The bigotry of low expectations.

But when one cannot make a comment on how another “chooses to live” without being accused of racism? (Or some other kind of “ism.”)
Yes, but i would say that broadly when an accusation of what ever "ism or ist", is levelled that it is done so to stop discussion or fair critique about one subject or another. Rather it is that because we all suffer in some degree or another of being hypocritical to win an argument or make a point.

All are guilty of at one time or another bending the rules, a bit of ducking and diving, wilful deceit when looking at the funding of the welfare state, regardless of being rich or poor. This is part of the imperfect nature of sentience.

It is the scale of such actions that effect society on the whole, its imbalance and growth has been widened by the naivety of some and the disingenuous nature of others.

It is hypocritical to blame the majority for racism being a root cause of greater poverty amongst some when, it has nothing to do with race rather it is more complicated. Poverty is caused by a multitude of factors.

Poverty amongst some cohorts are not new phenomena rather they are as old as humanity itself, and will by extension never be rid of totally. Western society has to some degree or another historically tried to reduce poverty, and I have no doubt will continue to rightly continue so.

Unless we acknowledge honestly in debate that rewarding bad behaviour and practices of some cohorts, we will never be effective at reducing them.
 
Its rather interesting that, that this thread was born out of 'ANTIFA' being reclassified as a consequence of the riots that followed the death of "George Floyd", and the protests that followed which in the main focused on police brutality with a racial indicator. But the riots focus on rich vs. poor and to bring down western society.

Following my initial post many agree that the current societal system, is failing and think that something must be done.

They would I suggest fall into two broad categories those who lean towards 'more personal responsibility to be taken', and those who think or hope that we as a society can TAX our way out of a fundamental problem. That is of course broadly speaking.

That said no one seriously said or is proposing culling or any other dystopian vision, where the poor are stamped on and breeding is by permit... I think we can all agree that allowing real poverty is not good for a functioning society especially here in the UK which has a welfare state that is sadly abused and thus beginning to fail.

I do not believe "we" as a society can tax ourself out off this problem, there is without doubt issues with the taxation system that do require urgent attention. I suggest none of them are to raise tax's rather to address the complexity of the system and rules that enable evasion by the dishonest.

That the left's focus on taxation as some 'golden calf' that can solve all of societies problems, is sadly in my view a failure to be willing to accept the hard and unpleasant truth that the only thing that denotes true freedom is to accept that taking personal responsibility, for ones life is hard.

That the right's focus on taxation is as something that is a drag on commerce, this can be true but it is not the only drag on commerce, in some part even those who lean right have supported profit protected by the risk being socialised. basic capitalism has been subverted by such actions.

None of the above will change the truth that far too many children are brought into this world by adults who are not and will not be capable of supporting them, in the first instance. There has always been those who do this and there always will be. But like it or not there is now also a racial aspect being dragged into the simple problems of a lack of taking personal responsibility for ones actions and thus living with the consequences.

Is the growth of deprivation in many urban areas particularly those which have become BAME dominated because of racism, or because of the bigotry of low expectations.

I dont believe that non whites are, lesser in anyway nor are they a single block in their thinking. That said I do believe they have been failed, by supporting the narrative that they are victims of the system. That sadly the system has to some degree advanced that narrative helps no one.

Fatherless family's are not exclusive to any demographic, the ethos of 'snitch get stitches' is also not exclusive to any demographic, they do however make it more unlikely that those who are born in areas that have both more likely to fail rather than succeed.

The failure to grasp that education is more important that gang life, is also not exclusive to any demographic, that some areas are dominated gang life, rather than education is not something that has been imposed, on anyone by the state.

I would like to note that the reason street gangs thrive is without doubt the drugs trade that, given we are a majority white nation 'despite the wibble from an insignificant number of those who conflate political nationalism with political Identitarianism'. Thus the drugs trade is funded and supported by and with a huge generalisation a largely white middle class left leaning cohort.

The very same who say its the system that disadvantages the poor discriminated against uneducated BAME who have no choice but to deal drugs because that the only way they can earn a crust... Bigotry of low expectations, anyone.
The problem with the drug dealer 'lifestyle' is how early it kicks in. Many by 9 or 10 are seeing big brother or cousin in new trainers or with a flashy bike and thinking I want that. By the time they are 12 or 13 they are acting as lookouts and then progress to dealing. All the time having drilled into their head they have to be ruthless, always front up and generally act in a manner that works for dealers but makes you unemployable and unschoolable.

