Resend my activation email : Register : Log in 
BCF: Bike Chat Forums


Poverty in the UK

Reply to topic
Bike Chat Forums Index -> Politics & Current Affairs Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 11, 12, 13, 14  Next
View previous topic : View next topic  
Author Message

Lord Percy
World Chat Champion



Joined: 03 Aug 2012
Karma :

PostPosted: 01:51 - 28 Nov 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

Monkeywrencher wrote:
Works the other way as well though, it offers no evidence that a monarchy is detrimental to the people in those Countries.


Indeed, and that's my point. Having a royal family offers no value either way.

The only reason people may support the idea is because humans are still a lot more neanderthal than we like to think. There's pretty much no other reason why anyone at all would support or 'believe' in the idea of a special family whose status is decided by birthright.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Im-a-Ridah
World Chat Champion



Joined: 20 Oct 2006
Karma :

PostPosted: 03:52 - 28 Nov 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Queen does not own Buckingham Palace. It's not her house, it's ours. Any money she gets for maintenance is for our building.

Who owns The Crown Estate?
The Crown Estate belongs to the reigning monarch 'in right of The Crown', that is, it is owned by the monarch for the duration of their reign, by virtue of their accession to the throne. But it is not the private property of the monarch - it cannot be sold by the monarch, nor do revenues from it belong to the monarch.

https://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/en-gb/resources/faqs/

She no more owns that Palace than Theresa does 10 Downing Street.

sensi5446 wrote:
We can't get rid of the monarch, it will never happen, they will never let it happen so there is no point in even thinking about it.

Why should they pay for anything, this is their land and country we just pay to work here.


In a real democracy the royals wouldn't have a place but our Queen holds a lot of wealth and land. Our police forces are crown servants, our arm forces are sworn to her and we all pay HMRC every month.


1. The UK is not a monarchy and has not been for hundreds of years. The Queen is a nominal figurehead. She cannot make or block laws. Everyone plays along with the historical idea that she can, but were she to actually try she would probably find that the courts rule her powers to be spent, or that Parliament passes a law that Royal Ascent can be given by the PM [the de facto signatory at present anyway].
2. The Police and Army serve the people, she is their nominal figurehead. In other news the Scouts also don't work for Bear Grylls.
3. HMRC doesn't even pretend to be anything to do with the Crown.
4. Queen owns some land privately. She is the figurehead for the Crown Estate which belongs to the people, not her. The country belongs to the people, not her.
5. She pays tax.
6. She is a captive slave of the people as is her successor.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

Lord Percy
World Chat Champion



Joined: 03 Aug 2012
Karma :

PostPosted: 12:04 - 29 Nov 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

A captive slave who is free to walk away from it whenever she wants. I wonder why she doesn't, along with all the royal counsins, uncles, aunts, princes and princesses in that terrible chauffeur-driven captive life of theirs.

Hilarious that anyone would suggest "the crown estate belongs to the people" as if that somehow nullifies the existence of a special set of Chosen Ones who are the only group with constant free access to it all.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

sensi5446
Trackday Trickster



Joined: 12 Feb 2014
Karma :

PostPosted: 12:22 - 29 Nov 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

Im-a-Ridah wrote:
to the monarch.[/i]



1. The UK is not a monarchy and has not been for hundreds of years. The Queen is a nominal figurehead. She cannot make or block laws. Everyone plays along with the historical idea that she can, but were she to actually try she would probably find that the courts rule her powers to be spent, or that Parliament passes a law that Royal Ascent can be given by the PM [the de facto signatory at present anyway].

To think the Royal family, especially the Queen doesn't have a say in the running of Her country is just blind foolish, the Queen is aware of all aspects of running Her country which is why she hold a weekly audience with the PM. Remember its Her Government as She reminds the people every year.


