Theresa May’s spokesman has said Ben Bradley will keep his job as Conservative vice-chair for young people, despite having suggested that unemployed people should opt for free vasectomies rather than having children they could not afford.
He suggested that there was no reason to have specifically 10 children if you couldn't afford them and that vasectomies are free. In the context of welfare changes affecting any children from the third onwards.
Do you think people should have 10 children if they can't afford them?
If its unreasonable to suggest birth control is an alternative to having 10 children then surely the governments change to remove child tax credits etc from children 3 to 10 is going to have a much bigger impact on livelihoods than this comment?
....Given the EU see Brexit as lose/lose they will be negotiating on a zero sum basis. ...
That's a complete non-sequitur. They may well see it as a lose/lose (and they are probably right), but that doesn't mean that's a zero-sum game around a fixed total quantum of loss.
In terms of the negotiation, it's zero sum. The losses are already there. It's a question of how you distribute them. The party that believes it's stronger aims to push those losses onto the other party.
Not at all, it's not zero sum at all. The losses to both sides if we crash out chaotically into WTO will be massively larger than if we smoothly transition to a comprehensive trade agreement, especially one including financial services.
They expect a trade agreement, but one that is weighted in their favour. I personally think there is a mutual gain aspect, or more precisely an avoid mutual loss aspect, as well as the "zero sum" aspect, for the reasons you mention. The EU's plan would be to offer us enough "win/win's" (strictly loss avoidance), while parking the losses from the "zero sum's" on us. They should be able to do it. They just need to breathe the words "Nissan, Sunderland" in T May's ear and she will happily sign up for a goods-only trade deal. SM+CU or figleaf equivalent would avoid considerable pain however.
Alexis Sanchez on 450k per week, no wonder City turned him down, he'd be on roughly 200k a week MORE that City's best players.
There are several figures being talked about between £400,000 - £500,000 gross per week.
However, at £400,000 it would cost United £94 million over his contract + £35 million fee + £5 million agents fee to a total of £134 million but if Mkhitaryan goes the other way at circa £25 million it makes Sanchez deal at £109 million good business as they also save Mkhitaryan wages of approx £15 million
You’ve forgotten his signing on fee and employer’s NI.
For that 450k a week, you can pay Mo Salah (90), Harry Kane (120) and Aguero's wages (220) and have a spare million left over after a year.
What’s the total Employer’s NI on 450k per week over 4 years?
£12,897,281.28 I think.
The advantage for the government of a footballer’s earnings, as opposed to a “touring” sportsman like a golfer or a racing driver, is that they’re paid on the PAYE of a single employer.
Well we hope they are....Arsenal players for many years weren't. They were paid a basic salary and then the bulk of it was shares in an off-shore company.
Some foreign players allegedly paid incredibly small amounts of tax, waiting until they retired and left the country before they cashed in the value of these shares.
What happened to Theo Walcott this year ? Always thought he was a good player.Everton seems a backward move at his age.
He's 28 and isn't getting much playing time. Last chance for a World Cup place?
Yes good point , he went to a world cup as a 16 year old , missed one due to injury .Hopefully he will do well for Everton , and have a chance of getting into the squad.
Theresa May’s spokesman has said Ben Bradley will keep his job as Conservative vice-chair for young people, despite having suggested that unemployed people should opt for free vasectomies rather than having children they could not afford.
Which isn't what you said he said.
It's hardly controversial to suggest that people should think about whether they can afford to bring up children. But perhaps you think people should have lots of children they can't afford to bring up properly.
How is not what I said he said? He’s advocating unemployed people get vasectomies. That’s advocating people get a vasectomy because of their employment status.
I think people should think about whether they can afford kids, yes. Do I think they should consider vasectomies? No. Circumstances can change - just because you’re unemployed at one time, doesn’t mean that will be the case forever.
Mr. 43, "I genuinely don't believe the EU and member states care what public opinion in the UK thinks."
Could've been written pre-referendum. As others (and myself) have said before, the two sides don't understand one another well and don't seem interested in learning.
Be interesting to see how Poland/Hungary end up getting along with the EU and the migration resettlement nonsense.
