egafd.com

The Daily Mail is a reactionary rag that constantly panders to people's toadying and fawning (the beatification of Princess Di), paranoia (the BBC is a left wing haven for homosexuals), greed (house prices all the fucking time) and fear (screaming headlines about immigrants).

Yes, Blair is full of shit, but any decent paper could point that out. Why does the Daily Mail think it has to tell its (mostly middle class, mostly C of E, mostly Tory) readership what to think? Shouldn't they be on message anyway?

Second worst comic in Britain after Scotland's own Daily Record (a vicious street thug of a paper with nothing but contempt for its readers, who it cynically tries to manipulate, and a vendetta mentality towards anyone who refuses to give it an interview; some poor sod who won the lottery, but wouldn't speak to the Record---or any other paper---was hounded, while it found his impoverished, estranged daughter who was only too willing to tell all to the bigoted west coast Neds that make up the majority of the readership).

"Who said anything about the middle classes deciding on who is worthy?"

Well if you support the concept of a "deserving" poor and an "undeserving" poor - who are going to be the ones making the distinction?

"And, pray sir, could you elaborate on why it was that only a minority was usually classed as deserving?"

Look at the statistics on the numbers of poor and the numbers that were actually given assistance because they were "deserving" cases. They don't form the majority.

"But it seems we do have some common ground here. We both seem to blame the middleclass."

No - we have no common ground there at all.

Firtsly the distinction between a working and middle class in modern Britain is virtually meaningless.

Secondly, to describe the middle class as uniformly "poncy" and to blame whilst people such as Thatcher, Keith Joseph etc are middle class archetypes just as much as your much despised "teachers and doctors" makes your argument invalid.

And your continued use of the word nonce in relation to an entire class doesn't make any sense whatsoever, either using the dictionary or the slang definition of the word.

Your view that all social problems commenced at a certain point in time is quite simply wrong. Levels of crime tripled in the 1950's - an enormous rate of increase - it certainly wasn't a golden age of social harmony wrecked by the policies of the 1960s.

Your use of social indicators is also highly skewed. I have seen nothing to suggest that literacy rates are lower now than they were in the 1960's, quite the reverse in fact. Yes, we have high teenage pregnancy rates for Europe (where the number and influence of middle-class state bureaucrats is higher), but the rate is low when compared to America (with its reduced tax rates and statism). So is "middle-class ponciness" a factor in increasing or decreasing the rates of teenage pregnancy?

"?the past 30 years are totally irrelevant.?

I strongly disagree."

Nice try - but your claim was that the ldistinction between the "deserving" and "undeserving" poor has been removed by the middle classes over the past 30 years - and I was responding by pointing out that this is not the case as the distinction fell into disuse in the early years of the last century.

Yes there are social problems in modern Britain - but to make claims that these can be blamed on the middle-classes are utterly simplistic, partly because of the impossibility of any meaningful definition of middle-class.

But modern Britain is also generally a perfectly pleasant place in which to live - and certainly no less pleasant than at any other time. So if it is simplistically possible to blame the middle-classes for all that has gone wrong, it must also be simplistically possible to praise them for all of the things that have gone right. So hats-off to the middle classes, you've been doing a fine job and long may it continue.

Of course, if people don't think that modern Britain is a pleasant place to live, then my life is better than yours - which is excellent news.

Go ahead and beat a bureaucrat. Maybe when you're inside we'll be spared your Samuel Smiles crap.

Mart

as far as i'm concerned the paper is only good for fred bassett and peanuts !

I joined their message board ... and the wankers deleted all my posts on the grounds they weren't in keeping with the spirit of the board. I think I 'inadvertently' upset a few regulars. One thing they certainly don't believe in is Freedom of Speech, especially if you criticise the paper.

"Well if you support the concept of a "deserving" poor and an "undeserving" poor - who are going to be the ones making the distinction?"

Good question. That's to be debated and decided. I suggest the entrepreneurial working classes. Those that have dragged themselves up from the gutter and now have nice big wedges. These people are smart, but unlike the middle classes they are not hampered by a false sense of guilt or affectedly pious morality. They can be generous of both spirit and wallet, with those that make an effort to help themselves, and they have the metal to dole out a kicking (metaphorical or otherwise) to wasters, scumbags and those simply beyond redemption.


You didn?t address the question - "And, pray sir, could you elaborate on why it was that only a minority was usually classed as deserving?" head on. I wasn?t disputing the numbers given assistance (I?ll take your word for it). What I wanted was for you to list some of the reasons why, at that time, the majority might have been deemed not worthy or undeserving?


?Firtsly the distinction between a working and middle class in modern Britain is virtually meaningless.?

