• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Phillip having a rant on the Telegraph site

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #11
    Originally posted by Denny
    I think NL's continuation of Thatcher's hatchet job legacy and supreme efforts to promote greed and selfishness that lies at the heart of our problems today. When I see today's society I think of Wall Street with Michael Douglas - Greed is Good. Look at Blair and Cheri taking freebie holidays and handing out peerages like candy for cash.

    It may appear, on the surface, to some of you that our problems are down to immigration and seeing a sea of black and headscarved faces everywhere - but I disagree. These people, i've found often have much higher social and ethical standards than many of their white counterparts. I used to have a f riend who was from Guyana and went to her house regularly - and kids were very well behaved and discipline stricter than I ever witnessed in a white household. The kids were welcoming, well mannered and usually Christian. Not the imaginery view of them as lazy, work shy crack dealers and troublemakers. We could do a lot from learning from them.

    It's more to do with social breakdown resulting in part to society not having decent role models in our leaders anymore. Instead we see them demonstrate day after day that they are much keener to line their own pockets first and acting as public servants (masters) second. No one in government nowadays resigns anymore when they've been caught with their 'pants down' - they just look for scapegoats and excuses and phoney temporary resignations with the full intent of re-instatement once the story blows over. At one time 'scandal' was to be avoided at all costs and would lead to social annhilation. Now, the exposed just sell their story to willing publishers for a £1 squid. At the same time, these same leaders are handing out ASBOs like candy to kids. It's one rule for you, another for us. There is also a general decline in values we Brits used to uphold to the letter: bravery, honour, integrity, talent, entrepreneurialism with the view of doing good as well as making good money, generosity, sacrifice and public spiritedness. Now it's all about good looks and botox and size 0 figures, talentless fame on rubbish TV, crap MTV music based around huge record sales rather than talent, and binge drinking on Friday nights. Seemingly, these are the new goals in life.

    At one time, being privileged with money came at a price - doing social good to help those less deserved. But Thatcher put a stop to that - she promoted the view that if you had money or good fortune either through inheritance or through through your own efforts, then you could keep it all, and to hell with those you would normally be expected to look after. The ideal of voluntary philanthropy and social responsibility was tossed into the dustbin because there was no such thing as society and those who hadn't made it were now moaning minnies and losers and deserved all they got. Now NL are acting like Lords of the Manor instead of wealth distributing public servants and distributing and stealing our wealth, whether we like it or not, whilst hiving off a big chunk for themselves as a misguided reward.
    Why should someone who has worked hard for their money and been succesfull be 'expected' to look after those that haven't?

    Comment


      #12
      Originally posted by John Galt
      Why should someone who has worked hard for their money and been succesfull be 'expected' to look after those that haven't?
      There is a degree of social responsibility that I agree with - such as taking care of the genuinely sick/elderly/poor. Otherwise I think your comment stands true. This country has spiralled so far down into a benefit state and created lazy dependents who love nothing more than a Labour handout. Of course it works both ways, seeing as Labour get their votes from most of the dependents.

      Comment


        #13
        Originally posted by John Galt
        Why should someone who has worked hard for their money and been succesfull be 'expected' to look after those that haven't?
        Because it is only 'fair'

        Because they must have had an unfair advantage in becoming successful

        Because there must have been a historic anomaly that prevented them achieving anything worthwhile and it's the Governments role to level the playing field

        Because my privileged background of being bought up on a council estate but having hard working parents who worked to get out of there has unfairly put me at an advantage

        Because by making me poorer you are enriching others

        Because my getting up at 05:00 to go to work disavantages those that prefer to rise at 11:00

        Because the fruits of my labours belong not to me, but to the state

        HTH
        How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think

        Comment


          #14
          Originally posted by Troll
          Because it is only 'fair'

          Because they must have had an unfair advantage in becoming successful

          Because there must have been a historic anomaly that prevented them achieving anything worthwhile and it's the Governments role to level the playing field

          Because my privileged background of being bought up on a council estate but having hard working parents who worked to get out of there has unfairly put me at an advantage

          Because by making me poorer you are enriching others

          Because my getting up at 05:00 to go to work disavantages those that prefer to rise at 11:00

          Because the fruits of my labours belong not to me, but to the state

          HTH

          You are Gordon Brown and I claim my £5

          Comment


            #15
            Originally posted by Troll
            Because it is only 'fair'

            Because they must have had an unfair advantage in becoming successful

            Because there must have been a historic anomaly that prevented them achieving anything worthwhile and it's the Governments role to level the playing field

            Because my privileged background of being bought up on a council estate but having hard working parents who worked to get out of there has unfairly put me at an advantage

            Because by making me poorer you are enriching others

            Because my getting up at 05:00 to go to work disavantages those that prefer to rise at 11:00

            Because the fruits of my labours belong not to me, but to the state

            HTH
            Oh hello... welcome to the endgame of marxist public policy.

            bloody idiots, all of them. line the public sector, unions and politicians up against the wall and hand me that 40mm cannon.

            Comment


              #16
              Originally posted by John Galt
              Why should someone who has worked hard for their money and been succesfull be 'expected' to look after those that haven't?

              If taken to the extreme, this policy will end in civil rioting and possible revolution. Has done since the concept of rich and poor has been around. From the land reforms in rome to the French and Russian Revolution.

              The trick is to give the poor just enough to keep them content (today is Sky TV and a 4 pack of stella) and the rich can stay rich and relatively safe.

              I feel sorry for the honest hard working unsuccessful person who is no better off then some of the lazy scum who nevertheless must be placated to keep the status quo.
              But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition. Pliny the younger

              Comment


                #17
                panem et circenses
                Insanity: repeating the same actions, but expecting different results.
                threadeds website, and here's my blog.

                Comment


                  #18
                  Originally posted by John Galt
                  Why should someone who has worked hard for their money and been succesfull be 'expected' to look after those that haven't?
                  It's called having a "Social Conscience" and being a member of society.

                  Comment


                    #19
                    Originally posted by Gibbon
                    The trick is to give the poor just enough to keep them content (today is Sky TV and a 4 pack of stella) and the rich can stay rich and relatively safe.
                    Until of course, one finds a way to exploit the masses to ones own ends. Ala Brown and Blair.

                    Comment


                      #20
                      Originally posted by Churchill
                      It's called having a "Social Conscience" and being a member of society.
                      Read what I said again Churchill - I said "Expected". People will help others according to their conscience and that's fine - it is the expectation that I object to

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X