Grooming gangs

HKOwen said:
The "lifting children out of poverty lie" critique typically centers on how governments use statistical manipulation rather than genuine structural changes to declare victory. Skeptics argue that politicians often utilize these specific tactics to inflate their success: [1]
  • Semantic Sleight of Hand: Governments include people in poverty-reduction statistics who were already above the poverty line. For example, reversing planned cuts that were never enacted, then counting those "saved" individuals as lifted out of poverty. [1]
  • Arbitrary Definitions: Changing how poverty is measured makes it incredibly easy to alter poverty numbers without actually improving anyone's living standards. If an administration drops certain income metrics and uses a new multidimensional baseline, the overall rate can instantly "drop" on paper. [1]
  • Focusing on Relative Poverty: Relative poverty—often defined as earning less than 60% of the median income—means that millions of families can remain financially strained even if their income marginally rises. Critics argue this merely masks deep-rooted issues by adjusting the threshold. [1, 2, 3]
Labour always banging on about " lifting hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty ", it's all a con of stastistical and definition manipulation
Click to expand...
It works the other way as well.

The left define poverty very loosely. Apparently you can have a smart phone and a 2 week holiday abroad and still be considered one of the poor. The definition of poor in this country tends to reflect which party is in power.
 
Spindle said:
35 years and serve 8?

Meanwhile you get 2 years for clearing up a neglected bit of waterway without a licence.
Click to expand...
The waterway case guy should opt for a jury trial, surely no jury would convict him - unless the likes of beak are on it.
 
Badger11 said:
It works the other way as well.

The left define poverty very loosely. Apparently you can have a smart phone and a 2 week holiday abroad and still be considered one of the poor. The definition of poor in this country tends to reflect which party is in power.
Click to expand...
So poor children should not have a mobile 'phone which provides them with safety and familial contact, I strongly doubt wether they get a decent holiday (abroad is cheaper).
There is only one way the Government works out what is poverty ,the formula is any family surviving on less than 75% of the median income, this has not been dreamt up last week it is a result of the Beveridge report which was commissioned before WW2 and reported its findings in 1942, when all parties agreed ( a bi- partisan mood was afoot in the house) there has been no tinkering subsequently with it as the political parties on either side would cry foul. At eighty -four years old it outdates you ! They are certainly not in Honey Badger.
 
Most sensible people understand what poverty is.

If you can't afford a roof over your head or don't qualify for one and you can't afford to feed yourself or your dependents then you are in poverty.

If you are from overseas.....why the feck are you allowed here, sort out your own countries.

If you are British then we look at why you are in poverty. Some people are stupid and live chaotic lives....But some people get really bad luck...Also the reality is that there are just as many people with an IQ of 85 and under (meaning you can't really function very well in society and hold down many jobs) as there are people with 115 IQs and higher.

People don't like to think about that but it's real.

If you are British and your allegiance is to Britain then I'm not resentful that the British taxpayer safety net helps people who have fallen on bad luck and situations. Few sensible people think going back to the poor houses and Victorian Times is a good idea.

However, the British state taking in the third world will only result in the third world......and we have enough middle class twerps willing to go along with that rather than face up to common sense and have their 'nice but dim Tim' mates hiss at them .
 
Last edited:
Stirlingsays said:
Most sensible people understand what poverty is.

If you can't afford a roof over your head or don't qualify for one and you can't afford to feed yourself or you dependents then you are in poverty.

If you are from overseas.....why the feck are you allowed here, sort out your own countries.

If you are British then we look at why you are in poverty. Some people are stupid and live chaotic lives....But some people get really bad luck...Also the reality is that there are just as many people with an IQ of 85 and under (meaning you can't really function very well in society and hold down many jobs) as there are people with 115 IQs and higher.

People don't like to think about that but it's real.

If you are British and your allegiance is to Britain then I'm not resentful that the British taxpayer safety net helps people who have fallen on bad luck and situations. Few sensible people think going back to the poor houses and Victorian Times is a good idea.

However, the British state taking in the third world will only result in the third world......and we have enough middle class twerps willing to go along with that rather than face up to common sense and have their 'nice but dim Tim' mates hiss at them .
Click to expand...
These people are so thick that many won’t realise it’s coming for them eventually. The mega rich no but the nose in the air can’t touch me type have that shock coming.
 
Weird, Dan was telling us there were more white gangs than Pakistanis, yet here we are again

The scumbag went on the run and isn't it strange how Pakistan seems a safe place country to live in, where asylum isn't necessary, the moment he's a convicted peado rapist facing jail. And why aren't Pakistan deporting him? Are they allies? No, of course they aren't.

And 2 tier again, not seen as a flight risk, granted bail. Disgusting.
 
Last edited:
georgenorman said:
The waterway case guy should opt for a jury trial, surely no jury would convict him - unless the likes of beak are on it.
Click to expand...
You clearly don't read my posts ,are guessing or have trouble with basic reading dyslexia you have my sympathy?
I want rivers restored to their former glory ,more chalk streams the fat cats who pay dividends out of debt sacked, Dividends should only be paid from increasing profits. My portfolio is mainly compounding aggregator companies which tend to out perform over a decent time period.
 
beak said:
You clearly don't read my posts ,are guessing or have trouble with basic reading dyslexia you have my sympathy?
I want rivers restored to their former glory ,more chalk streams the fat cats who pay dividends out of debt sacked, Dividends should only be paid from increasing profits. My portfolio is mainly compounding aggregator companies which tend to out perform over a decent time period.
Click to expand...
Warren Buffett must be looking over his shoulder
 
beak said:
You clearly don't read my posts ,are guessing or have trouble with basic reading dyslexia you have my sympathy?
I want rivers restored to their former glory ,more chalk streams the fat cats who pay dividends out of debt sacked, Dividends should only be paid from increasing profits. My portfolio is mainly compounding aggregator companies which tend to out perform over a decent time period.
Click to expand...

Oh the irony
 
beak said:
You clearly don't read my posts ,are guessing or have trouble with basic reading dyslexia you have my sympathy?
I want rivers restored to their former glory ,more chalk streams the fat cats who pay dividends out of debt sacked, Dividends should only be paid from increasing profits. My portfolio is mainly compounding aggregator companies which tend to out perform over a decent time period.
Click to expand...
I'm merely expressing an opinion.
When were the rivers in their former glory by the way?
 
beak said:
You clearly don't read my posts ,are guessing or have trouble with basic reading dyslexia you have my sympathy?
I want rivers restored to their former glory......
Click to expand...
Doing the classical leftist obstructionism. Filling the dialogue with irrelevant effluent. A Beakful of garbage.

Waterways, childhood poverty,


GROOMING RAPE GANGS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top