I’ve not read through the whole of it, but it’s not all depressing. Rosena Allin-Khan worked 10 hours as a doctor!Quote:
Originally Posted by cher1
And got far less than the cost of a hospitality ticket to the Euros…
Printable View
I’ve not read through the whole of it, but it’s not all depressing. Rosena Allin-Khan worked 10 hours as a doctor!Quote:
Originally Posted by cher1
And got far less than the cost of a hospitality ticket to the Euros…
Britain is a socialist country, but also an effective capitalist society. You cannot run a socialist state without money. Can you. Society provides sufficient monetary support for those who need it, that includes free health care, and housing, education....you name it.
The origins of english children going hungry is about the limitations of the parents. There is a school of thought that states that poor, or poorer people dont learn, i subscribe to that. Look at alcohol, tobacco, gambling, phones, drugs etc. Poor people wont get help in those areas, , in fact they wont think they have a problem. They have a sense of entitlement.
Its the governments fault, i want more money. Money wont help a serious personality disorder, alcoholism, narcissism, or any number of problems, lets face it, low intelligence., and immaturity. More money will just fuel the problem. What is needed is a social service that is a parent, a guidance, but doesnt appear to be so. This includes money management, services for addictions, and the ability to run peoples lives if they cant themselves. Which automatically includes children suffering at the hands of an inadequate parent.
I know this is going to enrage some, but i have seen it after 35 years in the NHS. If you want to become a tory, work for the NHS. Now let me see, what will i be called now......
‘From each according to his ability to each according to his need’ suggests that it’s actually the end goal of socialism to have a state without money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Psaw
You should read it BFP, it's very illuminating. One MP got £5.5k off a Mini and free decals! The company that gave such a large amount to Yvette Cooper don't seen to have a website which is a bit odd. Another MP got £25k from a consultancy company. One even got a donation from the Carlton Club.
A company called IX Wireless donated money to a number of MPs. I wonder why they are doing that?
Many snouts in many troughs.
Just a wild guess:PQuote:
Originally Posted by sidders
You should know about addiction, because your posts sound likeQuote:
Originally Posted by Psaw
To answer the OP...No, not always, it depends
I've been following what's happening in Peru. There's been a mixing of football and politics there but nothing close to the discussion on this thread...
A right-wing candidate made the Presidential run-off (2nd round). She happens to be the daughter of the right-wing dictator who 20-30 years ago..
- massacred whole villages of innocent people
- forced mass sterilisations of women based on social class and region
- was the most corrupt regime in memory
- tried to steal the last election he stood in to stay in power
Yet during the campaign for the final round of voting, most of the Peruvian national football team came out to endorse this candidate (a couple refused). In doing so, they tied the national team to this candidate (who lost btw).
This is an example of where players shouldn't involve themselves in the political process!
Especially as it's since emerged that they accepted payments for this 'support'
You use the example of Marcus Rashford a footballer getting involved in politics. What I see is politics trying to get involved in football. Mr Rashford comes from very humble beginnings and he is proud of them and what he has become - and rightly so. I don't see it as getting involved in politics so much as trying to give back to where he came from at its roots which is a noble cause. I believe he would have had the same opinion and fought the same fight regardless of who was in power. Politics on the other hand seems to want to use sport and in particular football currently to try and score a few cheap points. The recent racism fur rough is a typical example where the current executive has been made to look somewhat stupid by saying one thing and then flipping as required to appeal to public opinion. I don't think there is much more to it than that.
I was briefly in Peru in early 2018 and that wasn't my first visit to the country. True story.
Exactly this. Rashford has not come out on the campaign trail with any particular party. He is trying to do what he sees as the right thing to support some of the poorest in the country as he understands what it was like growing up poor.Quote:
Originally Posted by queenslandpie
Mings also criticised the home secretary not because she is a Tory but because of what she specifically said pre-tournament. He understands what it is like to be racially abused. Patel should have known better, but that doesn't quite appeal enough to the Tory base.
The Tories have made a massive error in singling out footballers for criticism recently (Hancock said footballers should take a pay-cut at the start of the pandemic) because they are well paid and most at the elite level are millionaires in their own right. They didn't bank on them being articulate in their response nor did they appreciate the platform that many of them have with social media.
It is noticeable that this government only reserved their critisism for this type of rich person, the self-made with a working class background. They have been quite happy to feather the nests of other multi-millionaire Tory donors during this time with meaty over-priced government contracts.
Does anyone know why the England football team have not been invited to Downing Street this year? They were after the last World Cup.