Don't vote Tory

[zahidf]

15 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Thatcher had a formal role, Corbyn didn't.
A tory councillor isn't standing to run the country that the IRA was attacking.

Arguments can be made to defend Corbyn's involvement, but neither of those are good ones.

Sooooo you are saying Corbyn wasnt trying to reach a peace accord?

Strange how theresa may voting against the Good Friday agreement never seems relevant

[arcade fireman]

12 minutes ago, bigfurbdogg said:

You mind filling me in on Corbyn and the IRA then? My, perhaps naive and simplistic view was he was trying to talk to both sides to find a resolution? And that he helped work towards a peace treaty. Is that off the mark?

Corbyn didn't have any role in the Northern Irish peace. I'm voting Labour so it's not influencing my vote, but Corbyn's fraternising with the IRA in the 1980s was careless at best. He was a backbencher for the opposition, there was nothing to be gained in him having talks with the IRA since he was about as far away from the Government as it was possible to be.

He openly supported a united Ireland - fine in itself but he wanted nothing to do with the SDLP who were after the same goal but through peaceful aims. His fellow travellers Abbott and McDonnell made some pretty strong statements in favour of the IRA and against the British Army at the time. He did stand at a silence for IRA fighters who were killed by the SAS on their way to committing an act of terrorism and said he was happy to stand with those who fought for a united Ireland.

As far as I know he supported the Good Friday agreement, but John McDonnell came out quite publicly against it. To my eyes, it isn't because Corbyn approved of the IRA's methods but that he was a political stopped clock, siding with anything and everything which railed against perceived British imperialism. Most of the time that wouldn't be entirely wrong, but other times it has been (e.g. the IRA thing and his refusal to back Britain defending the invasion of the Falklands). He didn't grasp the nuances and made massive mistakes that came back to bite him later on.

I've seen recently he has grasped a few of those nuances a bit more than he used to and he has made compromises, but it's telling that despite how well he did the other day the times when he looked least assured were with the IRA links. They're difficult to defend but reasonable to put down to a gross error of judgement thirty years ago - which is a shame he won't admit to this. 

[bigfurbdogg]

3 minutes ago, arcade fireman said:

Corbyn didn't have any role in the Northern Irish peace. I'm voting Labour so it's not influencing my vote, but Corbyn's fraternising with the IRA in the 1980s was careless at best. He was a backbencher for the opposition, there was nothing to be gained in him having talks with the IRA since he was about as far away from the Government as it was possible to be.

He openly supported a united Ireland - fine in itself but he wanted nothing to do with the SDLP who were after the same goal but through peaceful aims. His fellow travellers Abbott and McDonnell made some pretty strong statements in favour of the IRA and against the British Army at the time. He did stand at a silence for IRA fighters who were killed by the SAS on their way to committing an act of terrorism and said he was happy to stand with those who fought for a united Ireland.

As far as I know he supported the Good Friday agreement, but John McDonnell came out quite publicly against it. To my eyes, it isn't because Corbyn approved of the IRA's methods but that he was a political stopped clock, siding with anything and everything which railed against perceived British imperialism. Most of the time that wouldn't be entirely wrong, but other times it has been (e.g. the IRA thing and his refusal to back Britain defending the invasion of the Falklands). He didn't grasp the nuances and made massive mistakes that came back to bite him later on.

I've seen recently he has grasped a few of those nuances a bit more than he used to and he has made compromises, but it's telling that despite how well he did the other day the times when he looked least assured were with the IRA links. They're difficult to defend but reasonable to put down to a gross error of judgement thirty years ago - which is a shame he won't admit to this. 

Thank you very much for this, massively appreciated! Brilliantly answered.

 

I really am quite clueless compared to all you lot, I've been arguing all day in the office that Corbyn didn't support the IRA and was working towards peace. Feel a bit of a mug now! Although it is telling that no one came back with a good argument, think most people seem to only know what they see in the headlines of the papers.

[waterfalls212434]

29 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Sooooo you are saying Corbyn wasnt trying to reach a peace accord?

Strange how theresa may voting against the Good Friday agreement never seems relevant

its not relevant because it doesn't suit their argument, just like the fact that as Emily thornberry pointed out in an interview earlier this month up until the recent past leading tories were meeting president assad and attending functions in syria in his honour.......thatd be the same assad who we now know gasses little children to death in their beds...........but apparently thats not as relevent as corbyn trying to work for peace in northern ireland over 2 decades ago and being seen to associate with the wrong people in the process......fucking knobjockeys mate dont try to talk sense into them it doesnt exist in their logic. 