There I disagree with you. As long as we have a vote, they care what we think, just as they care about everyone else. East Europe is a challenge for the EU and at this stage almost certainly a bigger challenge than Brexit. The basic assumption behind the European Union is that it is a club of liberal democracies that respect the rule of law. That assumption may not hold, particularly for East Europe
Theresa May’s spokesman has said Ben Bradley will keep his job as Conservative vice-chair for young people, despite having suggested that unemployed people should opt for free vasectomies rather than having children they could not afford.
He suggested that there was no reason to have specifically 10 children if you couldn't afford them and that vasectomies are free. In the context of welfare changes affecting any children from the third onwards.
Do you think people should have 10 children if they can't afford them?
If its unreasonable to suggest birth control is an alternative to having 10 children then surely the governments change to remove child tax credits etc from children 3 to 10 is going to have a much bigger impact on livelihoods than this comment?
Re the ten children remark, see my reply to Richard Nabavi’s previous post.
There are plenty of other methods of birth control that he could have suggested - contraceptive pill for example. Vasectomies are not the only option. At least with the pill when you’re in a better place financially you can go back and have more kids if you want to. Maybe I’ve gone mad, but you can’t reverse a vasectomy. That’s the problematic element of what he’s saying.
Theresa May’s spokesman has said Ben Bradley will keep his job as Conservative vice-chair for young people, despite having suggested that unemployed people should opt for free vasectomies rather than having children they could not afford.
Which isn't what you said he said.
It's hardly controversial to suggest that people should think about whether they can afford to bring up children. But perhaps you think people should have lots of children they can't afford to bring up properly.
How is not what I said he said? He’s advocating unemployed people get vasectomies. That’s advocating people get a vasectomy because of their employment status.
I think people should think about whether they can afford kids, yes. Do I think they should consider vasectomies? No. Circumstances can change - just because you’re unemployed at one time, doesn’t mean that will be the case forever.
You said "Bradley (IIRC) advocated vasectomies for people on the grounds of their employment status ". He didn't say that. His exact words, as quoted by the impeccable Guardian, were:
“It’s horrendous that there are families out there that can make vastly more than the average wage, (or in some cases more than a bloody good wage) just because they have 10 kids. Sorry but how many children you have is a choice; if you can’t afford them, stop having them! Vasectomies are free'.
He was talking about a minority of unemployed people who have large numbers of children they can't afford. You are quite smart enough to understand the difference between that and your grotesque mischaracterisation of what he said, if you take your partisan blinkers off.
"With Britain the smaller party in the negotiations, it must expect the EU27 to seek to split supply chains for the automotive and aerospace sectors over time, gaining from the inevitable border frictions that arise from the UK leaving the single market. The result will be a less efficient European industry, but if more production facilities shift to the continent, the losses could be distributed sufficiently to the UK’s detriment that the EU27 still hopes to come out a winner."
He expects the EU to behave in a majorly chumpish (in the Mandelson sense) manner, for a doubtful and minor gain? Possible, I spose, but there's lots of games theory showing that playing nice is usually a profitable strategy, and in this case, over and above that general point there's the presumed one that at least some on the eu side hope and expect to welcome us back as full members in the next decade.
Enough already of the "zero sum game" btw. It may have had a useful meaning once upon a time, but all it ever seems to mean these days is that resources are not infinite, which they never are, so no point saying it.
I genuinely don't believe the EU and member states care what public opinion in the UK thinks. As far as they are concerned Brexit is an unfriendly thing to do, which damages them, and their main concern is to limit that damage. Maybe they cut off their nose to spite their face, but we can hardly lecture them on that.
There's a potential deal to be done. The UK agrees to do everything the EU tells it for evermore. The UK gets full access to the EU system and doesn't need to competitively reduce wages, pensions etc. Everyone is happy. Sort of. aka "Taking Back Control". Both sides are some way from that point however.
Question, what do you call a negotiation with a fixed amount of loss or gain, if zero sum is not the correct term?
"a negotiation with a fixed amount of loss or gain" seems to me quite a good way of putting it, because I don't see what the "game" metaphor adds. Most games work on the basis that for there to be winners, there must be losers. Most are also have a finite number of possible outcomes - the result is you win or you lose, but in some like poker you can win big or not so big. I suppose football matches are an edge case in a situation where aggregates count (whatever the feck they are). most negotiations (including, as Richard Nabavi has pointed out, this one) have a lot more than two possible outcomes, so like poker, but with the crucial distinction that "everybody wins" is not just a possible, but actually a very common if not the default, outcome.