2. The Police and Army serve the people, she is their nominal figurehead.
The police and Army are crown servants and the Queen is above all UK laws

3. HMRC doesn't even pretend to be anything to do with the Crown.
Apart from calling themselves Her Majesty Revenue and Customs Laughing

4. Queen owns some land privately. She is the figurehead for the Crown Estate which belongs to the people, not her. The country belongs to the people, not her. OK you keep believing that

5. She pays tax. Only out of choice and She also avoids tax even though She is not required to pay tax and only started paying in 1992.


6. She is a captive slave of the people as is her successor.


I am very aware of the UK history and the status quo of parliament and the fact that the Queen is labelled as just a figure head but its BS, the Queen is highly educated and understands how to stay in power even if google tells you She is not.

The fact is, the people can not get rid of the royal family because the people do not rule and have no access to arms. The closest we "the people" have got was in the 60s/70s with Wilson but the Mountbatten's were ready to put an end to the government with the use of the military but Wilson resign in 76 with ill health.

Its similar to the book 1984, create a upper class and take a back seat, the upper class are replaced by the middle class and so on but you still hold the power.

But you keep thinking that the Royals are just figure heads and we own everything, this is why they live in the palaces and we "the people" pay for it. Thumbs Up
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Polarbear
Super Spammer



Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Karma :

PostPosted: 10:50 - 03 Dec 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

Put in here because it is to do with poverty.

https://home.bt.com/news/uk-news/big-issue-trials-contactless-payments-for-magazine-sellers-11364315265194

The Big Issue is to introduce contactless payments Shocked

Do people still sell it? I admit since I retired I hardly ever go into city centres but the few times I have it's been beggars rather than Big Issue sellers that used to be common.

I suppose it had to happen. I know many people that don't carry cash anymore.

So, beggers with card readers, would you risk it?
____________________
Triumph Trophy Launch Edition
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts
- This post is not being displayed because the poster has bad karma. Unhide this post / all posts.

piazza
Brolly Dolly



Joined: 23 Aug 2008
Karma :

PostPosted: 12:44 - 03 Dec 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

The local Big Issue seller here drives a Jag x type Mad
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Diggs
World Chat Champion



Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Karma :

PostPosted: 13:01 - 03 Dec 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ours has a 5 bedroom house with a swimming pool, stables and a butler.




Actually I don't know where she lives, but I doubt she makes that much money selling the BI, particularly when 99.9% of the population avoid BI sellers like they are drunk Glaswegians looking for a friend.

Mdma if you are still looking for a woman, pm me your details and I'll pass them on. She is from the middle-east (not sure where exactly), a bit smelly but cheerful. I'm sure she'd take you on as a charity case!
____________________
Now - Speed Triple, old ratty GS550, GSXR750M
Gone (in order of ownership) - Raleigh Runabout, AP50, KH125, GP125, KH250, CBX550, Z400, CB750FII, 250LC, GS550, ZXR750H1, Guzzi Targa, GSX750F, KH250 x2, Bimota SB6R and counting...
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts
- This post is not being displayed because the poster has bad karma. Unhide this post / all posts.

Diggs
World Chat Champion



Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Karma :

PostPosted: 13:36 - 03 Dec 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bloody hell - how did you know that! Somebody must be posting my videos on www.heresabigissueforyoulove.com again.
____________________
Now - Speed Triple, old ratty GS550, GSXR750M
Gone (in order of ownership) - Raleigh Runabout, AP50, KH125, GP125, KH250, CBX550, Z400, CB750FII, 250LC, GS550, ZXR750H1, Guzzi Targa, GSX750F, KH250 x2, Bimota SB6R and counting...
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

M.C
Super Spammer



Joined: 29 Sep 2015
Karma :

PostPosted: 01:14 - 04 Dec 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

Guardian link for maximum triggering Wink https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/dec/04/four-million-british-workers-live-in-poverty-charity-says
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Polarbear
Super Spammer



Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Karma :

PostPosted: 01:35 - 04 Dec 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

M.C wrote:


TBH I don't think it is going to get better.

