Duke of Edinburgh dies

[life on mars]

I wasn't refwerring to Azerbaijan but there is enough poverty there. And i agree with you about Africa.
But I was talking specifically about UK.

By the way chaps the thread started as Duke of Edinburgh dies

[xsnaggle]

There is no argument, Wales has the worst child poverty in the UK

Some of the upper Bridgend valleys are amongst the poorest areas in Europe

The fact that there are kids starving to death or walking miles for water in parts of Africa means that there are kids worse off but isn't it very worrying that in the UK there is such a gulf in wealth ?

Kids in poverty in the UK die from malnutrition

Many more die from starvation in Africa but this isn't a race to the bottom

Believe me, whatever the linked report might say, what ever some people have to put up with in the Bridgend valleys is nothing compared to what I mentioned. And I wasn't describing 1 house to make a point, I mean house after house street after street, each one just as cold dirty shabby and rundown as the next. And I had to live with the consequences for month after month, yeas after year, the consequences of people living in those condition for the whole of their lives.
I'm not going to argue with you because we all know you must know more about social suffering than everyone else on here. I just hope you never have to witness what I saw to make you realise you're not always right, much as it might hurt your ego.

[jon1959]

https://www.theweek.co.uk/101237/ten...erty-in-the-uk

The total number of children in poverty has risen from 3.6 million in 2010-11 to 4.1 million in 2017-18. And the Institute for Fiscal Studies predicts that this figure will continue to rise, hitting 5.1 million by 2022, as a result of “cuts to benefits and in-work allowances”

The UK’s poorest neighbourhoods are spread across the country, but there is a notable concentration in Greater London. Tower Hamlets has the highest child poverty rates among British local authorities, at 57%, followed by the London boroughs of Newham, Hackney and Islington.

Manchester, Luton, Peterborough and the Lancashire town of Pendle also have among the highest levels of child poverty, with all recording rates above 45%.

Or....

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-new...child-23794168

[delmbox]

By the way chaps the thread started as Duke of Edinburgh dies

this is what he would have wanted

[MacAdder]

By the way chaps the thread started as Duke of Edinburgh dies

Glad you pointed this out saves me trawling through the whole thread for some relevance.

I was going to say, yes the Duke had his faults but to blame world child poverty on him seems a little harsh.

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

Believe me, whatever the linked report might say, what ever some people have to put up with in the Bridgend valleys is nothing compared to what I mentioned. And I wasn't describing 1 house to make a point, I mean house after house street after street, each one just as cold dirty shabby and rundown as the next. And I had to live with the consequences for month after month, yeas after year, the consequences of people living in those condition for the whole of their lives.
I'm not going to argue with you because we all know you must know more about social suffering than everyone else on here. I just hope you never have to witness what I saw to make you realise you're not always right, much as it might hurt your ego.

Either the figures from the child poverty action group are wrong and you are right

Or they are right and you are wrong

There are clearly more kids starving in Malawi than there is in Morriston but that's not the issue .

Child poverty in Wales is a huge problem .

[Gofer Blue]

There is no argument, Wales has the worst child poverty in the UK

Some of the upper Bridgend valleys are amongst the poorest areas in Europe

The fact that there are kids starving to death or walking miles for water in parts of Africa means that there are kids worse off but isn't it very worrying that in the UK there is such a gulf in wealth ?

Kids in poverty in the UK die from malnutrition

Many more die from starvation in Africa but this isn't a race to the bottom

Of course - the food bank I am involved with is testament to this. I know it doesn't fit with your thinking but what xsnaggle and me are trying to say is that there is no comparison between what we define as poverty in the UK (Wales, Bridgend or wherever) and poverty in places like Uganda or India where I would argue the wealth gap is much bigger and of course there is no DWP type assistance for the poorest in those places. I think I'm right in saying that more than 1 billion people are "living" on one dollar a day. I could give lots of examples which I have personally witnessed which would be unheard of in the UK but as you say this is not a race to the bottom. A visit to Uganda (i.e. the real country not the safari parks and the other touristy stuff) might change your perspective I think.

[Gofer Blue]

Glad you pointed this out saves me trawling through the whole thread for some relevance.

I was going to say, yes the Duke had his faults but to blame world child poverty on him seems a little harsh.

[xsnaggle]

https://www.theweek.co.uk/101237/ten...erty-in-the-uk

The total number of children in poverty has risen from 3.6 million in 2010-11 to 4.1 million in 2017-18. And the Institute for Fiscal Studies predicts that this figure will continue to rise, hitting 5.1 million by 2022, as a result of “cuts to benefits and in-work allowances”

The UK’s poorest neighbourhoods are spread across the country, but there is a notable concentration in Greater London. Tower Hamlets has the highest child poverty rates among British local authorities, at 57%, followed by the London boroughs of Newham, Hackney and Islington.

