"Fairness"

It would seem that the new Troy buzz word is "Fairness" they seem to love to use this word as a justification for Cuts/rationalisation of all benefits or pensions......

They never use the word when taking about the tax system which allows individuals and Corporations to avoid paying their fair share of tax...

They never use the word when talking about changes to employment law.....

They never use the word when talking about wages......

it would seem that "fairness" is something that the ordinary person must endure but the well off are immune to.....

That is just as bad as "We are all in this Together" or Scam..er..on trying to drive a wedge between the low paid and the disabled. I guess the Tories are running out of sayings to put a SPIN on to make themselves look good to the voting public, I just hope that the people right across the UK will send a message to Scam..er..on and his shower of dick heads on Nov 15th By-Elections and Police Commissioners that come May 2015 we are going to send him and his shower to "Hell in a Bucket".

"Fairness" is only one of the claimed virtues "Choice" is another one, which is tied into the concept of fairness - although this clip does show why whenever a politician talks about the virtue of Choice I always think 'Sophie'. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDF4OVb5aIY

bobby wrote:The problem as I see it is the rancid Tories and their supporters have no concept as to how normal people have to live, they see them in the same way as they see machine parts, only they take better care of machines than they do of people.
Some years back (in the good old days when we had a Motor Industry, Pre Thatcher of course) I worked a short while at Fords of Dagenham (foundry). What was apparent to me back then was, if a machine broke down and held up the line, the speed and recourses that where put in, in order to get production going again, but if a Man (there where no Women in the Foundry except in the offices or canteen) broke down, they would mercilessly get rid as soon as was possible without a care if that Mans future was safe or not.

A sweeper was cleaning out one of the Massive shot blast machines whilst the line was stopped for tea break, the poor fellow took longer than he should have in sweeping the excess shot in the machine and the line foreman switched it back on without checking. The line was stopped a few minutes later as someone realised the sweeper was not seen exiting the shot blaster, but 1 second in there is enough to totally fragment a human body, and he was in there for several minutes. Nothing was found of the sweeper and the machine was duly switched back on as work resumed. As there was no visible evidence of the sweeper, the benefit of the doubt was given to production.

[color=blue]

Vote for the Bastards again at the Countries peril.

Great post bobby and every word true, I am reading a book at the moment and it is based in the 1819/20s I thought they are bad enough now but they where just the bloody same then nearly two centuries ago there Ideology has not changed one iota but some of what they done then the great british public would not let them away with it today, but I'm sorry to say bobby the only thing that will save the UK is a general strike every man/women and child out on the streets of the towns and cities the length and breadth of the UK.

If you are reading this, but have not yet read Bobby's posting of 11.31 today, please take a few moments to read it now.

The tragedy of Britain's working class has always been that some members will take the Bosses' side against their own comrades. A workshop foreman will never be invited to Dinner with the MD, but his aspirations can create a more determined exploiter of the workers than any Managing Director would ever dare to be.

bobby wrote:I'm sorry to say bobby the only thing that will save the UK is a general strike every man/women and child out on the streets of the towns and cities the length and breadth of the UK.


Dont be sorry for that Red. I have told my employee's that I will pay them for their time off if they join in any protest. That said though I will require photograpgic eveidence.

Thanks bobby and we need more employers like yourself to stand up the the likes of Scam..er..on and his shower of dick heads, do you think it will come to a general strike I know that Scam..er..on wants to take the Unions to court so that he can take the rest of there rights away that Thatcher left the Unions with.

The notion of 'fairness' it seems to me, was encapsulated in the New Labour idea of 'Social Inclusion' which I understood to be about setting up social institutions (education, employment law etc) in a way that enabled everyone to participate as equal adults in a society where they had a worthwhile investment.

I think Labour did move along that pathway quite a bit, and there was a great deal of what I would call investment in the citizens, through education, youth programmes, increased public sector spending, which enabled people to start to see a future a bit better than they might otherwise have expected. Those ideas needed several more years to develop and improve the quality of people's lives in this country, just like it needed several years for all of us to complete our educations, pay off our mortgages etc. The tragedy for me is that we did not have that time, because I believe on the whole the New Labour social policies were OK.

