Family of 10 turn down 5 bedroom house

[AlanH99]

.... Blaming Mr Sube for claiming his entitlements is unlikely to get you very far, just as cyclists leaving notes on car windscreens had little or no noticeable effect. Identify the body responsible and lobby them, if you feel the necessity.

I know blaming Arnold is not going to get me very far. I’m not trying to go far. I’m simply discussing it on a discussion forum. That is what this forum is for. So I will continue blaming Mr Sube for being someone who is taking £100,000 a year from the UK taxpayer and still complaining that he is not being treated well enough.

 

[Amarillo]

So, you are not saying people have problems with Arnold because he is a migrant, French and/or possibly black.
Only that people seem to possibly have problems with Arnold being a migrant, French and/or possibly black.

Are you sure?

I have been very clear in what I have said, and have come to the conclusion that you are just trying to be mischievous with your replies. I will spare you no more of my time.

 

[AlanH99]

I don't think any one has accused anyone other than the newspaper of being racist - singling out Crispin family is pointless, you are expressing yourself and your views, as am I, in a public forum which is free speech if i am not mistaken. You and everyone on here is entitled to an opinion, not unsurprisingly, a vehicle like the California has a wide range of owners (purchase cost/lifestyle choice) and as such draws from a wide political spectrum and diametric views. Because somebody disagrees with your point of view though shouldn't make you feel put upon, it is just a different perspective to yours. For the record, these are my views.

I would define a racist as one who discriminates against someone based on their racial group.

According to the Crown Prosecution Service:
"A racial group means a group of persons defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins."

CF’s comment was

"The main problems people seem to have with him is that he is:
1. a migrant;
2. French;
3. entitled to housing benefits and claiming them;
and possibly, 4. Black."

Seems clear to me that CF is saying that people who have a problem with Arnold are racist. Or at the very least, seem to be racist.

I singled out CF because it was he who said the above and it wouldn’t be fair to say everyone who defended Arnold were accusing people of being racist.

 

[Ethel's dad]

I would define a racist as one who discriminates against someone based on their racial group.

According to the Crown Prosecution Service:
"A racial group means a group of persons defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins."

CF’s comment was

"The main problems people seem to have with him is that he is:
1. a migrant;
2. French;
3. entitled to housing benefits and claiming them;
and possibly, 4. Black."

Seems clear to me that CF is saying that people who have a problem with Arnold are racist. Or at the very least, seem to be racist.

I singled out CF because it was he who said the above and it wouldn’t be fair to say everyone who defended Arnold were accusing people of being racist.

As above

 

[Digger]

There should not be attacks on individuals but the system. My thoughts are the NHS and social services require protection but we have to recognise finances have limits. We cannot just increase budgets as where is the money to come from? The pressure on the system and frustration by many seems to be fodder for the tabloids. Does anyone have the answer? I doubt it.

 

[AlanH99]

There should not be attacks on individuals but the system. My thoughts are the NHS and social services require protection but we have to recognise finances have limits. We cannot just increase budgets as where is the money to come from? The pressure on the system and frustration by many seems to be fodder for the tabloids. Does anyone have the answer? I doubt it.

I keep seeing comments such as not criticising the individual but the system. But no reason given as to why. So, I'll give a reason why I believe the individual should be criticised.

There are so many variables to take into account when deciding what is reasonable or not reasonable that sometimes you have to rely on a judgement that cannot be quantified. Arnold did this when he rejected a house because it did not have enough storage space to live comfortably. What is enough? What is comfortable?
One way of ensuring we don't have to try and write laws that cover every possible variable (which is impossible) is by letting people know what is acceptable moral behaviour and what is not. If we don't criticise the individual when they go outside the accepted mores of a society how will they know what they are? Therefore, we should criticise the individual and the system if either or both are at fault.

 

[AlanH99]

As above

Thank you.

 

[VW Cali]

Intereresting comments. Meanwhile our Swedish morning newspapers ( who would never publish anything like this article) reports on polish workers beeing attacked by brits after the brexit vote. Poland have now polish police working the streets in uk to protect the workers from being harmed !?
Even swedish students have been harrassed with written comments like: go home etc.
The problem with press like this is that some individuals will take it the wrong way.
I am quite sure if the main population knew how much money a problem child costs the uk taxpayers they would be really angry. I have some insights in sweden, one 13 year old can cost the taxpayers 1000£ a day and more if they are really in to trouble.

A very insightful post.

In the UK, there are problems too. Sometimes from people outside the UK, and sometimes from UK citizens.

At times there can be a disproportionate focus on people from outside the UK, while avoiding focus on self created problems.