Manchester, Luton, Peterborough and the Lancashire town of Pendle also have among the highest levels of child poverty, with all recording rates above 45%.

Or....

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-new...child-23794168

I noticed in the lists at the end all the places mentioned were in England, as if there is none is Scotland Northern Ireland or Wales. Never realised we are so lucky. But of course N Ireland is not Britain.
This is not a dig at you by the way Jon, I appreciate the info.

[xsnaggle]

Of course - the food bank I am involved with is testament to this. I know it doesn't fit with your thinking but what xsnaggle and me are trying to say is that there is no comparison between what we define as poverty in the UK (Wales, Bridgend or wherever) and poverty in places like Uganda or India where I would argue the wealth gap is much bigger and of course there is no DWP type assistance for the poorest in those places. I think I'm right in saying that more than 1 billion people are "living" on one dollar a day. I could give lots of examples which I have personally witnessed which would be unheard of in the UK but as you say this is not a race to the bottom. A visit to Uganda (i.e. the real country not the safari parks and the other touristy stuff) might change your perspective I think.

I agree about places in Africa but the place I described is in UK.
I've seen grown men so dirty that there is literally black between their toes, men who haven't bathed for months, either because there is no hot water because the haven't the money to heat it up or because they have become so acclimatised to their living conditions that they don't notice any more. Just looking at some is enough to make you want to retch, and a lot of the women are just as bad.

I don't even want to think about this any more.

[Elwood Blues]

Going back to my post about the miracle of Royals knowing how to cook things on a barbecue and the lunacy of people complaining about a complaints procedure because it was too easy, it was posted as a joke and so I was taken aback, not annoyed, by your first reply because you had misjudged my motive in posting it.

My first reply was based on my assumption that you seemed to want to argue with what I said just for the sake of it, but it seems I was wrong in that judgement, you were being serious. I apologise for my last sentence, but I still was a bit gobsmacked at your willingness to continue things when I was struggling to see what the "argument" was supposed to be about - the message that, apparently, got you upset, was meant to reflect my incredulity as much as anything.

The way you argue in favour of Prince Philip suggests you think that I dislike him. I can understand that to a degree, but I don't think you'll find anything in this thread, or others, from me to that effect. I'm anti Royalists, but not because I hate them as individuals (well, apart from Prince Andrew who I've never liked), it's just that they don't interest me in the slightest as people.

I actually think that, if we have to have a monarch, then the Queen has been a good one, but to illustrate my level of disinterest in them, I don't know if Andrew and Anne have remarried, I don't know which one is which with William and Harry, I have no clue as to the name of any of the Queen's other grandchildren apart from Zara Phillips who, i believe once won Sports Personality of the Year for some reason.

As for your "forelock tugging", I can only go by what you write on here and in the last day in your efforts to defend the principle of Royalty, you've denounced Republicanism and appeared to say that you're in favour of the class system. Also, in your seeming determination to portray the population of this country as staunch Royalists, you've now gone to what seems to me to be extreme lengths of quoting You Tube watches back at me. I agree that 8 million extra UK watchers who have looked at the video on You Tube because they missed the funeral live for whatever reason would be impressive, but we both know it's not that don't we. Unless I'm very much mistaken that 8 million is a worldwide figure and I daresay it includes a fair proportion of people who watched the whole thing live on telly as well - the same applies to viewings on things like IPlayer and the ITV Hub.

Based on the last paragraph, I think "forelock tugging" is justified.

I apologise for taking so long to respond to this Bob.

As I pointed out in another thread I have been unwell recently (in fact for
over a week but the antibiotics I am taking for a nasty leg infection seem to have helped the problem but have caused their own problems in particular chronic indigestion which has mad me rather grumpy and was particularly bad in the last couple of days - and I am only halfway through the course!!).

This meant that a couple of responses of mine were slightly intemperate. If so I also apologise but I still think I was making some valid comments if in one case, (my point about the 100 who complained about BBC's complaints procedure) was in retrospect an example of angels dancing on the head of a pin!

To discuss these previous points any further would probably lead to Line of Duty scales of confusion and I would have drawn a line under this now

Except that you then again raise the canard of my being a "forelock tugger" again.

With flimsy evidence to go on.

