be a huge powderkeg.
Personally I think a child benefit swipecard would still work, given a run in time but it was a minority opinion. Swipe cards could be voluntary in return for negotiating a discount in certain 'mother and child' stores so it could be trickled in at a managable rate before making it mandatory for all claimants once the teething problems were sorted.
Even so all a dodgy outlet needs tgo do is to cut out some barcodes from common valid child items and swipe them instead of the other stuff being purchased, possibly with a surcharge included: "we swipe the barcode from nappies costing £3.50 for the bottle of cider costing £2.99 ok". I cant think of a way around that except expensive and vigiliant policing.

Orlanth wrote:The reasons why child support was looked into in seperation.

1. While it is not fair to judge what someone (who we must assume by default is a genuine claimant) can spend their JSA/income support money on, it is perfectly acceptable for society to demand that child support is spent on the children.
2. Child support cannot be denied and is by far the easiest benefit to swindle, the more kids you have the easier it is to feed and cloth them all on a decreasing fraction of child benefit.
- This might lead to the question, why not cut child benefit for multiple kids? This cannot be achieved because the rate calculated is a fair assessment of what is needed (at least from the governments point of view) if one gave a feth about the childs welfare. Three kids equals three times the cost. Only scum parents gwet the 'discount' because tins of beans, toast and chips are cheap and plentiful, cloths can be hand be down between kids in the family and this leaves lots of child benefit left over for fags and booze.
3. There is no justifyable stigma going to the checkout with child benefit stamps, working parents get them too.
4. No you shouldnt spend child benefit on kebabs and McDonalds, home cooked meals are strongly encouraged. If parents wants to 'treat' the kids to McDonalds they can do it out of their own wages or JSA.

What about daycare, transport to school, opticians, rent or morgage for larger living space, school lunch money or any of the countless other things which is required to bring up a child but can't be bought with a stamp at asda or tesco?

We should be sorting out the muppets who abuse the system not penalising those who don't.

Orlanth wrote:2. People who deserve benefits have a reasonable entitlement to spend their money how they wish.

Why?

If you are appealing to the government for money to live on, how is it wrong for the government to limit what you can purchase with that money? When you come asking for money for food, what is wrong with the government insisting that you spend that money on food rather than cigarettes, booze, DVD rentals, or toy soldiers? Basically, if you're not using it for food, then you didn't really need the benefit in the first place.

To back up Orlanth on this, the UK does have a system of stamps or vouchers for asylum seekers, and it has demonstrated the various pernicious results that he covered.

I think that point 2 is moot considering all the practical disadvantages of the system.

Something not mentioned but possibly relevant, or not, depending how much of a bleeding heart liberal one may be, is that part of the purported purpose of benefits is to ease a transition back to normal working, earning and spending life. (That's why it is called Job Seeker's Allowance.)

It is the principle used to re-habilitate long-term prisoners back into civvie life. They are sent out for short periods, wearing proper clothes and allowed to spend their pocket money in shops as a normal person.

The Big Issue works along the same lines. Instead of just begging, the sellers have to engage in business transactions to get their cash.

This would mandate the payment of benefits in money rather than vouchers.

whatwhat wrote:

Orlanth wrote:The reasons why child support was looked into in seperation.

1. While it is not fair to judge what someone (who we must assume by default is a genuine claimant) can spend their JSA/income support money on, it is perfectly acceptable for society to demand that child support is spent on the children.
2. Child support cannot be denied and is by far the easiest benefit to swindle, the more kids you have the easier it is to feed and cloth them all on a decreasing fraction of child benefit.
- This might lead to the question, why not cut child benefit for multiple kids? This cannot be achieved because the rate calculated is a fair assessment of what is needed (at least from the governments point of view) if one gave a feth about the childs welfare. Three kids equals three times the cost. Only scum parents gwet the 'discount' because tins of beans, toast and chips are cheap and plentiful, cloths can be hand be down between kids in the family and this leaves lots of child benefit left over for fags and booze.
3. There is no justifyable stigma going to the checkout with child benefit stamps, working parents get them too.
4. No you shouldnt spend child benefit on kebabs and McDonalds, home cooked meals are strongly encouraged. If parents wants to 'treat' the kids to McDonalds they can do it out of their own wages or JSA.

What about daycare, transport to school, opticians, rent or morgage for larger living space, school lunch money or any of the countless other things which is required to bring up a child but can't be bought with a stamp at asda or tesco?

We should be sorting out the muppets who abuse the system not penalising those who don't.

No it works. This is sorting out the muppets, starting with the 'I want' mupperts who wont look at how things were done and still could be done.
Opticians costs for children are handled by NHS for a start. All of the rest except fuel for the 4x4 on school runs can be included in a voucher system, for that go back to the old system. Parents do a rota have one mum go around one day a week and pick up kids from five houses, or one day in three from three. This was how it was done before we got the 'my entitlement must be met - now!' dogma. School lunch money can be replaced by food satchels, besides give a kid a pack lunch and he/she gets a lunch not top up money to txt all day in the classroom.
Besdies stamp should be available at more places than asda and tescos.

@Albatross: Snide remarks aside, your arguement boils down to "The reason these people are doing these bad things is entirely their own fault, because they have irresponsibility/immorality from growing up in an irresponsible/immoral environment." If it's drastically different from this, please correct this "patronising tosser."