The current governement's idea of 'fairness' seems to be the one handed down in the nursery - all children must be equal - which usually results in a race to the bottom, because clearly all children are not equal, so it ends up with all children having the same as the one who has least, while nanny retains a despotic power to punish or reward as she sees fit.

We saw it a couple of years ago with the moral panic about public sector pensions, when those of us with a public sector pension faced a barrage of criticism, due to the government's propaganda about how public sector pensions were ruining the economy. Now it's disabled people and the poor, and the rhetoric is always about 'he's got something you haven't got - you should take it away from him', never 'he's got something he needs, now let's see if there's anything you need'.

This way of thinking appeals to the greedy child in all of us, and who can't remember breaking another child's toy (or spoiling another child's icecream) just out of spite because you didn't have one yourself?

Behaviour that most of us grow out of by the time we get to school. largely because it doesn't get us anywhere - under this government just such childish and spiteful urges are being encouraged and given free reign - unless the electorate can grow up and sack the Tory party nannies and anyone else whose rhetoric is aimed at keeping us in this dependent spiteful child situation, the country in my view is doomed.

astradt1 wrote:It would seem that the new Tory buzz word is "Fairness" they seem to love to use this word as a justification for Cuts/rationalisation of all benefits or pensions......

They never use the word when taking about the tax system which allows individuals and Corporations to avoid paying their fair share of tax...

They never use the word when talking about changes to employment law.....

They never use the word when talking about wages......

it would seem that "fairness" is something that the ordinary person must endure but the well off are immune to.....

We have in this country constantly voted for ring wing Government's for over 30 years since Thatcher care of our non democratic voting system.

This has given us all ultra-right wing Tory Governments, including New Labour, who believe in tax cuts for the top and means tested hand-outs for the bottom end of the society, the lower orders.

Britain is a deeply entrenched, subservient class orientated system. The system looks after those at the top because they are seen as the worthy achievers, while the lower orders simply "know their place".

I can see what you are saying about the Tories Ivanhoe, but do not see what you see about the Labour party I know they are not perfect but give me the choice and I would pick the Labour party every time.

The Labour party are no longer the party for the working classes. They are the party of the middle classes and big business.

How do you think the Tories got into power in May 2010, not just the wealthy or elite they had to appeal to the working class to get over 300 seats in the H.O.C and the Labour party will have to APPEAL to the same people to get back into power in 2015. Not unless you would rather see the bloody Tories get back into power in 2015 ??

Quite frankly im beginning to think that the bloody fickle British public deserve another 5 years term of right wing Tory rule, come 2015.

Ivanhoe wrote: Quite frankly im beginning to think that the bloody fickle British public deserve another 5 years term of right wing Tory rule, come 2015.

What good would that do Ivanhoe, if that happens bang goes your dream of getting into the H.O.C.

bobby, New Labour under Tony Blair embraced Margaret Thatcher's low income tax, deregulated free market for 13 years, you can call that what you like. I know what I am talking about.

And yes, largely the British people are fickle sheep when it come to politics, and political ideologies.

And if we want our vital services up and running, we have to learn we have to pay for them via direction taxation.

As far as small business are concerned, they need customers, and so until more people in this country have more money in their pockets ???your guess is as good as mine.

"Fairness" seems to be as difficult to define as "Holiness".

To steal from Robert Tressel, doesn't it mean everyone enjoying the 'benefits of civilisation'?

oftenwrong wrote:"Fairness" seems to be as difficult to define as "Holiness".

They are two qualities that the Tories do not have OW.

Redflag wrote:

oftenwrong wrote:"Fairness" seems to be as difficult to define as "Holiness".

They are two qualities that the Tories do not have OW.

But they do. They are fair to the rich, because it's the rich who always do best in a free market economy.