So bright kids who at 10 could have potentially been great contributors are fecked for life by 12.

Only way I can see to solve it is legalise drugs. Some kids will be little shits whatever so they will still go out and mug and steal, but the drug trade has provable revenue so if a dealer says to a bright kid look i'm making five k a week, week in week out, there's the wheels, there's the pad, there's the wedge to prove it, toughen up, come work for me and that will be you in 5 years time...it works.

Remove the revenue stream and you wipe out the dealers and the kids can focus on trying to get the best job they can which in many cases will be minimum wage but that still pays better than nothing if dealing is no longer an option.
 
The problem with the drug dealer 'lifestyle' is how early it kicks in. Many by 9 or 10 are seeing big brother or cousin in new trainers or with a flashy bike and thinking I want that. By the time they are 12 or 13 they are acting as lookouts and then progress to dealing. All the time having drilled into their head they have to be ruthless, always front up and generally act in a manner that works for dealers but makes you unemployable and unschoolable.

So bright kids who at 10 could have potentially been great contributors are fecked for life by 12.

Only way I can see to solve it is legalise drugs. Some kids will be little shits whatever so they will still go out and mug and steal, but the drug trade has provable revenue so if a dealer says to a bright kid look i'm making five k a week, week in week out, there's the wheels, there's the pad, there's the wedge to prove it, toughen up, come work for me and that will be you in 5 years time...it works.

Remove the revenue stream and you wipe out the dealers and the kids can focus on trying to get the best job they can which in many cases will be minimum wage but that still pays better than nothing if dealing is no longer an option.
I agree with what you say but sadly dont think that legalise will work, rather it is time to criminalise those who use it, while those on the poor end of the trade need either enforced rehab and in some cases would rather benefit from a reinstitution of old style mental institution's. Those at the well off liberal end would find being banged up a little difficult.

This is of course a simplification, but as I say "sadly dont think that legalise will work". As with so much across the subjects I post on I would rather be pleased to be wrong about it.
 

daz

LE
I'd forgotten about Ireland, thanks for the reminder!

" Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Switzerland are sometimes defined as the "OECD tax havens" "
Being a tax haven is not necessarily a bad thing for the country concerned - see Ireland's reasons for telling the EU to do one (and the EU telling them to reconsider)

Being an " Unco-operative Tax Haven" is according to the OECD, hence they have this list of naughty countries, the counties themselves have different views on the matter than the OECD
  • Andorra
  • The Principality of Liechtenstein
  • Liberia
  • The Principality of Monaco
  • The Republic of the Marshall Islands
  • The Republic of Nauru
  • The Republic of Vanuatu
 

daz

LE
I defer totally to your knowledge of that particular case, they aren't just avoiding Employers NI though are they... they're avoiding all of the cost of employee benefits?

I'm simply noting that pushing the tax burden onto ,the driver in this case, doesn't really close the tax gap, as an employee VAT should no longer be charged on their "wages" which is now what all of the income is...
No, but NI is the one most people are familiar with off the top of their heads, it was also the main driving forces behind the schemes as they predated pension contributions for instance.

The VAT paid out by the company normally is reclaimed by them on the quarterly returns, it's treated as any other VAT expenditure, people pay VAT, companies don't as a general rule - treating the drivers in this case as employees would increase the tax take as their accountants/payroll providers have no scope to get creative in minimising the individual's tax bill.
 
I agree with what you say but sadly dont think that legalise will work, rather it is time to criminalise those who use it, while those on the poor end of the trade need either enforced rehab and in some cases would rather benefit from a reinstitution of old style mental institution's. Those at the well off liberal end would find being banged up a little difficult.

This is of course a simplification, but as I say "sadly dont think that legalise will work". As with so much across the subjects I post on I would rather be pleased to be wrong about it.
Hitting buyers harder could be a short term solution and a few high profile jail terms could reduce demand for a while. Unfortunately I think it would just raise the price as affluent buyers would expect better cover stories (eg gen businesses they ordered a sample of say carpet from).

Legalise it and flog it with regulated purity from Boots and you kill the street trade and nobody is saying there's your weed, have a free wrap of crack and see how you like it.
 
