egafd.com

Don't bother spook. All the Dribbler is interested in is boasting about how much better he is than everyone else.
His big wedge, his posh gaff, his superior wisdom etc. etc.
Wind and piss, wind and piss.

Mart

Not up to your usual mouthy standard.

Mart

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

I certainly don?t aspire to be middleclass, nor do any of my moody business mates. Being wealthy and working class will do us just fine. Hey, we don?t want to be going on anti-war or anti-globalization marches. We don?t want to attend community awareness or ethnic solidarity and inclusiveness meetings down at the Nelson Mandela Centre or write to the BBC and complain about global warming. And none of us prols give the slightest fuck about the Palestinians. That kinda stuff is for the middle classes. Us working class folk have far simpler tastes ? like chillin' by our villa?s pool in Marbella - with a champagne cocktail and an immaculately turned out east European dolly on each arm, before nipping out in the Merc SL55 convertible, to a swanky restraunt. That?ll do us, ta very much.

Being middleclass/working-class is not about money. It?s about culture, values and outlook ? and each community has a very different, quite distinct, take on them. Working class folks have little sympathy or time for the middleclass preoccupations of racism, equality, globalization, GM crops, etc. They think it?s all a load of ball bag (a sentiment with which I must confess some sympathy). But if middleclass folks are daft enough to give them some free money (benefits) they?ll certainly take it off their hands and, later on, raise a can of White Lightning to ?em. In short, and speaking for prols in general ? we don?t want yer middleclass politics, we don?t want yer middleclass morality, we just want yer middleclass money!


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

Balderdash.?

Which part?s ?balderdash?? Are you saying that the entrepreneurial working class aren?t smart or that the middle classes are not hampered by pretentious, affected, senses of guilt and morality?


?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.?

You know, I find it fascinating that you have once again avoided addressing a simple question head on. Which was ? ?And, pray sir, could you elaborate on why it was that only a minority were usually classed as deserving?" I think we both know why, don?t we? - Because the answer would be that the others (the majority) would have been deemed to be drunks, idiots, scoundrels, vagabonds, ruffians and thieves. And you just can?t countenance that, can you, spooky? (I?m getting inside your head, now). It would neutralize any argument you might have had ? because you know most folks would say, ?Well, shit. I wouldn?t want to give any charity to those kinds of idiots and scoundrels, either?. And you would have to confront the fact the some of those people were pretty nasty, moronic, and repellent - i.e., lowlifes. And that is just not allowed for in the doctrine that you have adopted, is it?

You dodge this problem by saying - ?The classification reflects the prejudices of those doling out the benefits rather than inherent characteristics of the recepients.? So, in other words, what you are saying is that there are no real scumbags, lowlifes, losers and morons ? it is just other people who have ill informed, irrational fears? Well, OK then, just nip down to the hospital and tell that to the granny who has been beaten black and blue for her pension money. Tell that to the stupid naive students who got duffed up and had their mobiles nicked by Rasta men and chavs. Hey, tell it to my pensioner mum, who only the other week, had the milked nicked off her doorstep, on consecutive days, by a pair of brainless, druggie, chav cunts (one being a girl) living in a council flat down the road (funded by the taxpayer!) They were collared by a neighbour ? a woman of fearsome disposition - who took the milk off them and returned it to my mum. Apparently, their excuse was that ?they had run out of milk? Also, my mum?s neighbour noted that the chav girl had a carving knife down the back of her chavy jeans! So, go and tell these victims of scumbags and lowlifes that they are just imagining it, tell them that their fears are unfounded and uninformed, tell them that they are just being ?prejudiced?.


?There is no clear deliniation between the working and middle classes in modern Britain.?

This is true, they do blend, there?s no line in the sand. And much more so nowadays. However, I still find that, within minutes of meeting a person, I can usually determine whether they have a working class or middleclass background.


?European and American teenage pregnancy rates?But why rely on facts when blind unreasoned prejudice will do.?

?Blind?? Sir, I?ll have you know that I avidly consume all serious news, comment, and documentary programs, and I have an insatiable appetite for Sunday broadsheets and their accompanying supplements. Not only that, but I?m an avid ?people watcher? too ? I love watchin? ?em twist, turn and squirm when they?re put on the spot. I like to see ?em fall in and follow predetermined patterns of behaviour. I like seeing ?em lie through their teeth in order to save face. It?s fascinating. I also grew up in the community likeliest to produce teenage mothers, so I could see for myself what was what ? In one instance I recall being at school with ?Joanne?, the girl next door. On this occasion we were in a fourth form geography lesson, when Joanne started complaining of stomach pains. So, anyhow, ?Miss? sends her home for the rest of the day - the consensus being that she must have caught a tummy bug. But, low and behold, in the next day or two Joanne comes back with a friggin? nipper in tow! Jeez, some tummy bug! A similar thing happened with another girl ?Amanda? who lived on the same terrace, but on the other side of us. So, please don?t patronise me, Sir. I?m pretty firkin? far from ?blind?, my general knowledge is at the very least equal to yours, and i'll wager, my experience of ?real life? far exceeds your own, presumably, comfy and sheltered middleclass upbringing. And ?unreasoned?? Hey, I can justify anything I say. I can tell you why, when, where and how ? as you well know by now.


?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?

Hmm?well, none of the prols I grew up with or any others that I have heard of have become social workers. As far as I can see, anyone who is ready to adopt the culture and values necessary for that job (in these PC times) is middleclass, period. Mind you, if they did hire us prols to become social workers we?d have the job sorted in no time at all ? we?d just give all those little fuckers and idiots who were playing up and causing bollocks such a good fucking ?slap? that they?d be begging to go to school ? and they?d probably sign up for the scouts and brownies, too! But I accept that not all middleclass people are social workers.


?No need to make it so personal?

I would never. Getting ?personal? or name-calling is the last resort of those that are losing the argument. It is a tacky, idiotic, thing to do and simply undermines the credibility of those doing the calling. If I have resorted to name calling in the past it is usually only to reciprocate and deal with some ?idiot? on their own terms. I do my best to avoid it. But, although I hate to bring it up, the same can?t be said of you, spooky. On more than one occasion you have tried to suggest that your debating partners are fools or uneducated idiots ? simply because they hold a view that differs from yours? Yes, you have.

But hey, I didn?t mean anything there ? it was you who brought the ?who?s life?s better? thing up and I was just trying to lighten the mood. Maybe I should have tagged my customary ?Wheyhey!? on the end of my statement ? to denote a change of mood?

But why are lefties almost always dour, earnest, and uptight? Why do they get sniffy and tetchy whenever anyone has the temerity to question the foundation of their ?beliefs?? Why are they so defensive? Could it be that they, in their heart of hearts, know that the foundation of their beliefs are built on shifting sands ? that nothing in nature is really equal and pretending it is and treating it as such is only putting off the day when one has to pay the piper. Could it be fear that the beliefs that they have invested so much of their life in will be shown to be a sham? Hey, you know what I say? What I say is, lighten up dude, don?t be a prisoner of your ?isms?, you can break free.


?clearly those who perceive that they live in a pleasant, unthreatening environment?

What, you mean like you, Spooky - in the leafy land of Parmesan and Cibatia? Must be nice for yer. But what about the poor old pensioners across town? The veterans of Dunkirk and Normandy, sat by the fire with their moggies, cowering in their council houses of an evening - while brainless, malevolent, chav yobs, pelt their windows, shout threats through their letterboxes, and set their garden sheds on fire? What of they, eh? What of they?


Officer Dibble