Governments think short term - we need immigration to support the population.

Great say businesses cheap labour because most of those jobs are service industries.

Viable tax paying jobs slowly fall as people work for less due to competition or automation takes over.

There has to be a radical rethink of our society. Maybe along the lines of a minimum wage for all adults and that's it, you're on your own?

And to think when I was a kid we were told robots would take over and we would all have a life of leisure and luxury. Rolling Eyes
____________________
Triumph Trophy Launch Edition
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

M.C
Super Spammer



Joined: 29 Sep 2015
Karma :

PostPosted: 02:58 - 04 Dec 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

Polarbear wrote:
Governments think short term - we need immigration to support the population.

Great say businesses cheap labour because most of those jobs are service industries.

Viable tax paying jobs slowly fall as people work for less due to competition or automation takes over.

There has to be a radical rethink of our society. Maybe along the lines of a minimum wage for all adults and that's it, you're on your own?

And to think when I was a kid we were told robots would take over and we would all have a life of leisure and luxury. Rolling Eyes

On immigration when did we actually have a shortage of workers? I thought it was after WW2 when we had mass immigration from the commonwealth. I can't see a reason why it went up so much under New Labour and has failed to come down, even EU migration doesn't tally up with the initial increase (Poland etc. didn't join until 2004).

I think we'll see more of what we have now, part time jobs, zero hours etc.. Minimum wage is fairly irrelevant if you can't get the hours.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

MCN
Super Spammer



Joined: 22 Jul 2015
Karma :

PostPosted: 04:55 - 04 Dec 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

M.C wrote:
Polarbear wrote:
Governments think short term - we need immigration to support the population.

Great say businesses cheap labour because most of those jobs are service industries.

Viable tax paying jobs slowly fall as people work for less due to competition or automation takes over.

There has to be a radical rethink of our society. Maybe along the lines of a minimum wage for all adults and that's it, you're on your own?

And to think when I was a kid we were told robots would take over and we would all have a life of leisure and luxury. Rolling Eyes

On immigration when did we actually have a shortage of workers? I thought it was after WW2 when we had mass immigration from the commonwealth. I can't see a reason why it went up so much under New Labour and has failed to come down, even EU migration doesn't tally up with the initial increase (Poland etc. didn't join until 2004).

I think we'll see more of what we have now, part time jobs, zero hours etc.. Minimum wage is fairly irrelevant if you can't get the hours.


A lot of immigration after the war was possibly due to politics excited by the UK dissolving the British Empire too. The politicians were involved in that too. 🤣
(WWI and WWII bank rupt the UK.)
____________________
Disclaimer: The comments above may be predicted text and not necessarily the opinion of MCN.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

Polarbear
Super Spammer



Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Karma :

PostPosted: 09:26 - 04 Dec 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

M.C wrote:
Polarbear wrote:
Governments think short term - we need immigration to support the population.

Great say businesses cheap labour because most of those jobs are service industries.

Viable tax paying jobs slowly fall as people work for less due to competition or automation takes over.

There has to be a radical rethink of our society. Maybe along the lines of a minimum wage for all adults and that's it, you're on your own?

And to think when I was a kid we were told robots would take over and we would all have a life of leisure and luxury. Rolling Eyes

On immigration when did we actually have a shortage of workers? I thought it was after WW2 when we had mass immigration from the commonwealth. I can't see a reason why it went up so much under New Labour and has failed to come down, even EU migration doesn't tally up with the initial increase (Poland etc. didn't join until 2004).

I think we'll see more of what we have now, part time jobs, zero hours etc.. Minimum wage is fairly irrelevant if you can't get the hours.


According to

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html

and other articles it was a calculated policy to increase immigration under Blair.
____________________
Triumph Trophy Launch Edition
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

Polarbear
Super Spammer



Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Karma :

PostPosted: 09:30 - 04 Dec 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

MCN wrote:


A lot of immigration after the war was possibly due to politics excited by the UK dissolving the British Empire too. The politicians were involved in that too. 🤣
(WWI and WWII bank rupt the UK.)