Hitting buyers harder could be a short term solution and a few high profile jail terms could reduce demand for a while. Unfortunately I think it would just raise the price as affluent buyers would expect better cover stories (eg gen businesses they ordered a sample of say carpet from).

Legalise it and flog it with regulated purity from Boots and you kill the street trade and nobody is saying there's your weed, have a free wrap of crack and see how you like it.
Your right, but unless the State becomes the dealer, then legalising it become so complicated that it is likely to fail as a way to separate use of narcotics from crime.

Prohibition of intoxicates without doubt failed, that the state has too allow the sale of legal booze under certain conditions, that are held as right and proper by the majority of a society works to a large degree. Society though accepts that there will be a some who will be harmed by such a mechanism but accepts the reality that the good outweighs the bad. The state does not involve itself in production or supply outside of quality and revenue collection.

How is that to work with narcotics, do we think that the state should only regulate the standards of production and supply, or that they must become the producer and supplier. Outside of weed where it is able to be grown at home by an individual.

Before it is mentioned that using a little 'weed' is not a problem and has become passée amoungst the chattering classes all the while, despite the reality that illegal people trafficking and slavery into many 'Suburban areas' has grown because of this. Still I am sure that the same leftists that say 'illegal people trafficking and slavery ' are a stain on our society, never choke on the spliff they enjoy from their honest dealer.

So then, what of cocaine, meth, heroin etc all have at some stage or other required other criminal acts to produce, not to mention the use of enforced labour in many countries that have the required base chemical need to produce illegal narcotics.

These are what makes legalising drug use complicated. I would just caution that the illegal criminal gangs that existed before prohibition in America, and flourished because of it didn't vanish, once it became legal, they just moved from booze into narcotics.

As I say i would like to be wrong and legalisation would make a difference, I just cant stop thinking that it wont, because it rather relies on society doing the right thing rather than the easy thing.
 
The problem with the drug dealer 'lifestyle' is how early it kicks in. Many by 9 or 10 are seeing big brother or cousin in new trainers or with a flashy bike and thinking I want that. By the time they are 12 or 13 they are acting as lookouts and then progress to dealing. All the time having drilled into their head they have to be ruthless, always front up and generally act in a manner that works for dealers but makes you unemployable and unschooled.

So bright kids who at 10 could have potentially been great contributors are fecked for life by 12.
Bit arse about face that I am addressing your post in two parts and the first point you made second, but you understand I can be a dozy bitch at times... :razz:

Why are some of these kids who clearly are bright enough and have some work ethic lured into using such talents, for criminal gain. Perhaps it is in part the lack of fathers, perhaps it is part because the parent has no desire to raise children rather a child is a necessary part of gaining support from the public purse. Perhaps in part because society has become afraid to label bad behaviours as bad.

That a section of society constantly says we must treat everyone equally but wont acknowledge that humans are not equal in many ways be it build, strength physical and emotional or intellect ability etc. Let alone everything else that can influence personal and physical growth, but to do otherwise is a sign of discrimination. Is perhaps the single point of failure when social engineering is undertaken.

I have yet to meet anyone from any walk of life who proposes unfair treatment as a positive that society should adopt. I have yet to meet anyone who at one time or another has not been dealt with unfairly at some point, especially amongst those who have served. In many cases we all have at one point or another had to suck it up and move on, while enjoying at best a piss and moan about such things of such amongst friends.

Rarely have I found someone who uses such situations, as proof that the system is out to get them. Rather they are the type who embraces being a victim. That society is rewarding them rather than those who work too shrug off such situation.

Now that is all above is rather a generalisation, let us look at a hypothetical. If you live in an area be it a particular part of city or town that is crime ridden, why are you surprised then that policing is rather more focused on that area, does that particular part of town have cohorts who share some similar characteristics, but policed by those who may not share some of them.

What is the solution? Simply put there are only two choices, either work with the police to reduce crime or to say that policing crime is discrimination. One choice will change things one will not.

That the protests and subsequent riots going on this last week or so are saying its because of deliberate discrimination, and is plainly stupid and disingenuous when faced with the attitude of "snitches get stitches". Such failures to accept that reality that crime must not be allowed to flourish if you want a better society is also stupid and disingenuous.