Corbyn-met with terrorists over 2 decades ago and tried to develop a peace process WRONG WRONG HOW CAN YOU BACK THIS MAN, THIS IS DISGUSTING.

Tories, currently in the process of working with, funding and arming some of the very worst regimes in the world, many of them on our own human rights watch list, many of whom are KNOWN to by the backdoor fund and arm terrorist factions the world over........oh that doesnt matter because its good for business isnt it! they give us lots of money to look the other way! and they probably arent aware of what their actually supporting we`ll just give them a free pass!!!! (and if not a free pass certainly not even 1/4 of the criticism corbyn recieves for his past actions)

if it was any stupider itd be a fucking ukip supporter!  You put a good example in that theresa may and other tories voted against the peace process in northern ireland against the good friday aggrement........yet they get a free pass for that as well! 

Oh and shall we bring up the tory support of the apartheid regieme in south africa and what many leading torys thought of nelson mandela? (including calling for him to be hung)  where was corbyn at the time when all this was going on? when leading tories were calling mandela a terrorist etc and demanding his arrest? oh yes! he was being arrested at anti apartheid demos for standing up for what was right! you wont see that in the fucking tabloids though will you! 


 

Edited June 1, 2017 by waterfalls212434

[Duncan Doughnuts]

50 minutes ago, waterfalls212434 said:

ah the ira! the same people thatcher and her cronies were meeting in secret? or in the case of certain tory counsellors the people she was fighting british forces alongside?  Still wonder why people like you are utterly fucking silent on the tory partys links with the arms trade to despots and terrorist groups worldwide as mentioned above.....in fact if you want to dig up the past why dont I bring up past tory links to everyone from pinochet to gaddafi to many others, howd you like that? not that these people have ever hurt anyone eh? dont be a fucking hypocrite all your life will you now.

I will, as I always have, put my X next to the Labour candidate. However, surely you can see that JC's past association with the IRA is a damaging to him and the party? 

[Mr.Tease]

6 hours ago, arcade fireman said:

I suspect from looking at the polling that it will prove Corbyn supporters right in that he will have encouraged a greater proportion of the youth to turn out than before. It will also support their argument that his leadership may well not lead to the electoral disaster those of us thought it would. 

However those of us who said he also wouldn't stand much of a chance of winning because of his inability to attract Tory voters would also be proved right. Even in the most recent YouGov poll which is the kindest to Labour, only 9% of 2015 Tory voters are being convinced to join Labour. 10% of 2015 Labour voters are now voting for the Tories.

Probably the biggest things which may stop this from being the disaster some of us predicted is that plenty of 2015 Labour voters with doubts about Corbyn's leadership will still vote for him regardless. What was looking like happening for a while was that Labour would leak far more voters to the Tories. Also according to this poll they're on course to take a third of 2015 Lib Dem voters which a few of us thought might go the other way after Brexit. In return only 4% of 2015 Labour voters are voting Lib Dem this time round - despite their Remain stance. Making this election all about remaining has backfired on them massively, and they haven't been prepared for the domestic issues which have come up.

But to really stand a chance Labour need to start picking up Tory swing voters. The majority of constituencies are Tory/Lab contested, so for every Tory swing voter Labour pick up it effectively counts double, since it takes one away from the main challenger for the seat. And I worry this lesson won't be learned going forward. It's possible contrary to what some of us thought Labour may not be worse under Corbyn, but can he attract the sorts of voters needed to get Labour over the line, especially with the boundary changes coming up?

Although a Corbyn supporter, I don't particularly disagree with your stance either (and never have) - I completely agree we need tory voters, but I do feel Blair needlessly alienated Labour's core voters and took great delight in insulting them. They still voted Labour and the tory voters stuck with Labour so we kept winning (albeit losing votes). However eventually the good will ran out and we started losing our core supporters. At the same time the tory voters returned home and we were in the dangerous position of attracting neither. It's one of the reason why the members mutinied and voted Corbyn. 

All I've wanted is for the party to at least make an effort to appeal to their core voters as well as tory voters, even Blair did that in 1997.