If people then point this out, you stand accused of being politically correct, liberal, unpatriotic etc.

If you focus exclusively on external problems, then you are considered courageous enough to non PC, teller of truth, and a patriot.

The reality is Britain is caused more problems by latter group than former.

So here:

If being PC means:

1. Being fair minded and non evasive.
2. Having empathy.
3. Looking for actual solutions rather than whingeing about others.

Then I am unashamedly PC.

Proud of it.

I say if Nigel Farage, hypothetically and God forbid, ever suffer lung or liver damage my prayers with him but should tax payers pick up his NHS bill? I mean some of us pay gym/trainers and make an effort to stay healthy. Why should we pick up costs of people who wllingly put themselves at risk?

One can point fingers endlessly. As it is, I would be okay for NF to get NHS treatment even if his health concerns would be self inflicted.

That's a degree of empathy.

 

[WelshGas]

A very insightful post.

In the UK, there are problems too. Sometimes from people outside the UK, and sometimes from UK citizens.

At times there can be a disproportionate focus on people from outside the UK, while avoiding focus on self created problems.

If people then point this out, you stand accused of being politically correct, liberal, unpatriotic etc.

If you focus exclusively on external problems, then you are considered courageous enough to non PC, teller of truth, and a patriot.

The reality is Britain is caused more problems by latter group than former.

So here:

If being PC means:

1. Being fair minded and non evasive.
2. Having empathy.
3. Looking for actual solutions rather than whingeing about others.

Then I am unashamedly PC.

Proud of it.

I say if Nigel Farage, hypothetically and God forbid, ever suffer lung or liver damage my prayers with him but should tax payers pick up his NHS bill? I mean some of us pay gym/trainers and make an effort to stay healthy. Why should we pick up costs of people who wllingly put themselves at risk?

One can point fingers endlessly. As it is, I would be okay for NF to get NHS treatment even if his health concerns would be self inflicted.

That's a degree of empathy.

The you should be aware that those who drink and smoke pay significantly more, some 300% more, in taxes than the NHS spends on treating them.

 

[GrannyJen]

post mostly deleted.

I was beginning to sound like a cracked old record...

sorry

 

[Amarillo]

The you should be aware that those who drink and smoke pay significantly more, some 300% more, in taxes than the NHS spends on treating them.

Another useful statistic is that 96.8% of statistics posted on the Internet are made up.

 

[WelshGas]

Another useful statistic is that 96.8% of statistics posted on the Internet are made up.

Believe what you want. I know you will. Roll on May 2017.

 

[VW Cali]

The you should be aware that those who drink and smoke pay significantly more, some 300% more, in taxes than the NHS spends on treating them.

Hahaha, good one!

I thought it was 1,200 % more. Many also eschew the NHS because of social conscience, and concern. In addition, their self sacrificing habits are designed to encourage medical research for future generations. They offer themselves up as voluntary guinea pigs at no cost to the national exchequer.

Thanks for reminding me and I stand corrected.

On more serious note, my point actually missed. It actually echoes Tom ("Crispin Family"). Given that society allows one to be treated at cost to taxpayer, even if one is self indulgent in drink, smoke, or other gluttony, one can't really blame the individual concerned.

Any complaints or issues should be raised with a view to legislation. What is the point of blaming individuals? Society lets them, so blaming them is hardly going to resolve the issue.

The fact that our NHS provides free treatment in my view is a testimony to a civilised society. Maybe too lax, and too far. But if that's the case let's get the debate going to get the law changed.

 

[WelshGas]

https://iea.org.uk/publications/research/alcohol-and-the-public-purse-do-drinkers-pay-their-way

https://fullfact.org/economy/does-smoking-cost-much-it-makes-treasury/

 

[VW Cali]

https://iea.org.uk/publications/research/alcohol-and-the-public-purse-do-drinkers-pay-their-way

https://fullfact.org/economy/does-smoking-cost-much-it-makes-treasury/

Thank you for posting these, as at least there is something tangible.

I shall comment on this in more detail later.

The larger point these papers make is that an unhealthy activity if taxed appropriately subsidizes the overall community. This is of course the concept behind many forms of specific taxation.

Carried to logical conclusion, one reaches the inevitable conclusion that the more unhealthy activities a society has, appropriately taxed, the better off the society.

I am actually interested in the authors sources of data, the assumptions made about costs, and indeed from a purely medical point of view, any links missed.

Fundamentally, there is the following mathemstical basis for it, whether in this case the analysis holds or not.

Imagine a society that allow old style duals with ten paces and revolvers, but only supervised and with appropriate tax. Now since one or both people die, it is conceivable society is better off long as they are not injured as with reduced longevity medical care cost is also reduced. One could go further and say anyone injured but not dead will be euthanized by society.