The start of the large Pakistani/Indian immigration was one of the results of the partitioning of the countries.

I'm not sure there was any immigration policy at that time, it just wasn't an issue from what I can see.
____________________
Triumph Trophy Launch Edition
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts
- This post is not being displayed because the poster has bad karma. Unhide this post / all posts.
- This post is not being displayed because the poster has bad karma. Unhide this post / all posts.

M.C
Super Spammer



Joined: 29 Sep 2015
Karma :

PostPosted: 16:27 - 04 Dec 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

mpd72 CPT wrote:
So poverty in 2016 was a household earning up to £22,100 a year according to the Poverty charity trying to justify their position.

That's not how I read it: 'The charity defines the poverty line as being when households earn less than 60% of the median income, adjusted for size and type of household. The average median income for UK households after housing costs was £425 a week (£22,100 a year) in 2016-17'.

mpd72 CPT wrote:
It was Blair importing voters and well publicised.

https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/press-article/83

Quote:
The strongest evidence for conspiracy comes from one of Labour’s own. Andrew Neather, a previously unheard-of speechwriter for Blair, Straw and Blunkett, popped up with an article in the Evening Standard in October 2009 which gave the game away.

Immigration, he wrote, ‘didn’t just happen; the deliberate policy of Ministers from late 2000…was to open up the UK to mass immigration’.

He was at the heart of policy in September 2001, drafting the landmark speech by the then Immigration Minister Barbara Roche, and he reported ‘coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended - even if this wasn’t its main purpose - to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date’.

That seemed, even to him, a manoeuvre too far.

The result is now plain for all to see. Even Blair’s favourite think tank, the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), commented recently: ‘It is no exaggeration to say that immigration under New Labour has changed the face of the country.’

It is not hard to see why Labour’s own apparatchiks supported the policy. Provided that the white working class didn’t cotton on, there were votes in it.

I'm aware of that guys claims but that doesn't match up with what happened either: https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/statistics-net-migration-statistics

The spike (over 100k) was in in '98, with the next spike as far as I'm aware being down to when Poland etc. joined the EU.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts
- This post is not being displayed because the poster has bad karma. Unhide this post / all posts.

M.C
Super Spammer



Joined: 29 Sep 2015
Karma :

PostPosted: 16:55 - 04 Dec 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well I've searched for an explanation for what happened in '98 and drawn a blank, no one seems to know. To go from 48 to 163k in one year is quite a jump, then numbers remained at around 160-180ish for the next few years until the EU expansion. It seems like something that needs to be understood if they ever hope to bring numbers down again.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Im-a-Ridah
World Chat Champion



Joined: 20 Oct 2006
Karma :

PostPosted: 17:34 - 04 Dec 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lord Percy wrote:
A captive slave who is free to walk away from it whenever she wants. I wonder why she doesn't, along with all the royal counsins, uncles, aunts, princes and princesses in that terrible chauffeur-driven captive life of theirs.

Hilarious that anyone would suggest "the crown estate belongs to the people" as if that somehow nullifies the existence of a special set of Chosen Ones who are the only group with constant free access to it all.


Well they captured her from birth and told her she's never allowed to leave. It's not as if she signed up to the job at 18. Ditto the princes. Harry preferred to get shot at in Iraq and A'stan than be in the Palace. I think most people in the army would rather be at home than getting shot at.

This is the same with most state property though isn't it, nor is it confined to just the palace. Here are a few other examples:
... downing street
... air forces bases
... nuclear weapons facilities and the nuclear submarine bases
... naval bases
... army bases
... police stations
but really I can't even go into my local council offices and start looking around.

And yes, also Buckingham Palace!

mpd72 CPT wrote:

No thanks, I don't want your sloppy seconds.
Did you do a Corbyn and shag it show off to your lefty mates?