Edited June 1, 2017 by Mr.Tease

[waterfalls212434]

16 minutes ago, Duncan Doughnuts said:

I will, as I always have, put my X next to the Labour candidate. However, surely you can see that JC's past association with the IRA is a damaging to him and the party? 

of course it is but show me a politician who DOESN'T have skeletons in their closet?  I dont have a problem with people holding him to account for his past actions but I do have a problem with people making the issue out to be far worse then it was (listening to some youd think he was on the streets in shootouts with the british forces!) and I do have a problem with people who want to hold him to account for his past actions but then totally fucking ignore similar skeletons or in many cases even worse ones in rival politicians backgrounds and totally ignore the far worse actions of corbyns opposition today in their massive support of the arms trade!!!!!

If your going to slate someone do it on the basis of reality and you better damn well apply that same morality to everybody else as well unless you want someone like myself to call you a bloody hypocrite.  Thats what I dont see in this thread its all `corbyn did this` and `corbyn did that`  from some people with never any mention ever of anyone else what so ever.

You want to talk corbyns peace talks with the ira ill raise you theresa mays arming of the saudis, you want to talk corbyns support for a united ireland ill raise you the tory partys wining and dining of president assad and others.............the issue is there is no fucking balance here, its all corbyn corbyn corbyn with everyone else and every evil thing theyve done fucking whitewashed. Its beyond stupid and I will always challenge twats with an agenda who spread such stupidity. 

Don`t pretend your attacking corbyn on a `morality` basis because of his past associations when you absolutely refuse to use that same `morality` to hold other rival politicians to account in a similar way That doesnt make you a moral person it just makes you a fucking hypocrite.
 

[elbongo]

Vote the party not the man/women. Although dont vote May thatll be daft. 

 

Edited June 1, 2017 by elbongo

[arcade fireman]

22 minutes ago, waterfalls212434 said:

of course it is but show me a politician who DOESN'T have skeletons in their closet?  I dont have a problem with people holding him to account for his past actions but I do have a problem with people making the issue out to be far worse then it was (listening to some youd think he was on the streets in shootouts with the british forces!) and I do have a problem with people who want to hold him to account for his past actions but then totally fucking ignore similar skeletons or in many cases even worse ones in rival politicians backgrounds and totally ignore the far worse actions of corbyns opposition today in their massive support of the arms trade!!!!!

If your going to slate someone do it on the basis of reality and you better damn well apply that same morality to everybody else as well unless you want someone like myself to call you a bloody hypocrite.  Thats what I dont see in this thread its all `corbyn did this` and `corbyn did that`  from some people with never any mention ever of anyone else what so ever.

You want to talk corbyns peace talks with the ira ill raise you theresa mays arming of the saudis, you want to talk corbyns support for a united ireland ill raise you the tory partys wining and dining of president assad and others.............the issue is there is no fucking balance here, its all corbyn corbyn corbyn with everyone else and every evil thing theyve done fucking whitewashed. Its beyond stupid and I will always challenge twats with an agenda who spread such stupidity. 

Don`t pretend your attacking corbyn on a `morality` basis because of his past associations when you absolutely refuse to use that same `morality` to hold other rival politicians to account in a similar way That doesnt make you a moral person it just makes you a fucking hypocrite.
 

Embarrassing. You contribute nothing valuable to this thread. The guy is making a perfectly valid point that Corbyn's associations are damaging to the party (something which you seem to agree with by saying "of course it is") and even then can't resist calling the guy a "fucking hypocrite". 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, waterfalls212434 said:

ah the ira! the same people thatcher and her cronies were meeting in secret? or in the case of certain tory counsellors the people she was fighting british forces alongside?  Still wonder why people like you are utterly fucking silent on the tory partys links with the arms trade to despots and terrorist groups worldwide as mentioned above.....in fact if you want to dig up the past why dont I bring up past tory links to everyone from pinochet to gaddafi to many others, howd you like that? not that these people have ever hurt anyone eh? dont be a fucking hypocrite all your life will you now.

It wouldn't worry me in the least as I'm not a Tory. I don't think you've quite grasped that yet have you.

[Bonaneas]

13 minutes ago, Ommadawn said:

It wouldn't worry me in the least as I'm not a Tory. I don't think you've quite grasped that yet have you.

He couldn't grasp his own dick in a pissing contest.

[EasyUserName]

56 minutes ago, waterfalls212434 said:

 ... you want to talk corbyns support for a united ireland ill raise you the tory partys wining and dining of president assad and others ...

Just a small observation, but you're comparing an individual and a party there.  Like you said, all parties have their own poor past, Labour included, if you look for morals in the international world. 

[Teddington]

10 hours ago, eFestivals said:

we can only guess, but the norm for this situation is to go with the status quo.