My arguement is that the government is partly to blame for creating/allowing such an environment. Simply arguing that its their own fault for living in such an environment is absurd: No-one has a choice in where they're born, and usually have very little say in where they grow up as a child. The rioters are completely to blame for their actions; Several times in the previous post I mentioned that. However, I also mentioned (Yay reading comprehension!) that the reason the rioters have grown up in areas that instill poor values is not their fault.

And as for you making terrible choices, what stopped you from making worse ones? What made you realise that mugging/theft/arson were bad things, and not acceptable by society at large. I'd hazard a guess (given your post) that you had strong support from your mother; How would you have grown up without her moral guidelines and influences? Would you have been as well-adjusted as you are today? Or would you have been as violent or criminal as the rioters that were in the streets?

/patronising tosser

biccat wrote:

Orlanth wrote:2. People who deserve benefits have a reasonable entitlement to spend their money how they wish.

Why?

If you are appealing to the government for money to live on, how is it wrong for the government to limit what you can purchase with that money? When you come asking for money for food, what is wrong with the government insisting that you spend that money on food rather than cigarettes, booze, DVD rentals, or toy soldiers? Basically, if you're not using it for food, then you didn't really need the benefit in the first place.

I tell you why.

I will give you a near future specific.

A. Many soldiers jobs are about to go. Even the officers will have hard trouble getting work. To quote an officer I know he claimed to have seventeen years of management experience in an interview.
'You are just what we need. Where?'
'Her Majesty's armed forces.'
At this point they didnt want to know.

Soldiers dont easily get jobs excepting certain positions in the security industry. Their work experience counts for suprisingly little. So they go on JSA.

Now someone does tours gets shot at, gets given a P45 and cannot get a job becvause he has few or no 'valid' skills. You tell me this person doesnt deserve to spend the c£65 on whatever he chooses. So he should bow his head in shame not drink not smoke forfeit any hobby he has and buy from a select product list in a supermarket.


How about this one then.

B. Those with a mental health history. Not a real screaming nutter that needs locking up, nor one 'dangerous' enough to be formally sectioned and getting Incapacity benefit. Just mentally ill enough to be fairly unemployable. There are lots of people in that category. The NHS glosses over milder cases that need help but threaten nothing but thier own career prospects, they cannot afford to fully treat everyone. Up to a point I can understand this, but employers dont see that, they see JSA not Incap. They see regular unenmployed not a formal mental health case with attached benefits and entitlements and kickbacks to someone taking on a disadvantaged person into the workforce.
Its a grey area and a suprisingly big one. Its not these peoples fault. People with mild aspergers, attention of motivation disorders (genuine ones not the neglected chav upbringing variants), mad enough to make them unemployable because they compete directly with the fully sane, while not mad enough to get sectioned and be on the list of people the state has a duty of care for.
Some of these people may even be fully recovered but with ten or twenty year career gaps that the employment advisors cannot hope to gloss over. People with ten or more years of benefit claims dont get jobs anywhere, and employers are not interested in the whys, wherefores or if the person is deserving or a chance or not.


C. How about the large numbers of people who cannot get work because of the recession. Made redundant and competing with people far younger. They exist in their thousands and are getting worried.
Its not their fault the bankerss and squandering politicians fethed our economy and they lost their jobs. There are a lot of quite employable people now twelve months plus on the DSS in my town are they scum who should be only allowed to buy subsistence goods from selected shops?

darkPrince010 wrote:@Albatross: Snide remarks aside, your arguement boils down to "The reason these people are doing these bad things is entirely their own fault, because they have irresponsibility/immorality from growing up in an irresponsible/immoral environment." If it's drastically different from this, please correct this "patronising tosser."

Not quite. My argument is that yes, they pretty much get irresponsibility on the tit, but no, absolving them of even more responsibility by blaming their behaviour on cuts to social welfare is not going to help. That's like giving a drowning man a drink of water, in my opinion.

And you'll have to forgive my annoyance - waking up to find my city has been smashed up by looters, and then having to listen to people making excuses for the people who did it, will do that to a person.

My arguement is that the government is partly to blame for creating/allowing such an environment.

Not the current government.

Simply arguing that its their own fault for living in such an environment is absurd: No-one has a choice in where they're born, and usually have very little say in where they grow up as a child.

...but they do have the same basic opportunities that every other child has, and can choose to better themselves, should they wish. You can't really judge the UK by the standards of the US - 'poverty' here is nothing like poverty there. Every child in the UK has access to decent, affordable healthcare, it's easier and more affordable to get a university education and welfare payments are enough to live on. To keep repeating the same patterns as the generation that precedes you is a personal choice - these kids have societal input on how to behave, and what is expected of them, if they are to become responsible citizens. The problem is, at the moment there is no price for failure. So why should they give a feth?

It's also worth pointing out that not all of the rioters were from deprived backgrounds, as others have noted. It's responsibility that is deficient, not social mobility. The tools are there if one wishes to use them. I did.

The rioters are completely to blame for their actions; Several times in the previous post I mentioned that. However, I also mentioned (Yay reading comprehension!) that the reason the rioters have grown up in areas that instill poor values is not their fault.

Yes, but you attributed their actions, in part, to this. So which is it? Are they completely to blame or not?

I have no sympathy or empathy for those out rioting - its wrong and they need to be punished for it.

On the other hand nothing was done to those in the finincial services who directly caused (and continue to cause) devestation and misery on a world wide scale except giving them bonuses, pay offs and new jobs in other companies(especaily at the top) - all at the expense of various countries tax payers - no sign of any punishment for any of them which is also IMO wrong.

:(