egafd.com

Again what threats?

I am not seeing any threats, just a few sound bites taken out of context with lots of could ? quite possible ? for example ?. Envisage ? these are not threats, these are thoughts about possible solutions to a problems.

Again you are getting angry about the possibility of something happening, to someone, when you do not know what or who to.

You need to see a whole report, one which will be voted on, then look at the facts and make a judgment.

Do not get angry of something you do not know the full details of or even half the details, it is a real waste of emotion and energy.

****************************************
Zorro
Date: 10-30-12 15:56

I hate this kind of post, if you read the article it is full of:

"could be encouraged to do community work"

Please note the could

again

"It is quite possible, for example, to envisage a world where civil society is making a greater contribution to the care of the very old, and older people who are not very old could be making a useful contribution to civil society in that respect, if they were given some incentive or some recognition for doing so."

Please note quite possible, for example, envisage a world ... could .. given some incentive or some recognition for doing so.

There is a big difference from sound bites from a brain storming session to actual policy.

David Johnson I expected better from you.
****************************************

Use of the subjunctive is often a deliberate ploy to soften the impact of a suggested policy. It does not disguise the fact that some Lords and other members of our ruling classes, (in a deliberative process), can envisage a world where pensioners are 'encouraged' to stop being a drain on society.

The deliberative process is often the process of according elite minorities a method of overcoming the disadvantages of arriving at a resolution by majority vote.

This article does its best to legitimise the deliberative process as a mechanism of democracy, but buried within it is a telling phrase;

"...it must be preceded by authentic deliberation, not merely the aggregration of preferences that occurs in voting." (My bold/underline)


The definitive answer to the problem of us pensioner spongers is an implanted 'Life Clock', and Carousel at retirement, rather than at 30;


There is another technique which can be used within our so called democracy, that is to float a seemingly outrageous idea, and then let all the fuss die down before re-introducing the idea at a later date, and then at an even later date, and so on until the previously outrageous idea beomes lodged in the collective subconscious of the electorate.

It is symptomatic of the thinking at the fringes of the tory party, fringe thinking that has a nasty habit of becoming mainstream policy intentions in no time at all. Lynton Crosby, a particularly unpleasant (to anyone with a hint of a social conscience) Australian political strategist, is likely to start working in Downing Street this week. Watch out for more in a similar line to this kite-flying insult to pensioners soon.

Feel free to hate the post but my interpretation is not misleading and your interpretation of my post is awry, ill-informed and extremely misleading.

For example at the end of the link I provided:

1.Update 26 October 2012 Lord Bichard has asked us to clarify that he was floating an idea at the committee rather than making a firm proposal. This report has been slightly amended to take account of that. So unless Bichard has come back with further amendments which have not been made to the report widely reported in a number of media outlets than this report is correct.

2. Secondly, you have totally ignored my opening post which states "floating various "spiffing ideas". I make it clear this is an idea not a worked bill. So your comment "There is a big difference from sound bites from a brain storming session to actual policy" is an unnecessary statement of the bleeding obvious.

3. With regard to the absence of the threats you seem to have fixated on, I note you make no reference to the paragraph "We are now prepared to say to people who are not looking for work, if you don't look for work you don't get benefits, so if you are old and you are not contributing in some way or another maybe there is some penalty attached to that." The analogy is clear as day between workfare for the unemployed and workfare/volunteering etc for the pensioner community in return for benefits e.g. pension. ANd he also says "encourage older people not just to be a negative burden on the state" An extremely stupid, derogatory remark.

4.

"Again you are getting angry about the possibility of something happening, to someone, when you do not know what or who to". "Do not get angry of something you do not know the full details of or even half the details, it is a real waste of emotion and energy".

I am sure Andy is grateful for the emotional advice but you are totally missing the point.

This is how governments work. I will give you a related example which is the IDS comment about stopping benefits after the first two kids for the unemployed.

How governments work, step by step

1. The main tactic employed by the coalition is to set one group of individuals against another, usually starting with "How can it be fair". So the coalition has set employed ( hard working "strivers" against the unemployed "fucking scroungers"); the employed against pensioners (the implication is why do pensioners not do anything for their benefits? Well actually many of them worked for fucking 30 years, but that is a separate issue)

2. As part of the softening up process, ideas are floated by typically the Tories in this coalition to set the debating ground for a move rightward. So in the case of IDS it is "how can it be fair" etc. IN the case of Bichard, pensioners are a "negative burden".

3. IDS has not worked through his idea e.g. what happens if a family with three children where the breadwinner gets made redundant and a new benefit claim is made. Do we tell the family to fuck off etc? Nor has he got any agreement whatsoever from the Lib Dems.

4. That is not the point. THe point is to float the idea and see what reaction comes back. If people think it is okay then this idea might change into a policy. If people respond with outrage, as in the case of the media to Bichards idea, then the government tends to back off.

5. This is how all governments both Labour, Tory, coalition work. THe main thing to do is challenge outrageous ideas like Bichard's every step of the way from initial "floating through to final reading. Otherwise the oppression of the less well of by the rich such as Bichard will get even worse.

Feel free to apologise Zorro for your complete misinterpretation of my post. However, I don't expect an apology. After all, no other fucker here who can't follow my points does.

What an excellent idea! These are the sort of contributions we should be looking for our old folks to carry out in return for their gold plated state pensions.

It stops them sitting at home on rainy days feeling "How can I stop being a negative burden on the state?"

'...I am sure Andy is grateful for the emotional advice...'.

Actually I'm not, because short of wasting these tory bastards all I'm left with is anger, and this board to vent my spleen.

Sorry, it's me being sarcastic again. I really must try to stop it!!!!!!!

I know exactly what you mean. There are some stories that you have to check that they don't have a date of April 1st with them. This is one example.

Dont stop being sarcastic, DJ, not on my account anyway.