Seconds? You're optimistic Laughing

sensi5446 wrote:

I am very aware of the UK history and the status quo of parliament and the fact that the Queen is labelled as just a figure head but its BS, the Queen is highly educated and understands how to stay in power even if google tells you She is not.

The fact is, the people can not get rid of the royal family because the people do not rule and have no access to arms. The closest we "the people" have got was in the 60s/70s with Wilson but the Mountbatten's were ready to put an end to the government with the use of the military but Wilson resign in 76 with ill health.

Its similar to the book 1984, create a upper class and take a back seat, the upper class are replaced by the middle class and so on but you still hold the power.

But you keep thinking that the Royals are just figure heads and we own everything, this is why they live in the palaces and we "the people" pay for it. Thumbs Up


The Royals most definitely are just figureheads, a bit too much conspiracy website for you I think.

There's definitely an elite, she isn't it. She did used to be it, but that was hundreds of years ago. These days the elite are the corporations as they hold real power and real wealth.

You also seem to not understand how a revolution works. Weapons are really not a requirement, though they are a popular topic for Americans (who run the conspiracy websites). I'm all in favour of the right to bear arms btw. The key to revolution is communications and organisation, the route through which individuals can act as one. In that case all people need to do is nothing. Just don't pay any tax or go on strike and the government will be gone within a week.

As a case in point the US is awash with weapons and its probably the hardest country in which to start a revolution. It's vast so collective organisation would be impossible. Too easy to cut off comms and choke travel. The people have 9mm handguns and 5.56mm semi-auto rifles, and they're ok against unarmoured targets, but the US gov defends the White House with bulletproof APCs and thousands of crack paramilitary "bodyguards".

https://assets.change.org/photos/5/uq/sy/tEUqSyazvSQaaog-800x450-noPad.jpg

https://rebelpundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Racine-County-MRAP.png

https://dillonaero.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/M134D-on-Hovercraft-1.jpg
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts
- This post is not being displayed because the poster has bad karma. Unhide this post / all posts.

M.C
Super Spammer



Joined: 29 Sep 2015
Karma :

PostPosted: 18:15 - 04 Dec 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

mpd72 CPT wrote:
M.C wrote:
Well I've searched for an explanation for what happened in '98 and drawn a blank, no one seems to know. To go from 48 to 163k in one year is quite a jump, then numbers remained at around 160-180ish for the next few years until the EU expansion. It seems like something that needs to be understood if they ever hope to bring numbers down again.


Are you looking at EU migration or RoW?

It was that migrationwatch link I posted, so you can break down the combined figures. EU migration wasn't an issue until 2004, so the period before that (from '98) was RoW migration. Either Labour opened up the borders immediately after getting voted in or something else happened.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Sister Sledge
World Chat Champion



Joined: 17 Aug 2018
Karma :

PostPosted: 19:52 - 04 Dec 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

A question: Do people here think that a government should be handing out benefits to working households? I'm talking things like Employment and Support Allowance.
Do people feel that wages should be higher which would mean no benefits paid out, more taxes to government?

One of the biggest problems (I know - there are lots!) is the zero hours saga. That's a scourge on the planet.

I know someone who'll be getting all shaky just reading that Laughing
____________________
CCM 404 DS
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts
Old Thread Alert!

The last post was made 5 years, 116 days ago. Instead of replying here, would creating a new thread be more useful?
  Display posts from previous:   
This page may contain affiliate links, which means we may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. By clicking on an affiliate link, you accept that third-party cookies will be set.

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Bike Chat Forums Index -> Politics & Current Affairs All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 11, 12, 13, 14  Next
Page 12 of 14

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

Read the Terms of Use! - Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group
 

Debug Mode: ON - Server: birks (www) - Page Generation Time: 0.12 Sec - Server Load: 0.33 - MySQL Queries: 17 - Page Size: 157.19 Kb