Queens Pay Rise

[Manchester Saddler]

But I would strip them of some of their wealth and distribute it to the needy.

There's an old quote which goes something like "feed the man a fish and he'll eat once, teach him how to fish and he'll eat forever".

The needy I know all struggle to manage their money
They all smoke and that costs them in cash and their health.
It would be better if, instead of handouts, the needy were given training in how to handle their taxpayer funded money.
Solid training, with results affecting their payouts, not just turn up and stare blankly at the trainer.

Interesting generalisation.

The "needy" all smoke? Not in my experience. Some "needy" actually try to better themselves but with the cost of tuition fees, they all end up in debt.

Or how about giving the "needy" training full stop? Yes - there are schemes to help but not nearly enough.

Oh - and I'm damned sure "Her Majesty" has never had to worry about "being taught to fish".

Manchester - read what I wrote carefully - I said the "needy I know".

These 4 or 5 folk who are great people but they all smoke and struggle to manage their money.

So it's not a generalisation at all is it?

This is a fascinating example of message board and probably modern communication.

1. I make a comment
2. Cully makes what is probably a sarcastic reply
3. Manchester misreads or fails to understand either of the comments
4. Saigon comes in and has a go at both Cully and me due to Manchester's flawed response

Yo ho ho gentleman
It's no wonder the Trumps and their dangerously insane ilk get into power.

Nope - Whitters fails to understand my reply (read it carefully). I fully recognise Cully's sarcasm - and reply in the same way.

It's a thing we do!

:D

[shrewsbury saddler]

But I would strip them of some of their wealth and distribute it to the needy.

There's an old quote which goes something like "feed the man a fish and he'll eat once, teach him how to fish and he'll eat forever".

The needy I know all struggle to manage their money
They all smoke and that costs them in cash and their health.
It would be better if, instead of handouts, the needy were given training in how to handle their taxpayer funded money.
Solid training, with results affecting their payouts, not just turn up and stare blankly at the trainer.

Interesting generalisation.

The "needy" all smoke? Not in my experience. Some "needy" actually try to better themselves but with the cost of tuition fees, they all end up in debt.

Or how about giving the "needy" training full stop? Yes - there are schemes to help but not nearly enough.

Oh - and I'm damned sure "Her Majesty" has never had to worry about "being taught to fish".

Manchester - read what I wrote carefully - I said the "needy I know".

These 4 or 5 folk who are great people but they all smoke and struggle to manage their money.

So it's not a generalisation at all is it?

If you weren't intending to make a general point based on those 4 or 5, what actually was the point of your post?

[Cheesebag]

How did she get the land????? Used the same advisor as Bonsor

[Exile]

5. Whitters misreads Saigon's playful fun as a brutal and savage attack on himself and his kin unto the Nth generation, prompting him to make extraordinary and absurd connections with global politics.

:wink:

6 exile weighs in with weighty tome, locks thread when people are irked at being wrong. :mrgreen:

[Whitters]

5. Whitters misreads Saigon's playful fun as a brutal and savage attack on himself and his kin unto the Nth generation, prompting him to make extraordinary and absurd connections with global politics.

:wink:

6 exile weighs in with weighty tome, locks thread when people are irked at being wrong. :mrgreen:

Didn't you lose your mod status last time you lost the plot and avoided the swear filter over the Grenfell Towers issue?
An apology and I'll forget this latest bout :D

As for Saigon's "playful fun", I nominate you for the "lightweight poster" 10 year award.

[Exile]

5. Whitters misreads Saigon's playful fun as a brutal and savage attack on himself and his kin unto the Nth generation, prompting him to make extraordinary and absurd connections with global politics.

:wink:

6 exile weighs in with weighty tome, locks thread when people are irked at being wrong. :mrgreen:

Didn't you lose your mod status last time you lost the plot and avoided the swear filter over the Grenfell Towers issue?
An apology and I'll forget this latest bout :D

As for Saigon's "playful fun", I nominate you for the "lightweight poster" 10 year award.

Scurrilous rumour, generated by your good self! Any more and you're for the naughty step. :mrgreen:

[Whitters]

But I would strip them of some of their wealth and distribute it to the needy.

There's an old quote which goes something like "feed the man a fish and he'll eat once, teach him how to fish and he'll eat forever".

The needy I know all struggle to manage their money
They all smoke and that costs them in cash and their health.
It would be better if, instead of handouts, the needy were given training in how to handle their taxpayer funded money.
Solid training, with results affecting their payouts, not just turn up and stare blankly at the trainer.

Interesting generalisation.

The "needy" all smoke? Not in my experience. Some "needy" actually try to better themselves but with the cost of tuition fees, they all end up in debt.

Or how about giving the "needy" training full stop? Yes - there are schemes to help but not nearly enough.

Oh - and I'm damned sure "Her Majesty" has never had to worry about "being taught to fish".

Manchester - read what I wrote carefully - I said the "needy I know".

These 4 or 5 folk who are great people but they all smoke and struggle to manage their money.

So it's not a generalisation at all is it?

If you weren't intending to make a general point based on those 4 or 5, what actually was the point of your post?

Shrews, I was answering Manchester's statement where he said "But I would strip them of some of their wealth and distribute it to the needy".
A worthy thought by Manchester but the point I was making was that to get maximum benefit, in my opinion, the thought needs more work.
Otherwise there would only be short term gain.

And I based my comments on my experience with the "needy" - 4 or 5 people I know who I would say are "needy".
I'm just Whitters, not a global company which can come up with answers based on quizzing huge samples of these "needy" folk.

In this hypothetical discussion, would you just hand the Royal's cash over?

In real life, do you think that the country has welfare payments spot on or is more needed to get maximum benefit for the taxpayer - and in the long run, the recipient of the welfare?

[shrewsbury saddler]

"Shrews, I was answering Manchester's statement where he said "But I would strip them of some of their wealth and distribute it to the needy".
A worthy thought by Manchester but the point I was making was that to get maximum benefit, in my opinion, the thought needs more work.
Otherwise there would only be short term gain."
So you were making a general point. Glad to have cleared that up.

[SaigonSaddler]

As for Saigon's "playful fun", I nominate you for the "lightweight poster" 10 year award.

Not sure if that's meant for me, but I'll take it and stash it with the two prediction league championships I have accrued over the years. :D

[Whitters]

"Shrews, I was answering Manchester's statement where he said "But I would strip them of some of their wealth and distribute it to the needy".
A worthy thought by Manchester but the point I was making was that to get maximum benefit, in my opinion, the thought needs more work.
Otherwise there would only be short term gain."
So you were making a general point. Glad to have cleared that up.

Click on "reply with quote" generally speaking, it will save you the copy and paste.