Tower Block Fire

socrates

I think we are missing the point of Frank's post. Of course there are poor people but not all people on benefits are poor. Just a case of working the system and of course it depends what one wants to spend their benefit money on. Instead of cash why not give vouchers for food. No alcohol or ciggies.

rick_chasey

socrates wrote:

I think we are missing the point of Frank's post. Of course there are poor people but not all people on benefits are poor. Just a case of working the system and of course it depends what one wants to spend their benefit money on. Instead of cash why not give vouchers for food. No alcohol or ciggies.

Why on earth do you think you have a right to say how people live their lives because they don't earn enough to keep a roof over their heads and need some support from the state?

dinyull

socrates wrote:

I think we are missing the point of Frank's post. Of course there are poor people but not all people on benefits are poor. Just a case of working the system and of course it depends what one wants to spend their benefit money on. Instead of cash why not give vouchers for food. No alcohol or ciggies.

What does that have to do with a tower block going up in smoke and possibly over 100 people losing their lives?

Or re-housing people who've lost their homes in the fire?

dinyull

Police considering manslaughter charges:

Detectives say building’s insulation and tiles failed fire safety tests and they are establishing if use was illegal

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/23/grenfell-tower-fire-police-considering-manslaughter-charges

meanredspider

Cause of the fire was a Hotpoint fridge freezer too. Nightmare scenario for the manufacturer. Domestic products shouldn't be going up in flames in this day-and-age and the regs too should protect against this. It's a bit shocking how this extreme tragedy is a conflation of the modern day issues of migration, regulation, funding, social divides etc

city_boy

Rick Chasey wrote:

socrates wrote:

I think we are missing the point of Frank's post. Of course there are poor people but not all people on benefits are poor. Just a case of working the system and of course it depends what one wants to spend their benefit money on. Instead of cash why not give vouchers for food. No alcohol or ciggies.

Why on earth do you think you have a right to say how people live their lives because they don't earn enough to keep a roof over their heads and need some support from the state?

Because we live in a country where we still (thankfully) have the right to free speech!

rick_chasey

City Boy wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

socrates wrote:

I think we are missing the point of Frank's post. Of course there are poor people but not all people on benefits are poor. Just a case of working the system and of course it depends what one wants to spend their benefit money on. Instead of cash why not give vouchers for food. No alcohol or ciggies.

Why on earth do you think you have a right to say how people live their lives because they don't earn enough to keep a roof over their heads and need some support from the state?

Because we live in a country where we still (thankfully) have the right to free speech!

Err what?

What does free speech have to do with that?

It has to do with socrates' right to say it, but that's not what we're discussing here, is it? Nor am I suggesting that he ought not to have the right to say it. I'm suggesting he's wrong in saying that, but that's all by the by when it comes to free speech?

So what do you mean when you say that?

city_boy

You questioned his right to "say" something. You (or I) might not agree with what is said, but he still has the right to "say" whatever he likes.

rick_chasey

City Boy wrote:

You questioned his right to "say" something. You (or I) might not agree with what is said, but he still has the right to "say" whatever he likes.

Think you took that out of context.

"saying something" means something different to "having a say over something". One is saying something, the other is power over something else.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/have-a-say-in

fat daddy

City Boy wrote:

You questioned his right to "say" something. You (or I) might not agree with what is said, but he still has the right to "say" whatever he likes.

you are not getting it ...... he is not questioning the right of physically speaking his thoughts .. perhaps he used the wrong word he is asking, "what gives you the right to 'determine/judge/decree/rule/etc' what other people do"

rjsterry

it would have been less ambiguous if Rick Chasey wrote:

socrates wrote:

I think we are missing the point of Frank's post. Of course there are poor people but not all people on benefits are poor. Just a case of working the system and of course it depends what one wants to spend their benefit money on. Instead of cash why not give vouchers for food. No alcohol or ciggies.

Why on earth do you think you have a right to determine how people live their lives because they don't earn enough to keep a roof over their heads and need some support from the state?

Happy?

city_boy

Rick Chasey wrote:

City Boy wrote:

You questioned his right to "say" something. You (or I) might not agree with what is said, but he still has the right to "say" whatever he likes.

Think you took that out of context.

"saying something" means something different to "having a say over something". One is saying something, the other is power over something else.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/have-a-say-in

Agreed. But there's also a difference between having a say 'over' something (voicing opinion) and having a say 'in' something
(having control or influence).