Offering birth control for free on the NHS is what we already do and have my entire lifetime - it's not eugenics.
Quite.
Or are those critcising this fellow now suggesting that the poor should have no birth control? Or should have to pay for it?
IMO the remarks he should be criticised for are those suggesting that poor people are less worthy because they are poor. Not the vasectomy comment.
A person’s worth does not depend on their wealth.
Not that they should have no birth control, but unemployed people shouldn’t have to have vasectomies just because they are poor.
He was not suggesting that they should be made to have them. He was pointing out - somewhat crudely - that if you cannot afford to have children you aren’t forced to have them since birth control is available for free.
There was a nastierundercurrent to his remarks suggesting that poor people should not have families because, being poor, they are worthless: an implication I dislike.
But the idea that you should take into account what you can afford when making life decisions is not - or should not be - controversial.
Most people limit the size of their families to what they can afford.
Offering birth control for free on the NHS is what we already do and have my entire lifetime - it's not eugenics.
Quite.
Or are those critcising this fellow now suggesting that the poor should have no birth control? Or should have to pay for it?
IMO the remarks he should be criticised for are those suggesting that poor people are less worthy because they are poor. Not the vasectomy comment.
A person’s worth does not depend on their wealth.
Not that they should have no birth control, but unemployed people shouldn’t have to have vasectomies just because they are poor.
I hesitate to defend the guy, but I think the point he was attempting to make, in a rather crass manner, was that they should consider limiting the size of their families (which is, after all, something most parents have to consider). At no point did he say they should "have to have" vasectomies, as far as I'm aware.
Can I just get something straight? After apologising for his comments and deleting the blog on which they appeared, is Bradley a persecuted victim of a twitter mob driven mad by political correctness, or a watery bowelled sap without the courage of his (perfectly correct according to PB Tories) convictions?
Can I just get something straight? After apologising for his comments and deleting the blog on which they appeared, is Bradley a persecuted victim of a twitter mob driven mad by political correctness, or a watery bowelled sap without the courage of his (perfectly correct according to PB Tories) convictions?
Neither, he is someone who wrote some rather silly things a few years ago, but not the things the Guardian-reading classes accuse him of having written.
Theresa May’s spokesman has said Ben Bradley will keep his job as Conservative vice-chair for young people, despite having suggested that unemployed people should opt for free vasectomies rather than having children they could not afford.
Which isn't what you said he said.
It's hardly controversial to suggest that people should think about whether they can afford to bring up children. But perhaps you think people should have lots of children they can't afford to bring up properly.
How is not what I said he said? He’s advocating unemployed people get vasectomies. That’s advocating people get a vasectomy because of their employment status.
I think people should think about whether they can afford kids, yes. Do I think they should consider vasectomies? No. Circumstances can change - just because you’re unemployed at one time, doesn’t mean that will be the case forever.
You said "Bradley (IIRC) advocated vasectomies for people on the grounds of their employment status ". He didn't say that. His exact words, as quoted by the impeccable Guardian, were:
“It’s horrendous that there are families out there that can make vastly more than the average wage, (or in some cases more than a bloody good wage) just because they have 10 kids. Sorry but how many children you have is a choice; if you can’t afford them, stop having them! Vasectomies are free'.
He was talking about a minority of unemployed people who have large numbers of children they can't afford. You are quite smart enough to understand the difference between that and your grotesque mischaracterisation of what he said, if you take your partisan blinkers off.
Yeah, that’s advocating vascemoties based off of employment status. He’s saying unemployed people get more money from having lots of kids, that’s bad - ergo, in order for that to stop happening they should get vasectomies because of their employment status. My parstian blinkers? Right now I don’t really support any political party.
Offering birth control for free on the NHS is what we already do and have my entire lifetime - it's not eugenics.
Quite.
Or are those critcising this fellow now suggesting that the poor should have no birth control? Or should have to pay for it?
IMO the remarks he should be criticised for are those suggesting that poor people are less worthy because they are poor. Not the vasectomy comment.
A person’s worth does not depend on their wealth.
Not that they should have no birth control, but unemployed people shouldn’t have to have vasectomies just because they are poor.