As for the 'dementia tax' and removing the triple lock, people might not like having to pay more to get more, but that's the one and only choice on offer from any party - and at least the tories are offering solutions for those (and attacking inheritance, which Labour should be doing) rather than believing in laughable magic.

Attacking some inheritance is better than attacking no inheritance. Inheritance is WRONG. Reducing that wrong can only be good (and it starts an in to getting at the biggies who otherwise get a free pass forever via the idea that touching inheritance is taboo).

 

Coudln't disagree with you more on this, and this is the primary reason I am not voting Conservative (though there are a couple of others).

There is nothing more natural in the world than wanting to pass on things to your children, be that advice, morals or money (which can give both security and opportunity).  This, imo, is a Darwinian trait that goes way further than our current political leanings.

 

Sure, you could argue that the recipient gets the "prize" through an act of chance, but isn't that true with everything in life?

Their genes, the country they were born in, the relationship that their parents have with both each other and them.

 

Once you go down this route where do you draw the line?   Which bits of the above lottery do you seek to alter?  If only money what about the others?

 

Onto a more practical matter.

 

Two people earning the same money, sake of argument £40k a year.   One decides to live a frugal life, spends within their means, buys a house, makes shrewd investments, retires with a house paid off and enough money in the bank to reap the reward for their ealier sacrifices.

 

The other blows everything on fast cars, holidays, gadgets etc makes no provision for retirement.  Retires with zilch in the bank, and the state has to house/feed/provide benefits.

Why should person A be penalised for doing the right thing?  If anything they should be rewarded for saving the state money in their old age.

 

[EasyUserName]

5 minutes ago, Teddington said:

Coudln't disagree with you more on this, and this is the primary reason I am not voting Conservative (though there are a couple of others).

There is nothing more natural in the world than wanting to pass on things to your children, be that advice, morals or money (which can give both security and opportunity).  This, imo, is a Darwinian trait that goes way further than our current political leanings.

 

Sure, you could argue that the recipient gets the "prize" through an act of chance, but isn't that true with everything in life?

Their genes, the country they were born in, the relationship that their parents have with both each other and them.

 

Once you go down this route where do you draw the line?   Which bits of the above lottery do you seek to alter?  If only money what about the others?

 

Onto a more practical matter.

 

Two people earning the same money, sake of argument £40k a year.   One decides to live a frugal life, spends within their means, buys a house, makes shrewd investments, retires with a house paid off and enough money in the bank to reap the reward for their ealier sacrifices.

 

The other blows everything on fast cars, holidays, gadgets etc makes no provision for retirement.  Retires with zilch in the bank, and the state has to house/feed/provide benefits.

Why should person A be penalised for doing the right thing?  If anything they should be rewarded for saving the state money in their old age.

 

And if person A needs care?  Don't they have to sell their house before the council will help them, already?

 

In any case, doesn't your example mean that when person A & person B are working, they are in effect paying some tax to support someone like person B?  Person B in effect gets their tax "back" by having their care for free.  Person A pays twice, and possibly leaves a small amount to the next generation.

 

Meanwhile, Person C pays no tax on their billion pound inheritance due to a complex trust structure. 

[Mr.Tease]

33 minutes ago, Teddington said:

Coudln't disagree with you more on this, and this is the primary reason I am not voting Conservative (though there are a couple of others).

There is nothing more natural in the world than wanting to pass on things to your children, be that advice, morals or money (which can give both security and opportunity).  This, imo, is a Darwinian trait that goes way further than our current political leanings.

 

Sure, you could argue that the recipient gets the "prize" through an act of chance, but isn't that true with everything in life?

Their genes, the country they were born in, the relationship that their parents have with both each other and them.

 

Once you go down this route where do you draw the line?   Which bits of the above lottery do you seek to alter?  If only money what about the others?

 

Onto a more practical matter.

 

Two people earning the same money, sake of argument £40k a year.   One decides to live a frugal life, spends within their means, buys a house, makes shrewd investments, retires with a house paid off and enough money in the bank to reap the reward for their ealier sacrifices.

 

The other blows everything on fast cars, holidays, gadgets etc makes no provision for retirement.  Retires with zilch in the bank, and the state has to house/feed/provide benefits.

Why should person A be penalised for doing the right thing?  If anything they should be rewarded for saving the state money in their old age.