This could be worked out with numbers beneficial to overall society.

But are they? What about the cost of education and nurture in childhood that society incurred? The loss of skills and so on.

Even in this idealised scenario analysis must be carried out with due care. Change the assumptions and hypothesis and one could have vastly different outcomes.

So one needs to tread with care.

I shall revert after reading the author's papers with care.

In my undergraduate program at a US university one of the required books on a course on the philosophy of science was called, "How to lie with statistics."

Quite brilliant, and one I'd recommend everyone to read.

 

[WelshGas]

I wouldn't put yourself out too much as I'm not really interested in your analysis and after over 40 yrs in the NHS I'm well aware of how statistics can be twisted to show whatever result you require, if you so desire.

Others may be interested, just not me. Good night.

 

[VW Cali]

I wouldn't put yourself out too much as I'm not really interested in your analysis and after over 40 yrs in the NHS I'm well aware of how statistics can be twisted to show whatever result you require, if you so desire.

Others may be interested, just not me. Good night.

All right, I guess that settles it.

I may have some experience in statistical inference professionally, and may have spent a lifetime in the area.

I emphasise may have.

Since you have no interest, I wonder why you posted the links. Note, I didn't dismiss it outright, and kept my impressions to myself.

Could it be possible that my hypothetical example of dualling was tad hard to trivially reject.

Not for you but others on statistics in social sciences. And this without questioning who sponsored what reasearch. A little nugget from "How to lie with statistics"

In the 1950s at the height of racial tension, a questionnaire was handed out to people in a study in the US. One of the questions asked of people was whether African Americans had sane job and social mobility opportunities as the predominantly white general population.

A large percentage of the respondents replied in the affirmative. Based on this sample one could reach the conclusion that society was largely egalitarian with racial background not a primary obstacle, if at all.

But the questionnaire was trickier.

The same questionnaire asked lots of other questions about people's opinions and preferences. If you analysed the answers to these questions you would come to the opposite conclusion. That equality was not the norm. That many white people held very prejudicial views about African Americans with consequent discrimination.

And here's the rub.

There was a statistically very high correlation, way beyond the highest confidence intervals, that showed that those stated that African Americans were not discriminated against, and in fact, had equal opportunities to white segments of the population were the ones most likely to hold racist and discriminatory attitudes towards African Americans and other races.

Conversely, those who felt that there was discrimination, and obstacles, were least likely to hold racist or discriminatory attitudes.

Now I do not make this up. Anyone curious enough is welcome to check the source I have referred.

So this was one example where if the study had not been carried out carefully, an opposite conclusion may have been reached.

That the US was largely equal opportunity with few or bo obstacles in terms of either attitude or opportunity for African Americans.

Now, as Welsh Gas has done the usual ("I am done, and will not discuss with you."), may I respond:

I shall discuss with you to the end Sir, and will yield only to the truth. I am not interested in anything else. Accuracy is the only thing that matters.

I shall take it that unless you can back yourself up with some substance you could not last the tough course that is truth.

 

[Amarillo]

As above

Alan, in his customary style, and probably mischievously, missed the point of my post in his analysis and conclusion.

From the list, "migrant; French; entitled to housing benefits and claiming them; and Black", if you strip away the morally indefensible criticisms people may have of Mr Sube, you are left with "entitled to housing benefits and claiming them". I have gone to some lengths to explain why anger is misdirected at Mr Sube if it is for claiming entitlements.

Indeed, I went further. It can be argued that someone is a "mug" if they do not claim their entitlements, and not a "parasite" if they do. ("Mug" and "parasite" were words I used to describe myself under certain conditions, and not words I have seen used to describe Mr Sube).

Alan's argument can be classified as a straw man; the clue is in the phrase, "Seems clear to me that...", which would be more honestly phrased as "I would like to mislead you to believe that..."

Straw man arguments can be unintentional.

 

[WelshGas]

Now, as Welsh Gas has done the usual ("I am done, and will not discuss with you."), may I respond:

I shall discuss with you to the end Sir, and will yield only to the truth. I am not interested in anything else. Accuracy is the only thing that matters.

I shall take it that unless you can back yourself up with some substance you could not last the tough course that is truth.

I went to bed so I said Good Night. I had something better to read.

I posted the links as evidence because someone suggested that my statement was Fiction rather than Fact.

Then in your post "I shall comment on this in more detail later." shows such a level of pomposity in your own abilities that I'm just not interested. Others maybe but I have no interest in waiting for an in-depth comment. I hope you enjoy examining the documents in minute detail looking for something that is incorrect and gives you a counter argument. I look forward to your next screens worth of comment.