I hesitate to defend the guy, but I think the point he was attempting to make, in a rather crass manner, was that they should consider limiting the size of their families (which is, after all, something most parents have to consider). At no point did he say they should "have to have" vasectomies, as far as I'm aware.
Offering birth control for free on the NHS is what we already do and have my entire lifetime - it's not eugenics.
Quite.
Or are those critcising this fellow now suggesting that the poor should have no birth control? Or should have to pay for it?
IMO the remarks he should be criticised for are those suggesting that poor people are less worthy because they are poor. Not the vasectomy comment.
A person’s worth does not depend on their wealth.
Not that they should have no birth control, but unemployed people shouldn’t have to have vasectomies just because they are poor.
He was not suggesting that they should be made to have them. He was pointing out - somewhat crudely - that if you cannot afford to have children you aren’t forced to have them since birth control is available for free.
There was a nastierundercurrent to his remarks suggesting that poor people should not have families because, being poor, they are worthless: an implication I dislike.
But the idea that you should take into account what you can afford when making life decisions is not - or should not be - controversial.
Most people limit the size of their families to what they can afford.
In a previous post I said that I agreed that people should consider whether they can afford kids, yes. But that doesn’t mean getting a vasectomy.
Yeah, that’s advocating vascemoties based off of employment status. He’s saying unemployed people get more money from having lots of kids, that’s bad - ergo, in order for that to stop happening they should get vasectomies because of their employment status. My parstian blinkers? Right now I don’t really support any political party.
I give up, you are simply arguing by ignoring the plain sense of perfectly ordinary English sentences..
Theresa May’s spokesman has said Ben Bradley will keep his job as Conservative vice-chair for young people, despite having suggested that unemployed people should opt for free vasectomies rather than having children they could not afford.
Which isn't what you said he said.
It's hardly controversial to suggest that people should think about whether they can afford to bring up children. But perhaps you think people should have lots of children they can't afford to bring up properly.
How is not what I said he said? He’s advocating unemployed people get vasectomies. That’s advocating people get a vasectomy because of their employment status.
I think people should think about whether they can afford kids, yes. Do I think they should consider vasectomies? No. Circumstances can change - just because you’re unemployed at one time, doesn’t mean that will be the case forever.
So use some other form of birth control then. And vasectomies can, sometimes, be reversed.
It’s amazing how some can be outraged both at May appointing a woman who wanted to restrict access to abortion in some circumstances and appointing a man who points out the availability of free contraception.
It would be quicker if people said “They’re Tories and therefore everything they say is wrong and horrid and racist and whatever other boo-word is the day’s favourite”. And stop with all the hyper-ventilating outrage. There is quite enough out there to critcise calmly without all the crying wolf which goes on.
Can I just get something straight? After apologising for his comments and deleting the blog on which they appeared, is Bradley a persecuted victim of a twitter mob driven mad by political correctness, or a watery bowelled sap without the courage of his (perfectly correct according to PB Tories) convictions?
Neither, he is someone who wrote some rather silly things a few years ago, but not the things the Guardian-reading classes accuse him of having written.
Can I just get something straight? After apologising for his comments and deleting the blog on which they appeared, is Bradley a persecuted victim of a twitter mob driven mad by political correctness, or a watery bowelled sap without the courage of his (perfectly correct according to PB Tories) convictions?
Neither, he is someone who wrote some rather silly things a few years ago, but not the things the Guardian-reading classes accuse him of having written.
Times-reading classes, surely?
Dunno, I'm too mean to subscribe to Mr Murdoch's distinguished organ.
Theresa May’s spokesman has said Ben Bradley will keep his job as Conservative vice-chair for young people, despite having suggested that unemployed people should opt for free vasectomies rather than having children they could not afford.
He suggested that there was no reason to have specifically 10 children if you couldn't afford them and that vasectomies are free. In the context of welfare changes affecting any children from the third onwards.
Do you think people should have 10 children if they can't afford them?
If its unreasonable to suggest birth control is an alternative to having 10 children then surely the governments change to remove child tax credits etc from children 3 to 10 is going to have a much bigger impact on livelihoods than this comment?
Re the ten children remark, see my reply to Richard Nabavi’s previous post.