 

Wow, tories must have really messed up this campaign to lose people like Teddington - who are you voting for instead? Politics of it aside, I do get the primal desire to pass stuff onto your kids, I guess wanting to do all you can to make sure they're okay when you're no longer around. At the same time I think parents do underestimate their kids abilities to cope! 

[Teddington]

In all honesty for the first time in my adult life, I don't think I will vote-  which just shows how dissatisfied I am with the current crop.

[Sack truck]

My two sets of grandparents were a bit like that. Both grandads were miners. One went out every week with my gran, drank, smoked, both died with nothing, with my gran in a home for years paid for by the state. The others were very very frugal all their life until death, left an ex council house they had bought to my dad and his brother and around £9k for each grandkid. My gran clung on to the end in her house as didn't want to go into care as she wanted her inheritance passed on. Probably 60 years of saving or more 

one set of grandparents used to hate those that spent everything and got "handouts" the other couldn't understand why people didn't make the most of the system

all were labour voters 

 

dunno what this proves re inheritance, just I always found it interesting the different ways they lived. A middle of the road existence probably makes more sense!

[Bonaneas]

42 minutes ago, Teddington said:

Coudln't disagree with you more on this, and this is the primary reason I am not voting Conservative (though there are a couple of others).

There is nothing more natural in the world than wanting to pass on things to your children, be that advice, morals or money (which can give both security and opportunity).  This, imo, is a Darwinian trait that goes way further than our current political leanings.

 

Sure, you could argue that the recipient gets the "prize" through an act of chance, but isn't that true with everything in life?

Their genes, the country they were born in, the relationship that their parents have with both each other and them.

 

Once you go down this route where do you draw the line?   Which bits of the above lottery do you seek to alter?  If only money what about the others?

 

Onto a more practical matter.

 

Two people earning the same money, sake of argument £40k a year.   One decides to live a frugal life, spends within their means, buys a house, makes shrewd investments, retires with a house paid off and enough money in the bank to reap the reward for their ealier sacrifices.

 

The other blows everything on fast cars, holidays, gadgets etc makes no provision for retirement.  Retires with zilch in the bank, and the state has to house/feed/provide benefits.

Why should person A be penalised for doing the right thing?  If anything they should be rewarded for saving the state money in their old age.

 

Oh you're so right. Let all old people who are broke die from starvation & homelessness. Grand idea! 

Sarcasm aside, the rich inheriting from their rich parents is hardly an act of chance given that the system has been rigged in favour of the land holding minority since the agricultural revolution. Oh and there's nothing Darwinian about keeping wealth from the greater 'tribe,' and passing it only to ones offspring. That's not how we are in an evolutionary sense, primarily for the fact that pre-historical & pre-agricultural humans and our plio-Pleistocene ancestors, a period which stretches back over 4million years (and beyond if we go back to our last common ancestor with pan paniscus) KNEW that strength of the tribe / group / troop as a whole enabled safety and survival of the individual. So wealth (food, shelter, clothing, social contact) was shared amongst all NOT simply passed down to ones offspring. If so, our species would have died out the same time as Homo Neanderthal. We survived by equality and distribution of resources. Simple as that. 

[Mr.Tease]

8 minutes ago, Teddington said:

In all honesty for the first time in my adult life, I don't think I will vote-  which just shows how dissatisfied I am with the current crop.

It does indeed- asking your loyalist voters to essentially give up most of what they've saved up over their life and have to give it over to a private firm rather than their kids- I just don't get who thought that was a great idea. 

[Teddington]

4 minutes ago, Bonaneas said:

Oh you're so right. Let all old people who are broke die from starvation & homelessness. Grand idea! 

Sarcasm aside, the rich inheriting from their rich parents is hardly an act of chance given that the system has been rigged in favour of the land holding minority since the agricultural revolution. Oh and there's nothing Darwinian about keeping wealth from the greater 'tribe,' and passing it only to ones offspring. That's not how we are in an evolutionary sense, primarily for the fact that pre-historical & pre-agricultural humans and our plio-Pleistocene ancestors, a period which stretches back over 4million years (and beyond if we go back to our last common ancestor with pan paniscus) KNEW that strength of the tribe / group / troop as a whole enabled safety and survival of the individual. So wealth (food, shelter, clothing, social contact) was shared amongst all NOT simply passed down to ones offspring. If so, our species would have died out the same time as Homo Neanderthal. We survived by equality and distribution of resources. Simple as that. 

Quote

the rich inheriting from their rich parents is hardly an act of chance

From their perspective of course it is.