 

[VW Cali]

I went to bed so I said Good Night. I had something better to read.

I posted the links as evidence because someone suggested that my statement was Fiction rather than Fact.

Then in your post "I shall comment on this in more detail later." shows such a level of pomposity in your own abilities that I'm just not interested. Others maybe but I have no interest in waiting for an in-depth comment. I hope you enjoy examining the documents in minute detail looking for something that is incorrect and gives you a counter argument. I look forward to your next screens worth of comment.

Getting personal eh?

Again, the usual refuge. Introduce a point the other person debates, the other person responds logically and with restraint but with points that are harder to discuss purely logically.

So get personal instead.

Next time you add academic sounding papers to support a discussion be prepared that someone may actually want to investigate the conclusions reached in the paper.

Now you may have no interest but to score points or engage in personal invective.

I am interested in how the author reached the conclusions that he did.

Your lack of interest in your own quoted research is highly revealing.

Enjoy whatever it is you do.

 

[VW Cali]

As I stated curious enough to look up the author Christopher Snowden.

He has a website and seems to write loads of blogs.

http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.co.uk/?m=1

 

[VW Cali]

Somewhat baffled by the style of Christopher Snowden's paper as referenced by WelshGas, I decided to Wiki him.

Turns out he has no mathematical/scientific education/training/work experience. It would apprar that maybe an economist since he joined something called Institute of Economic Affairs in 2012.

Now, I play the ball instead of the man but my education and experience in applied mathematical sciences in both academia and industry I was intrigued as to how someone could author such papers. Even more intrigued why someone with 42 years experience in the NHS (doctor/surgeon/researcher) would present this as research.

Anyway here goes on Christopher Snowdon (I will revert with analysis of his paper later):

Christopher John Snowdon is an author and freelance journalist based in the UK. He writes forSp!ked and other publications. He is particularly known as a vocal opponent of Government intervention in matters such as alcohol and obesity; his Twitter biography states that he is "not that keen on the nanny state" .[1] He is also a research fellow at the Institute of Economic Affairs.[2]

Snowdon was born in North Yorkshire in 1976 and studied history at Lancaster University, graduating in 1998.[1]

His first book, Velvet Glove, Iron Fist (2009), is a history of anti-smoking activity from the fifteenth century to the present day.[3][4] According to WorldCat, the book is held in 56 libraries [5]

His second book, The Spirit Level Delusion: Fact-checking the Left's New Theory of Everything (2010), is a response to and critique of The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better.

His third book is The Art of Suppression: Pleasure, Panic and Prohibition since 1800 (2011).

Snowdon's critics allege proximity to industry interests, and have also documented repeated polemical attacks on established scientists.[6]

 

[AlanH99]

... I have gone to some lengths to explain why anger is misdirected at Mr Sube if it is for claiming entitlements.
....

Arnold is an ingrate.

He is receiving £100,000 a year from the UK taxpayer for a situation he has created for himself and he is complaining of being neglected.

Why should I direct my annoyance toward the system when it is Arnold who is the ingrate?

 

[WelshGas]

Getting personal eh?

Again, the usual refuge. Introduce a point the other person debates, the other person responds logically and with restraint but with points that are harder to discuss purely logically.

So get personal instead.

Next time you add academic sounding papers to support a discussion be prepared that someone may actually want to investigate the conclusions reached in the paper.

Now you may have no interest but to score points or engage in personal invective.

I am interested in how the author reached the conclusions that he did.

Your lack of interest in your own quoted research is highly revealing.

Enjoy whatever it is you do.

No, I have better things to do than feed your trolling efforts. Not personal at all. You fit the Oxford Dictionary definition perfectly. So just enjoy your in depth review of those papers/reports. I'm sure you will enjoy it.

 

[VW Cali]

No, I have better things to do than feed your trolling efforts. Not personal at all. You fit the Oxford Dictionary definition perfectly. So just enjoy your in depth review of those papers/reports. I'm sure you will enjoy it.

With all due respect, I beg to differ.

You called me pompous, and now a troll.

I have a question:

Why would a man with 42 years experience of the NHS post a link to Christopher Snowdon's paper as claim it is evidence?

Snowdon has absolutely no background in science, mathematics, medicine, engineering, economics, whether in academia or in industry.

You presented it as evidence. Why? Enlighten all of us.

As a person with 42 years experience of NHS, I am curious to know from you whether abuse of NHS finances occurs both from users of the system, or as well from those who make their living/earnings from it in some way?

Let some more epithets fly. Smart arse, pompous, troll, go for it.

But do try to explain your evidence. You have studiously avoided it in favour of personal insults.