Ivanhoe wrote:

Redflag wrote:

oftenwrong wrote:"Fairness" seems to be as difficult to define as "Holiness".

They are two qualities that the Tories do not have OW.

But they do. They are fair to the rich, because it's the rich who always do best in a free market economy.

I think you are going beyond a JOKE Ivanhoe, not unless you are a closet Tory.

Redflag wrote:

Ivanhoe wrote:

Redflag wrote:

oftenwrong wrote:"Fairness" seems to be as difficult to define as "Holiness".

They are two qualities that the Tories do not have OW.

But they do. They are fair to the rich, because it's the rich who always do best in a free market economy.

I think you are going beyond a JOKE Ivanhoe, not unless you are a closet Tory.

You dont know me from adam, so ill ignore that remark. Suffice to say again, that the free market works for the rich, and not the poor.

Ivanhoe you asked for what I said, you are living in cloud cuckoo land and will not get your way, you sound like a petulant child that can not get there own way.

Redflag,

You and I are both on the same side of the political fence as it were. What exactly is your problem ?

Why do you consider me to be living in cloud cuckoo land ?

Probably due to the red tinted glasses you wear that were removed from most socialist eyes back in the 60/70's

That rumbling noise is people jumping on a bandwagon.

This is the type of story which fills the press during the Summer "silly season", but we're only a month away from Christmas. How we love to point the finger of scorn.

How about some light relief? ....

Scenario :
Johnny and Mark get into a fight after school.

1957 - Crowd gathers. Mark wins. Johnny and Mark shake hands and end up best friends.

2010 - Police called, and they arrest Johnny and Mark. Charge them with assault, both expelled even though Johnny started it. Both children go to anger management programmes for 3 months. School governors hold meeting to implement bullying prevention programmes.

Scenario :
Robbie won't be still in class, disrupts other students.

1957 - Robbie sent to the office and given six of the best by the Principal. Returns to class, sits still and does not disrupt class again.

2010 - Robbie given huge doses of Ritalin. Becomes a zombie. Tested for ADHD – result deemed to be positive. Robbie's parents get fortnightly disability payments and school gets extra funding from government because Robbie has a disability.

Scenario :
Billy breaks a window in his neighbour's car and his Dad gives him a whipping with his belt.

1957 - Billy is more careful next time, grows up normal, goes to college, and becomes a successful businessman.

2010 - Billy's dad is arrested for child abuse. Billy removed to foster care; joins a gang; ends up in jail.

Scenario :
Mark gets a headache and takes some aspirin to school.

1957 - Mark gets glass of water from Principal to take aspirin with. Passes exams, becomes a solicitor.

2010 - Police called, car searched for drugs and weapons. Mark expelled from school for drug taking. Ends up as a drop out.

Scenario :
Johnny takes apart leftover fireworks from Guy Fawkes night, puts them in a paint tin & blows up a wasp's nest.

1957 - Wasps die.

2010- Police & Anti-Terrorism Squad called. Johnny charged with domestic terrorism, investigate parents, siblings removed from home, computers confiscated. Johnny's Dad goes on a terror watch list and is never allowed to fly in an airplane again.

Scenario :
Johnny falls over while running during morning break and scrapes his knee. He is found crying by his teacher, Mary. She hugs him to comfort him.

1957 - In a short time, Johnny feels better and goes on playing footie. No damage done.

2010 - Mary is accused of being a sexual predator and loses her job. She faces 3 years in prison. Johnny undergoes 5 years of therapy and ends up gay.

This should be sent to every e-mail address you know to remind us how stupid we have become!

Personally, if I was a child coming from traumatic circumstances, I think being placed with a family whose beliefs include the belief that I shouldn't even be in the country might in time have a negative consequence.

I, like you, don't know the precise circumstances of the case, but, as a former social worker I am aware that removing children from a stable placement is not a decision that is ever taken lightly.

