Quote ="BobbyD"The London Evening Standard? www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/uk-un ... rnalSearch '" Yes, when I get the time to trawl back through my twitter timeline I'll provide the link

Quote ="BobbyD"The London Evening Standard? www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/uk-un ... rnalSearch '" Yes, when I get the time to trawl back through my twitter timeline I'll provide the link

I heard a foodbank manager on the radio yesterday, when questioned about the nutritional value of a typical basket, stated that they tried to offer a balanced selection but were sometimes hampered logistically - many foodbanks have no facility for handling fresh, chilled or frozen foods. He also admitted that some had asked for "convenience" food but further investigation showed that the voucher holder didn't have the money to feed their meter to cook food.

I'll also try to find a link to Katie Hopkins blog on Huffington Post where she asserts that many female recipients are swapping their jam rags for a rock of crack

Out-smarted once again - why does everyone find it so easy?

What on earth are you on about now fool?

It's especially funny coming from someone who bemoans the systemic abuse of the welfare state, quoting apocryphal examples of hus own family members being involved in such abuse, yet has never reported such abuse to the relevant authorities

[iBloody druggies.[/i

[iLord Elpers wrote:
Do you still stand by this?[/i




It looks to me that the figure you quoted ie 32809 was for the end of 2011 and not 2010. The coalition came to power in the 2nd quarter of 2010. So was this a misreading of graphs error or a deliberate error to mislead?


[urlhttp://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/gdp-per-capita-ppp[/url

Ah, but it's only 'Champagne socialists' who Sal expects to abide by any standards – and even then, not their own but the ones that he reckons they have/should have, even though he cannot then lay out those same standards.

So when he does it, it's not hypocrisy of double standards at all.

Speaking of austerity, will be interesting to see how the Financial Conduct Authority's first major fraud trial pans out. The defendants currently cannot get barristers to represent them as no Chambers will agree to act for the reduced legal aid rates. The judge told the defendants in a preliminary hearing that they may need to defend themselves. So will it transpire they'll need to go to trial without representation and thereby formalise the fact that justice will only be open to the mega-rich in future or will, in the name of austerity, hundreds of thousands of pounds of public money presumably already spent in preparing the prosecution case be written off (defence arguing cannot have a fair trial without representation in such a complex case)? Either way is justice served or public money wisely spent?

Neat swerve once again.

What I said was this - the hypocrisy is the likes of McClusky speaking about equality and social justice from his ivory tower i.e £120k salary, plus nice car, plus final salary pension scheme all funded by members who will never enjoy such benefits. You really need to read what is written not what you want to it to say.

As I said I have no issue with how much anyone earns and I don't apologise for what I earn nor do I begrudge my bosses - two of which earned >800k last year.

Now where are we on you proving or retracting where you claimed I said nobody should get a pay rise because I hadn't had one? You see two can play this game!!

Why can MPs who represent the whole of the electorate manage on much lower salaries and still get criticised? These union leaders often take from the poorly paid to fund their fat cat life-styles. If they have conviction and members interests at heart they should not be accepting or demanding such pay. As you say, hypocrisy of the very worst kind.

Presumably because like anyone else, such as nurses, social workers, doctors they are open to criticism as we all are in our jobs. What their salaries has to do with this I have no idea. Should those nurses be immune from criticism because they earn less than an MP?



Given Union membership is voluntary has it crossed your mind that the members are happy to pay their subs knowing the people who run the organisation are well paid?

They don't "take" anything. Union membership is voluntary so therefore so are the subs the members pay. Anyone disagreeing with the pay the leadership receives can simply leave the Union.

If they don't they must believe the benefits of membership are worth the subs regardless of what salaries the union officials are paid.

The union leaders are also elected so just like MP's said they can be replaced if required so anyone who feels they aren't getting value for money can do something about it.

Anyone who takes whatever benefits the Unions secure for them yet then moans about the salaries paid to the officials would be the hypocrite.

But why do people who preach equality feel it necessary to have large salaries? Do they work harder for "their" members because they earn £120,000 than if they earned, say, £40,000? If so, why?

I wasn't aware they preach equality as such. More fairness as in a fair day's pay for a fair day's work.