Ha! That?s the most ridiculous, absurd, statement I have heard in a long while. Let me take you to the squalid crack dens of the handout dependant inner-city estates up my way (but keep yer hand on yer wallet). Then let me take you across the other side of town to the leafy land of cibatia, parmesan reggiani and evenings at the local literary club or amateur dramatics society. Then look me in the face and tell me there?s no difference. Ha! There?s a world of difference. They are two different tribes, with differing values, moralities, culture and expectations. Chalk and cheese. Or were you referring to the pronouncements of our Tone, when he declared that we were now all middleclass?


?And your continued use of the word nonce in relation to an entire class doesn't make any sense whatsoever, either using the dictionary or the slang definition of the word.?

It sounds good. Satisfying. It has the requisite feeling of weight and measured contempt I was looking for. It just seemed to fit.


?So is "middle-class ponciness" a factor in increasing or decreasing the rates of teenage pregnancy??

Well, I reckon it is. The middle classes have removed all censure and stigma to the institution of the unmarried mother and on top of that they are saying ? ?Hey, that?s not all. You can have a free house and free money as well - courtesy of our wonderfully generous (sucker) taxpayers? Shit, I have to admit, from a business point of view, any single female would be crackers not to go out get immediately inseminated.


?but to make claims that these can be blamed on the middle-classes are utterly simplistic, partly because of the impossibility of any meaningful definition of middle-class.?

It?s not impossible. I?m quite clear on the group I blame (as I have outlined at length, both in this thread and umpteen others). They are quite distinct from the rest of the population. And anyway, weren?t you just sneering at them in a little earlier ? sneering at them for making pronouncements on who was, and was not, worthy?


?But modern Britain is also generally a perfectly pleasant place in which to live - and certainly no less pleasant than at any other time. So if it is simplistically possible to blame the middle-classes for all that has gone wrong, it must also be simplistically possible to praise them for all of the things that have gone right. So hats-off to the middle classes, you've been doing a fine job and long may it continue.?

Being a rational, objective person, I can agree the middle classes have done plenty of good stuff and I certainly wouldn?t want to go back to the grey days of the 50?s. It?s just that they have taken some things a little to far. They don?t seem to be able to be rational or objective when they get a cause or bee in their bonnet. They tend to become loony zealots.


?then my life is better than yours?

Waddaya mean ?better?? How can it be better ? I?ve got a big wad, please myself, drive expensive sports cars and shag top birds. How can it be better than that? Now you?ve got me worried.



Officer Dibble

Go away, you horrible little man.


Officer Dibble

"Those that have dragged themselves up from the gutter and now have nice big wedges."

So the ones that aspire to be middle-class, and who it is impossibly difficult to define seperately from the middle class.

"These people are smart, but unlike the middle classes they are not hampered by a false sense of guilt or affectedly pious morality."

Balderdash.

"You didn?t address the question - "And, pray sir, could you elaborate on why it was that only a minority was usually classed as deserving?" head on. I wasn?t disputing the numbers given assistance (I?ll take your word for it). What I wanted was for you to list some of the reasons why, at that time, the majority might have been deemed not worthy or undeserving?"

Because those who were deserving were either "sympathetic", i.e. the elderly, infants, genteel people who had fallen onto hard times - or those, unusually for the urban poor of the time, who were keen christians and thus "worthy" of saving. The classification reflects the prejudices of those doling out the benefits rather than inherent characteristics of the recepients.

"Ha! That?s the most ridiculous, absurd, statement I have heard in a long while."

I can only suggest that you read aloud some of your own postings then to find this exceeded. Of course there is a difference between a tramp and a master-of-hounds, but the differences are virtually unclassifiable between, say, a plumber and an insurance clerk - and these sort of people make up the vast bulk of the population rather than your extreme example. There is no clear deliniation between the working and middle classes in modern Britain.

"Well, I reckon it is."

Neatly ignoring the evidence between European and American teenage pregnancy rates and the relative "ponciness" of the two socities. But why rely on facts when blind unreasoned prejudice will do.

"It?s not impossible. I?m quite clear on the group I blame (as I have outlined at length, both in this thread and umpteen others). They are quite distinct from the rest of the population. And anyway, weren?t you just sneering at them in a little earlier ? sneering at them for making pronouncements on who was, and was not, worthy?"

It is impossible. Just because you dislike social workers does not mean that all social workers are middle class or that all middle class people are social workers - nor does your prejudice mean that all the work done by social workers is counter-productive. I was sneering at the idea that social assistance should be available only at the prejudiced whim of well-meaning amateurs who believe that they have the ability to categorise their "social inferiors" into small groups of the "deserving" and much larger swathes of the "undeserving".

"Waddaya mean ?better?? How can it be better ? I?ve got a big wad, please myself, drive expensive sports cars and shag top birds. How can it be better than that? Now you?ve got me worried."

No need to make it so personal - especially as you have no idea about my income, sex-life etc. But clearly those who perceive that they live in a pleasant, unthreatening environment are going to be living a better life than those who perceive that they live in an unpleasant, threatening environment and who feel the need to stereotype, fear and despise significant numbers of their fellow countrymen.