I understand these particular children's placement with the family was a temporary one, and that it was certainly on the cards that, when moved to a long-term placement they would be separated.

I did look at the web site you cite - definitely in my view written by someone with an axe to grind. I also looked at comments from foster carers in Rotherham, and at the original newspaper report (in the Telegraph). I listened to the Radio 4 interview, where James Naughtie, in typical bullying fashion, refused to let Joyce Thacker complete a single sentence.

Social workers enter the profession usually from a desire to help others and to enable children and vulnerable adults to overcome disadvantage and to enjoy more fulfilling lives - there is very rarely any sort of political agenda, unless you count wanting everyone to have fair access as such.

Joyce Thacker may have made a mistake (I don't know, and neither do you) but whether she did or not I can't think her actions merit this kind of right wing rant.

It's also interesting that the issue arises just at the point when UKIP are fielding a candidate in Rotherham - I expect this negative publicity did their campaign no harm at all.

From what I have heard they are children of mixed race boatlady, and just as you have said we need more information before we come to any judgement.

How is this for fairness?

“Cameron moves to exclude Farage from the TV debates”, reports ‘The New Statesman’. He says that "only the parties that are going to form the government" should be included if the debates are repeated in 2015.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/01/cameron-moves-exclude-farage-tv-debates

Isn’t it outrageous - but so typical of the arrogant bloody Tories - that one of the players in a contest tries to make the rules? The Lib Dems were in the 2010 debates and nobody thought they were going to form the government, not even Nick Clegg, who made all sorts of promises that he thought he would never be expected to keep.

Opinion polls have UKIP and the Lib Dems neck-and-neck these days, and the latest Ipsos MORI poll has UKIP in third place:-
Lab 43%, Con 30%, UKIP 9%, Lib Dems 8%.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/

There is a valid reason for not including the SNP and Plaid Cymru in national debates: neither party contests seats throughout the UK and therefore couldn’t, even theoretically, form the next Westminster government. So should the rule be that any party which fields maybe 500, or even 600, candidates gets to take part in the debates? Whatever you may think of the respective policies of the parties, doesn’t UKIP have as much right as the Lib Dems to be heard? And as Nigel Farage remarked: “If Cameron wants to restrict the debates to those parties who are likely to form the next government, he'd better not be booking studio time himself with confidence.”

"Nigel Farage remarked: If Cameron wants to restrict the debates to those parties who are likely to form the next government, he'd better not be booking studio time himself with confidence.”

You could almost get to like Nigel when he comes out with things like that. But then Oswald Mosely could be quite persuasive. It goes with the territory.

Does this come under 'fairness' or should it read 'unfairness'.

Oxfam say that the amount earned by the worlds richest 100 people LAST YEAR would relieve extreme poverty in the world!!!!!!!!!!!! It's obscene. Not the statement - the fact. It's intolerable. Its ........ Words fail me. I know there are obscenely rich people around but ....... >

trevorw2539. You have understated the case:-

"Oxfam claimed the world's richest 100 people earned enough last year to end extreme poverty for the world's poorest people four times over. The net income last year of the 100 richest people was 240 billion US dollars, and in contrast, people living in extreme poverty live on less than 1.25 US dollars per day."
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/oxfam-claims-world-s-100-richest-people-could-eradicate--extreme-poverty--globally/1061826/

This isn't really about UK politics, so if you want to continue discussing inequality, please do so here:-
https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t709-does-inequality-matter

OK thanks.

Is Richmond Council being fair?

It works for me.

Local authority shakes up its housing allocations policy

24DASH.COM Logo
Published by Max Salsbury for 24dash.com in Housing and also in Local

Richmond Council has rewritten its housing allocation policy to give priority to locals, ex-service personnel, foster carers, people in work and those making a "significant contribution to society".

Now active, the council says its revised policy's aim is to give priority to locals of the London borough and those deemed the most vulnerable.

http://www.24dash.com/news/local_government/2013-05-20-Local-authority-shakes-up-its-housing-allocations-policy