He's voiced his opinion which he's perfectly entitled to do.

rick_chasey

TBH, Cityboy, I'll be the judge of what I meant by that and not you, given that, y'know, I wrote it.

city_boy

Rick Chasey wrote:

TBH, Cityboy, I'll be the judge of what I meant by that and not you, given that, y'know, I wrote it.

Fair enough

rick_chasey

It does serve as a reminder that on the internet it works well to avoid any idiom, metaphor, or inference that can be taken by a literalist to mean something else.

veronese68

City Boy wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

City Boy wrote:

You questioned his right to "say" something. You (or I) might not agree with what is said, but he still has the right to "say" whatever he likes.

Think you took that out of context.

"saying something" means something different to "having a say over something". One is saying something, the other is power over something else.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/have-a-say-in

Agreed. But there's also a difference between having a say 'over' something (voicing opinion) and having a say 'in' something
(having control or influence).

He's voiced his opinion which he's perfectly entitled to do.

His opinion, which everybody agrees he is entitled to voice, is that people should have what they spend their money on dictated to them. That is the point people are disagreeing with. You are still arguing a point that has never been made.

city_boy

Veronese68 wrote:

City Boy wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

City Boy wrote:

You questioned his right to "say" something. You (or I) might not agree with what is said, but he still has the right to "say" whatever he likes.

Think you took that out of context.

"saying something" means something different to "having a say over something". One is saying something, the other is power over something else.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/have-a-say-in

Agreed. But there's also a difference between having a say 'over' something (voicing opinion) and having a say 'in' something
(having control or influence).

He's voiced his opinion which he's perfectly entitled to do.

His opinion, which everybody agrees he is entitled to voice, is that people should have what they spend their money on dictated to them. That is the point people are disagreeing with. You are still arguing a point that has never been made.

As I've said, fair enough.
I read Rick's post differently to how he intended it to be read.

Pross

This is way off topic now but is it really unreasonable that benefits paid by taxes via the Government to provide a safety net for those who would otherwise struggle with the essentials in life should be used to pay for those essentials first and foremost? It does seem quite odd for the tax payer to provide funds to enable someone to buy items such as cigarettes and alcohol which often lead to an additional burden on the NHS. It doesn't seem quite in keeping with a welfare state especially if the recipients are then saying they can't afford food, heating, clothes for the kids etc.

None of the above is intended to stereotype those on benefits as alcoholic smokers but there is something almost paradoxical about the system.

rick_chasey

Pross wrote:

This is way off topic now but is it really unreasonable that benefits paid by taxes via the Government to provide a safety net for those who would otherwise struggle with the essentials in life should be used to pay for those essentials first and foremost? It does seem quite odd for the tax payer to provide funds to enable someone to buy items such as cigarettes and alcohol which often lead to an additional burden on the NHS. It doesn't seem quite in keeping with a welfare state especially if the recipients are then saying they can't afford food, heating, clothes for the kids etc.

None of the above is intended to stereotype those on benefits as alcoholic smokers but there is something almost paradoxical about the system.

By doing that you effectively reduce the rights of people on benefit to participate in a free market.

That seems rather punitive for being poor.

Might as well go a step further and chuck 'em in poor houses, so they get the slop the UK public deign to give them to keep them alive. Why should they live in houses at all if they can't afford 'em, eh?

fat daddy

Pross wrote:

is it really unreasonable that benefits paid by taxes via the Government to provide a safety net for those who would otherwise struggle with the essentials in life should be used to pay for those essentials first and foremost?

In the vast majority of cases it IS used for essentials first. If however you are buying in to the tabloid culture of assuming everyone on benefits is an alcoholic that doesn't work, then its understandable why you have a knee jerk reaction to it.

the fact of the matter though is the majority of kids whose parents are claiming benefits are poor because there mum is a cleaner or a care assistant, not because they are a drug abuser. And it is far better for society, for parents and for children if claimants have control over their own money.

However, you do pose an interesting conundrum ..... seeing that some NHS burden comes from alcoholism and smoking then perhaps employers as well should pay employees in food stamps, so "rich" people cant smoke or have a beer in the evening and place burden on the NHS ???

Pross

fat daddy wrote:

Pross wrote:

is it really unreasonable that benefits paid by taxes via the Government to provide a safety net for those who would otherwise struggle with the essentials in life should be used to pay for those essentials first and foremost?

In the vast majority of cases it IS used for essentials first. If however you are buying in to the tabloid culture of assuming everyone on benefits is an alcoholic that doesn't work, then its understandable why you have a knee jerk reaction to it.

the fact of the matter though is the majority of kids whose parents are claiming benefits are poor because there mum is a cleaner or a care assistant, not because they are a drug abuser. And it is far better for society, for parents and for children if claimants have control over their own money.