There are plenty of other methods of birth control that he could have suggested - contraceptive pill for example. Vasectomies are not the only option. At least with the pill when you’re in a better place financially you can go back and have more kids if you want to. Maybe I’ve gone mad, but you can’t reverse a vasectomy. That’s the problematic element of what he’s saying.
You can reverse a vasectomy. And everyone sane, employed or not, has a think about their financial prospects when deciding whether to have children.
'He was talking about a minority of unemployed people who have large numbers of children they can't afford. You are quite smart enough to understand the difference between that and your grotesque mischaracterisation of what he said, if you take your partisan blinkers off. Yeah, that’s advocating vascemoties based off of employment status. He’s saying unemployed people get more money from having lots of kids, that’s bad - ergo, in order for that to stop happening they should get vasectomies because of their employment status. My parstian blinkers? Right now I don’t really support any political party.'
I haven't commented on this before but it does seem to be political point scoring. The point he was making would resonate well with many and his error was to suggest vasectomy rather than birth control.
Interesting ('this' is the apparent long-term over-estimate of inflation caused by incorrectly accounting for telecoms and other technology improvements)
Theresa May’s spokesman has said Ben Bradley will keep his job as Conservative vice-chair for young people, despite having suggested that unemployed people should opt for free vasectomies rather than having children they could not afford.
Which isn't what you said he said.
It's hardly controversial to suggest that people should think about whether they can afford to bring up children. But perhaps you think people should have lots of children they can't afford to bring up properly.
How is not what I said he said? He’s advocating unemployed people get vasectomies. That’s advocating people get a vasectomy because of their employment status.
I think people should think about whether they can afford kids, yes. Do I think they should consider vasectomies? No. Circumstances can change - just because you’re unemployed at one time, doesn’t mean that will be the case forever.
So use some other form of birth control then. And vasectomies can, sometimes, be reversed.
It’s amazing how some can be outraged both at May appointing a woman who wanted to restrict access to abortion in some circumstances and appointing a man who points out the availability of free contraception.
It would be quicker if people said “They’re Tories and therefore everything they say is wrong and horrid and racist and whatever other boo-word is the day’s favourite”. And stop with all the hyper-ventilating outrage. There is quite enough out there to critcise calmly without all the crying wolf which goes on.
Theresa May’s spokesman has said Ben Bradley will keep his job as Conservative vice-chair for young people, despite having suggested that unemployed people should opt for free vasectomies rather than having children they could not afford.
Which isn't what you said he said.
It's hardly controversial to suggest that people should think about whether they can afford to bring up children. But perhaps you think people should have lots of children they can't afford to bring up properly.
How is not what I said he said? He’s advocating unemployed people get vasectomies. That’s advocating people get a vasectomy because of their employment status.
I think people should think about whether they can afford kids, yes. Do I think they should consider vasectomies? No. Circumstances can change - just because you’re unemployed at one time, doesn’t mean that will be the case forever.
So use some other form of birth control then. And vasectomies can, sometimes, be reversed.
It’s amazing how some can be outraged both at May appointing a woman who wanted to restrict access to abortion in some circumstances and appointing a man who points out the availability of free contraception.
It would be quicker if people said “They’re Tories and therefore everything they say is wrong and horrid and racist and whatever other boo-word is the day’s favourite”. And stop with all the hyper-ventilating outrage. There is quite enough out there to critcise calmly without all the crying wolf which goes on.
Men really are taking a risk on a vasectomy being reversible if they get it. Seems like more often than not it isn’t reversible after nine years.
I don’t see how it’s ‘amazing’ to be outraged at both at all. I don’t think poor people should get vasectomies because of their income, and I think that abortion should be decriminalised. I’m not ‘outraged’ these are simply my views.
Theresa May’s spokesman has said Ben Bradley will keep his job as Conservative vice-chair for young people, despite having suggested that unemployed people should opt for free vasectomies rather than having children they could not afford.
He suggested that there was no reason to have specifically 10 children if you couldn't afford them and that vasectomies are free. In the context of welfare changes affecting any children from the third onwards.
Do you think people should have 10 children if they can't afford them?
If its unreasonable to suggest birth control is an alternative to having 10 children then surely the governments change to remove child tax credits etc from children 3 to 10 is going to have a much bigger impact on livelihoods than this comment?