I have no doubt that some of the kids who drift into dealing and street gangs with the knowledge that violence and death is a likely, are clearly bright enough to understand that... With or without a father figure.

I think we can agree that those who are uneducated by choice and feral in manner will gravitate towards violence and crime, as they have neither the will or desire to take on honest work, such a negative trait in individuals is not exclusive to any cohort.
 
That rather illustrates my point that, we cannot TAX our way out of this problem, rather as noted the largest chunk of pissing it down the drain is 'Failure to take reasonable care'.

I have suspect that: Failure to take reasonable care, Legal interpretation and Evasion, are very closely linked.

However I still maintain that it is how society 'chooses too live' rather than who we tax, is the only way to solve things.
You can tax your way out of it but not by taxing the rich which is standard chant by those who want other people to pay for them. Over in Norway they have high taxes for average people, but they also have great education system (Even 10 year old get chrome books from school) and a very good welfare system, Its doesnt matter as much if your parents are bellends, the system provides you with an escape if you want it.
It is very rare to see feckless drunken *********, possibly because its 3 quid for a can of of piss weak beer in a supermarket (A bottle of Smirnoff is 40 quid) Ive seen a couple of drunken tramps (in Oslo) Ive been here over a year, Ive seen more pissheads within 5 minutes of arriving in any big city in the UK.

Too many people (And I dont just mean the chavs) in the UK think other people should pay for their stuff.
 
You can tax your way out of it but not by taxing the rich which is standard chant by those who want other people to pay for them. Over in Norway they have high taxes for average people, but they also have great education system (Even 10 year old get chrome books from school) and a very good welfare system, Its doesnt matter as much if your parents are bellends, the system provides you with an escape if you want it.
It is very rare to see feckless drunken *********, possibly because its 3 quid for a can of of piss weak beer in a supermarket (A bottle of Smirnoff is 40 quid) Ive seen a couple of drunken tramps (in Oslo) Ive been here over a year, Ive seen more pissheads within 5 minutes of arriving in any big city in the UK.

Too many people (And I dont just mean the chavs) in the UK think other people should pay for their stuff.
I was tempted to mention the Nordic attitude but they are rather outliers regarding social models and Taxation in some part compared with the UK much of Europe and America. That said as you point out they regardless still have a criminal class and tramps.

I dont think that "we" modern western society can do the same without broad agreement that as a society "we" must be prepared too sacrifice some 'sacred cows'. That both the media and political class of left and the right, for differing reasons are both to stupid and cowardly to talk about, let alone propose doing so is why.
 
Bit of a bugger when said mother hits menopause...
And worse yet, far to late to have made a positive impact of her brood, who then sadly in many cases just rinse and repeat such patterns of life choices... Of course there are outliers who dont fit such behaviour patterns.
 
I was tempted to mention the Nordic attitude but they are rather outliers regarding social models and Taxation in some part compared with the UK much of Europe and America. That said as you point out they regardless still have a criminal class and tramps.

I dont think that "we" modern western society can do the same without broad agreement that as a society "we" must be prepared too sacrifice some 'sacred cows'. That both the media and political class of left and the right, for differing reasons are both to stupid and cowardly to talk about, let alone propose doing so is why.
A very much smaller criminal class and tramps. People tend to watch their pennies when its a tenner a pint (in the pubs). A lot of people in the UK have disposal income but chose to spend it on themselves fags/booze/sky/football ticket/playstation etc, then moan they dont have youth clubs, good schools, public sport pitches, etc. In Norway the state forces you to pay for the good of society, then what you have left over you can spend on yourself.
 
A very much smaller criminal class and tramps. People tend to watch their pennies when its a tenner a pint (in the pubs). A lot of people in the UK have disposal income but chose to spend it on themselves fags/booze/sky/football ticket/playstation etc, then moan they dont have youth clubs, good schools, public sport pitches, etc. In Norway the state forces you to pay for the good of society, then what you have left over you can spend on yourself.
Sadly though its starting to change in Sweden, which has a real issue with some of its populaces some have imported some are home grown. That said too have change here in the UK means looking at the fundamentals of what a state is responsible for and what the larger societal responsibility is.