However, you do pose an interesting conundrum ..... seeing that some NHS burden comes from alcoholism and smoking then perhaps employers as well should pay employees in food stamps, so "rich" people cant smoke or have a beer in the evening and place burden on the NHS ???

So you didn't bother reading my second paragraph?

city_boy

rjsterry wrote:

it would have been less ambiguous if Rick Chasey wrote:

socrates wrote:

I think we are missing the point of Frank's post. Of course there are poor people but not all people on benefits are poor. Just a case of working the system and of course it depends what one wants to spend their benefit money on. Instead of cash why not give vouchers for food. No alcohol or ciggies.

Why on earth do you think you have a right to determine how people live their lives because they don't earn enough to keep a roof over their heads and need some support from the state?

Happy?

Thanks. I didn't realise Socrates wielded so much power

orraloon

City Boy wrote:

Thanks. I didn't realise Socrates wielded so much power

Nah coz "Socrates, himself, was permanently p1ssed" innit

coopster_the_1st

Rick Chasey wrote:

socrates wrote:

I think we are missing the point of Frank's post. Of course there are poor people but not all people on benefits are poor. Just a case of working the system and of course it depends what one wants to spend their benefit money on. Instead of cash why not give vouchers for food. No alcohol or ciggies.

Why on earth do you think you have a right to say how people live their lives because they don't earn enough to keep a roof over their heads and need some support from the state?

For those benefits like unemployment or child benefit, this is not money earned so those who are giving out this money should have the right to decide what it can be spent on. If those receiving these benefits do not like this approach, they can decline to receive the benefit or earn their own money and not have to be in receipt of it. A forward thinking, progressive approach.

rjsterry

Ooh, I love rights, me. Where is this right set out in law, Coopster, and how does one exercise it? Do we get to vote on a list of approved purchases? Can I make a citizen's arrest if I see someone who receives benefits buying prohibited goods? Hmm. But how can I tell who receives benefits? Maybe some sort of badge.

herb71

Rick Chasey wrote:

Might as well go a step further and chuck 'em in poor houses, so they get the slop the UK public deign to give them to keep them alive. Why should they live in houses at all if they can't afford 'em, eh?

I think we should render the poor down to make Soylent Green.

The tabloid view would have you believe most people on benefits are abusing the system, so as not to work and are spending taxpayers money on beer and fags. No doubt some are, and we all see certain 'types' around but the numbers in the scheme of things are tiny.

The benefits bill overall is relatively small when compared to other welfare spending like pensions, and benefits abuse is far smaller still.

If we want to clamp down on anyone let's clamp down on people for living too long! Probably cheaper to encourage the poor to smoke themselves to death.

webboo

Having spent the best part of thirty years working with people on benefits. Yes there are some that take the p*ss but I never felt envious of anyone who I came across and often all the benefits in the world would not compensate for their personal circumstances.

type:epyt

I have no real issue with how those on benefits spend their money, much like you or I they have an amount (just a lot less) and they have to decide where their priorities lie ...

The Housing Benefit aspect of it, however, I have issues with as people may be living in a house they simply can't afford and the tax payer picks up the slack ... That's where the benefits cap was an excellent idea ... Why should someone who works hard have to live in an area/home they can afford when someone on benefits can choose to live in a better area and it not affect their expenditure?

Obviously there perhaps has to be some caveat for someone who loses their job and needs to be given the opportunity to find work before being forced to move, but the same as if you owned your own home and had to sell it and move somewhere cheaper, eventually you may have to and if it affects you and your families life then tough ... travel further to work, move your kids school, but don't expect me to pay so you are not inconvenienced ...

Pross

After the initial terrible response it looks like Councils and Government have finally got their acts together on testing similar properties. Did I hear right and there looks a possibility the cladding used wasn't actually legal? If so it will be interesting to see who knew. I think with all the pressure there could be a few people going to jail here and, if they knew it was the wrong product or did not following regulations or best practice in the design and construction, rightly so. The client (not sure if that's the Council or Housing Association) are also far from immune under the CDM Regs.

meanredspider

As I said before, nobody is coming out of this looking very good: fridge manufacturer, gas fitters, various inspectors, cladding contractors, even possibly the fire brigade that put out the original fridge fire (though that's one I'm really not sure about) and a load of other people.

Part of my current job is involved in meeting regulations and thanks to things like the PIP breast implant scandal and the VW scandal, regs are getting heaped on regs. This will only add to that. I am intrigued to know if these regs are UK or EU regs.