Denounced republicanism?? Rubbish. I did point out that Republics don't always work and that the amount of poor ones probably outweigh the decent ones. I also said

"It(a republic) may well happen one day. Not in my lifetime ( I am 67).And it may all go very well.
But it will not necessarily be the Utopia that some looking forward to"

Nothing denouncing republicanism there. The theory is one I agree with. It's the implementation that often causes the problems.

As for staunch royalist - you seem to have missed this from my earlier post

"However I am not ( despite what you seem to have picked up from somewhere???) an unconditional monarchist. Even though Philip modernised them, they may still need to take a hard look at themselves when the Queen passes away. Not a republic in my view but certainly a streamlining - do they really need so many houses????"

I mean to add " at this time" after republic and "and some of the other trappings of royalty" after houses. Even so I am barely giving royalty a ringing endorsement here am i?

Then there is my "seeming determination to portray the population as staunch royalists". and "extreme lengths"(?) in quoting Youtube figures. Actually I was being a bit mischievous, because I am well aware that Youtube represents world wide figures and that some people will have watched it again on there and on Iplayer and ITV hub. Nonetheless some extra will have watched at least some of it for the first time on those platforms or on the multifarious news broadcasts but whether they were royalists or not I couldn't really care, I wasn't trying to make a point just being a bit pedantic. I really wasn't trying to make a royalist or republican post. I meant to get rid of the last sentence about perspective on reflection but I was too late and missed the edit window.

If you can point to anything I wrote as being a republican denouncer or staunch royalist please point it out.

Based on what I have just said calling me a "forelock tugger " is, to quote Jim Hacker a load of round objects.

[the other bob wilson]

I apologise for taking so long to respond to this Bob.

As I pointed out in another thread I have been unwell recently (in fact for
over a week but the antibiotics I am taking for a nasty leg infection seem to have helped the problem but have caused their own problems in particular chronic indigestion which has mad me rather grumpy and was particularly bad in the last couple of days - and I am only halfway through the course!!).

This meant that a couple of responses of mine were slightly intemperate. If so I also apologise but I still think I was making some valid comments if in one case, (my point about the 100 who complained about BBC's complaints procedure) was in retrospect an example of angels dancing on the head of a pin!

To discuss these previous points any further would probably lead to Line of Duty scales of confusion and I would have drawn a line under this now

Except that you then again raise the canard of my being a "forelock tugger" again.

With flimsy evidence to go on.

Denounced republicanism?? Rubbish. I did point out that Republics don't always work and that the amount of poor ones probably outweigh the decent ones. I also said

"It(a republic) may well happen one day. Not in my lifetime ( I am 67).And it may all go very well.
But it will not necessarily be the Utopia that some looking forward to"

Nothing denouncing republicanism there. The theory is one I agree with. It's the implementation that often causes the problems.

As for staunch royalist - you seem to have missed this from my earlier post

"However I am not ( despite what you seem to have picked up from somewhere???) an unconditional monarchist. Even though Philip modernised them, they may still need to take a hard look at themselves when the Queen passes away. Not a republic in my view but certainly a streamlining - do they really need so many houses????"

I mean to add " at this time" after republic and "and some of the other trappings of royalty" after houses. Even so I am barely giving royalty a ringing endorsement here am i?

Then there is my "seeming determination to portray the population as staunch royalists". and "extreme lengths"(?) in quoting Youtube figures. Actually I was being a bit mischievous, because I am well aware that Youtube represents world wide figures and that some people will have watched it again on there and on Iplayer and ITV hub. Nonetheless some extra will have watched at least some of it for the first time on those platforms or on the multifarious news broadcasts but whether they were royalists or not I couldn't really care, I wasn't trying to make a point just being a bit pedantic. I really wasn't trying to make a royalist or republican post. I meant to get rid of the last sentence about perspective on reflection but I was too late and missed the edit window.

If you can point to anything I wrote as being a republican denouncer or staunch royalist please point it out.

Based on what I have just said calling me a "forelock tugger " is, to quote Jim Hacker a load of round objects.

Although I'm not totally succeeding, I'm trying to cut down on my political posts on here, so I'm going to leave this conversation now Elwood - we're just going around in circles.

Glad to hear you're feeling better now.

[Elwood Blues]

Although I'm not totally succeeding, I'm trying to cut down on my political posts on here, so I'm going to leave this conversation now Elwood - we're just going around in circles.

Glad to hear you're feeling better now.

Thank you for your good wishes Bob

I'm not sure we are going round in circles. I wasn't expecting a long answer, just an acknowledgement that the "Forelock Tugger" was unjustified. I don't think you would like it if a disparaging term like that was used unfairly. - My post would have relatively brief and brought this thread to a natural end if it hadn't been for this