 

Quote

Oh and there's nothing Darwinian about keeping wealth from the greater 'tribe,' and passing it only to ones offspring.

Wrong again.  By giving your offspring security and opportunity you are ensuring that your genes have a greater chance of survival.  What could be more Darwinian than that?

Quote

That's not how we are in an evolutionary sense, primarily for the fact that pre-historical & pre-agricultural humans and our plio-Pleistocene ancestors, a period which stretches back over 4million years (and beyond if we go back to our last common ancestor with pan paniscus) KNEW that strength of the tribe / group / troop as a whole enabled safety and survival of the individual

Strike 3.  You're out.     I can't succintly explain, but read "The Selfish Gene", digest and re-read your post.

 

 

[DeanoL]

55 minutes ago, Teddington said:

Two people earning the same money, sake of argument £40k a year.   One decides to live a frugal life, spends within their means, buys a house, makes shrewd investments, retires with a house paid off and enough money in the bank to reap the reward for their ealier sacrifices.

The other blows everything on fast cars, holidays, gadgets etc makes no provision for retirement.  Retires with zilch in the bank, and the state has to house/feed/provide benefits.

Why should person A be penalised for doing the right thing?  If anything they should be rewarded for saving the state money in their old age.

So what's the solution? We kill person B?

I'd also question the "right" thing. Person A put their money back in the economy, paying tax on it again (through VAT) and creating work, jobs etc. by being a consumer. Person B sat on their money and didn't contribute as much.

There's a balance to be reached for sure, but often times Person B is a huge part of the problem (especially if one of their "shrewd investments" is buying a house and then renting it out).

[Bonaneas]

5 minutes ago, Teddington said:

From their perspective of course it is.

 

Wrong again.  By giving your offspring security and opportunity you are ensuring that your genes have a greater chance of survival.  What could be more Darwinian than that?

Strike 3.  You're out.     I can't succintly explain, but read "The Selfish Gene", digest and re-read your post.

 

 

I don't need to read one book, Ive read 100s plus 1000s of papers in the field. I have a 1st class BSc in Human Evolution from a red bricked university. It's my chosen specialist subject! 

Now who is the one that's out? 

[Mr.Tease]

9 minutes ago, Bonaneas said:

Oh you're so right. Let all old people who are broke die from starvation & homelessness. Grand idea! 

Sarcasm aside, the rich inheriting from their rich parents is hardly an act of chance given that the system has been rigged in favour of the land holding minority since the agricultural revolution. Oh and there's nothing Darwinian about keeping wealth from the greater 'tribe,' and passing it only to ones offspring. That's not how we are in an evolutionary sense, primarily for the fact that pre-historical & pre-agricultural humans and our plio-Pleistocene ancestors, a period which stretches back over 4million years (and beyond if we go back to our last common ancestor with pan paniscus) KNEW that strength of the tribe / group / troop as a whole enabled safety and survival of the individual. So wealth (food, shelter, clothing, social contact) was shared amongst all NOT simply passed down to ones offspring. If so, our species would have died out the same time as Homo Neanderthal. We survived by equality and distribution of resources. Simple as that. 

I have changed how I view this issue a lot lately, working with terminally ill people. I think I used to view it as aristocrats keeping the wealth in their family, but I honestly think it comes from a genuinely caring place, where parents just get really anxious about the people they leave behind - it's really not a selfish act at all, rather than spend all their money on themselves they set it aside for others.

Where I do disagree is that I think parents do underestimate their kids ability to manage themselves in a fair system, and personally I'd rather my parents enjoyed the fruits of their labour rather than go without and give to me.

Honestly I think you do more good for your kids by properly funding social services so they have a health system and safety net regardless.

[Teddington]

1 minute ago, Bonaneas said:

I don't need to read one book, Ive read 100s plus 1000s of papers in the field. I have a 1st class BSc in Human Evolution from a red bricked university. It's my chosen specialist subject! 

Now who is the one that's out? 

In that case I would ask for a refund on my course if I were you...

[Bonaneas]

9 minutes ago, Teddington said:

In that case I would ask for a refund on my course if I were you...

Would you like a wager as to how far wrong you are ? We can set up a charity bet, or find a neutral moderator, whatever it takes to put you in your place sunshine. I'm going to make the biggest fool out of you, so much that you'll make Jezzas mate above, waterfalls, look like Carl Sagan. 

So what's it to be, stud, money where your mouth is, or being a keyboard warrior shithouse who can only resort to school ground insults?