A made post i made some years back, asked the question of the attitude of the larger population regarding rights vs. responsibility. Sadly little has changed in within wider society in taking personal responsibility. Again sadly many have made hay and personally profited, particularly with the identity politics crowd in demanding rights regardless of the effect on wider society.

The road to hell as I have said many times is paved with good intentions.
 
I once suggested that mongs were given say £30k to be sterilised, they'd be queuing up, my wife's leftie friends were horrified at the idea.
Incentive based eugenics, the perfect solution to a whole smorgasbord of humanities problems.

 
Sadly though its starting to change in Sweden, which has a real issue with some of its populaces some have imported some are home grown. That said too have change here in the UK means looking at the fundamentals of what a state is responsible for and what the larger societal responsibility is.

A made post i made some years back, asked the question of the attitude of the larger population regarding rights vs. responsibility. Sadly little has changed in within wider society in taking personal responsibility. Again sadly many have made hay and personally profited, particularly with the identity politics crowd in demanding rights regardless of the effect on wider society.

The road to hell as I have said many times is paved with good intentions.
The Swedes are slowly learning which is why the Swedish democrats are gaining in power.
 
Ooooooh! Spotter mode on.

Seeing the wheeled thing on the defence splodge, I thought some wag decided to get ahead of the curve and sneak in a subliminal BOXER...

No.

It's a frikking Stryker MGS...


E2A: hmmm not so sure it's MGS unless its a photo of an oblique shot, barrel length.
Might be a LAV25 or ASLAV, but barrel looks too bulky for a 25mm bushmaster

E2FA: h/t to @incendiarycutlery it's a LAV25
 
Last edited:
Bit arse about face that I am addressing your post in two parts and the first point you made second, but you understand I can be a dozy bitch at times... :razz:

Why are some of these kids who clearly are bright enough and have some work ethic lured into using such talents, for criminal gain. Perhaps it is in part the lack of fathers, perhaps it is part because the parent has no desire to raise children rather a child is a necessary part of gaining support from the public purse. Perhaps in part because society has become afraid to label bad behaviours as bad.

That a section of society constantly says we must treat everyone equally but wont acknowledge that humans are not equal in many ways be it build, strength physical and emotional or intellect ability etc. Let alone everything else that can influence personal and physical growth, but to do otherwise is a sign of discrimination. Is perhaps the single point of failure when social engineering is undertaken.

I have yet to meet anyone from any walk of life who proposes unfair treatment as a positive that society should adopt. I have yet to meet anyone who at one time or another has not been dealt with unfairly at some point, especially amongst those who have served. In many cases we all have at one point or another had to suck it up and move on, while enjoying at best a piss and moan about such things of such amongst friends.

Rarely have I found someone who uses such situations, as proof that the system is out to get them. Rather they are the type who embraces being a victim. That society is rewarding them rather than those who work too shrug off such situation.

Now that is all above is rather a generalisation, let us look at a hypothetical. If you live in an area be it a particular part of city or town that is crime ridden, why are you surprised then that policing is rather more focused on that area, does that particular part of town have cohorts who share some similar characteristics, but policed by those who may not share some of them.

What is the solution? Simply put there are only two choices, either work with the police to reduce crime or to say that policing crime is discrimination. One choice will change things one will not.

That the protests and subsequent riots going on this last week or so are saying its because of deliberate discrimination, and is plainly stupid and disingenuous when faced with the attitude of "snitches get stitches". Such failures to accept that reality that crime must not be allowed to flourish if you want a better society is also stupid and disingenuous.

I have no doubt that some of the kids who drift into dealing and street gangs with the knowledge that violence and death is a likely, are clearly bright enough to understand that... With or without a father figure.

I think we can agree that those who are uneducated by choice and feral in manner will gravitate towards violence and crime, as they have neither the will or desire to take on honest work, such a negative trait in individuals is not exclusive to any cohort.
I'm sure absent and/or ******** fathers play a huge role. But the key point was early age, a decent kid can be shown two futures, one flipping burgers the other rolling round in your BM with gold dripping off you.

Remove option 2 and the mind is focused on not flipping burgers and better yourself. Basically we are legislatively funding a huge feral underclass by making their 'job' vastly higher paying than their decent compatriots alternatives.

Some will always gravitate to crime so lets focus on them. Drug laws don't protect anyone other than drug dealers.
 

Latest Threads

Top