I don't work any harder these days despite my salary being considerably larger than it was 10 years ago but I assume I am paid it because my experience and skills are considered worth it.

Presumably union officials who earn these salaries are also considered worth the money.

All you are doing here is recycling the bankrupt argument that if you are of a left wing view you ought to work for free.

After some digging, it appears the quoted figure was from an article dated [url=http://www.standard.co.uk/news/one-million-young-people-jobless-6368531.htmlNovember 2011[/url, so please accept my apologies. Still doesn't alter the fact that this bunch of sociopaths managed to preside over the highest level of unemployment since the last time they were in charge of the nation

Nobody worse than the union leaders for pointing out how jobs could be saved if the bosses earned less - if we take your analogy then the experience and skills of the bosses and considered worth it? I bet if you asked McClusky to justify his salary and benefits he would point out his skills and experience.

Questioning the salary of bosses when you are the highest earner with the most benefits in the organisation is a touch hypocritical would you not agree?

No one is suggesting left wingers should not earn high salaries - just that they don't spout equality and a better spread of wealth from such a lofty position.

What about those who have lost their jobs/conditions due to the intervention of the union? Have they not got a right to question the value for money the are getting from some high paid officials?

Animal Farm springs to mind

Now that did raise a post Christmas smile! Something along the lines of "We are all equal,
just some are more equal than others", eh? And what was that famous ditty......"The working class can kiss my . I've got the Foreman's job at last!"

Anyhows, some excellent points in [url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2530216/PLATELLS-PEOPLE-A-self-indulgent-mother-myth-starving-Britain.htmlMs Platell's[/url column which should give the Church of England some food for thought as this year draws to a close.

...because thats what is at the source of all poverty isn't it, people who would have enough money if only they didn't spend it all on christmas presents.

So doubtless you can now set down the cut-off pay rate at which someone should stop empathising with the wider workforce and daring to even think about a fairer society.

At the same time, you can also provide the evidence – which you have singularly failed to do previously – that society as a whole is not better off in social terms when the income gap is lower.*


* To clarify: that was [ilower[/i – not non-existent.

Well, when people try to be responsible – saving for Christmas – they get shafted by the likes of Farepak, which took their money while knowing it would not be able to repay. Of course, it's still ultimately their fault for daring to want more than a satsuma and a walnut at Christmas.

There is no upper limit - as humans are natural instinct is to look after ourselves and I would suggest to 99.9% of people providing sufficiently for themselves is their primary consideration. Most of those who spout empathy - and I include you - do so from a position of comfort.

No one has provided any evidence that society is better of if the income gap is smaller - and again I include you. If it were the case capitalism would have vanished and been replaced by socialist/marxist/communist system. Sadly that has proved not to work. So where is our evidence that it does - and that doesn't include searching the internet for a rouge article that supports your view point.

So, you cannot answer the question?

You're the one stating that anyone who dares to empathise with others and even mention fairness should not do so once earning a certain amount of money.

This 'argument' has previously been shown (not by me) to be crass: to follow your logic, only a slave would oppose slavery, was an example that was given.

Yet you persist and, since you've repeatedly suggested this, you must have thought out what that rate would be.

Incidentally: I am quite comfortable now. It has not been the case for the bulk of my working life – as mentioned before, the copper jar was essential not that many years ago. No holidays, no trips out etc etc – and that was while working.

I'd be interested to know just why you'd expect anyone to suddenly only interested in themselves when their own lives improve. But then again, you can't even put a figure to your own pet theory that a concern for fairness should cease on reaching a certain pay level.

I equally doubt that you know the pay levels of anyone on here who you would assert should stop being concerned about fairness, thus rather rendering your comments insubstantial at best.



I know that I have mentioned [iThe Spirit Level[/i more than once on here, so either you've missed it, forgotten it or decided to ignore it.

Feel free to refute the work that Wilkinson and Pickett did – using evidence – but stop trying to pretend that such evidence does not exist.

Capitalism as a system FAILS because people die of GREED.
That will now cause the right wingers no end of problems trying to work it out but it is a truth.
Have fun Sal, AJW, World of Red Boy etc.
Try and refute it.
Your replies, if any, will make for interesting reading.

Has 'Him' done a runner?