Re the ten children remark, see my reply to Richard Nabavi’s previous post.
There are plenty of other methods of birth control that he could have suggested - contraceptive pill for example. Vasectomies are not the only option. At least with the pill when you’re in a better place financially you can go back and have more kids if you want to. Maybe I’ve gone mad, but you can’t reverse a vasectomy. That’s the problematic element of what he’s saying.
You can reverse a vasectomy. And everyone sane, employed or not, has a think about their financial prospects when deciding whether to have children.
re vasectomy, see my post to Cyclefree just now. Re financial prospects, this is a point I’ve now addressed in several different replies. You can think about financial prospects when having kids without having to have a vasectomy.
Theresa May’s spokesman has said Ben Bradley will keep his job as Conservative vice-chair for young people, despite having suggested that unemployed people should opt for free vasectomies rather than having children they could not afford.
He suggested that there was no reason to have specifically 10 children if you couldn't afford them and that vasectomies are free. In the context of welfare changes affecting any children from the third onwards.
Do you think people should have 10 children if they can't afford them?
If its unreasonable to suggest birth control is an alternative to having 10 children then surely the governments change to remove child tax credits etc from children 3 to 10 is going to have a much bigger impact on livelihoods than this comment?
Re the ten children remark, see my reply to Richard Nabavi’s previous post.
There are plenty of other methods of birth control that he could have suggested - contraceptive pill for example. Vasectomies are not the only option. At least with the pill when you’re in a better place financially you can go back and have more kids if you want to. Maybe I’ve gone mad, but you can’t reverse a vasectomy. That’s the problematic element of what he’s saying.
You can reverse a vasectomy. And everyone sane, employed or not, has a think about their financial prospects when deciding whether to have children.
Vasectomy reversal has a poor success rate. That said, 10 kids would sufficient for most everybody! Vasectomy should be considered.
I seem to hace missed the outrage bus, when is the next one along?
Theresa May’s spokesman has said Ben Bradley will keep his job as Conservative vice-chair for young people, despite having suggested that unemployed people should opt for free vasectomies rather than having children they could not afford.
Which isn't what you said he said.
It's hardly controversial to suggest that people should think about whether they can afford to bring up children. But perhaps you think people should have lots of children they can't afford to bring up properly.
How is not what I said he said? He’s advocating unemployed people get vasectomies. That’s advocating people get a vasectomy because of their employment status.
I think people should think about whether they can afford kids, yes. Do I think they should consider vasectomies? No. Circumstances can change - just because you’re unemployed at one time, doesn’t mean that will be the case forever.
So use some other form of birth control then. And vasectomies can, sometimes, be reversed.
It’s amazing how some can be outraged both at May appointing a woman who wanted to restrict access to abortion in some circumstances and appointing a man who points out the availability of free contraception.
It would be quicker if people said “They’re Tories and therefore everything they say is wrong and horrid and racist and whatever other boo-word is the day’s favourite”. And stop with all the hyper-ventilating outrage. There is quite enough out there to critcise calmly without all the crying wolf which goes on.
@Big_G_NorthWales I don’t see why him being 22 is such a defence. This, alongside my experiences with some older people in relation to #MeToo suggests that some seem to think that being under 25 is the equivalent of being idiot.
Interesting ('this' is the apparent long-term over-estimate of inflation caused by incorrectly accounting for telecoms and other technology improvements)
@Big_G_NorthWales I don’t see why him being 22 is such a defence. This, alongside my experiences with some older people in relation to #MeToo suggests that some seem to think that being under 25 is the equivalent of being idiot.
@Big_G_NorthWales I don’t see why him being 22 is such a defence. This, alongside my experiences with some older people in relation to #MeToo suggests that some seem to think that being under 25 is the equivalent of being idiot.
Yeah, that’s advocating vascemoties based off of employment status. He’s saying unemployed people get more money from having lots of kids, that’s bad - ergo, in order for that to stop happening they should get vasectomies because of their employment status. My parstian blinkers? Right now I don’t really support any political party.
No its not what he's saying at all.
He's saying that those employed have to think whether they want more kids or not and those those on benefits should do the same, which is what the 2-child tax credit cap is there for.
He never said that to stop it from happening they should get a vasectomy. Instead to stop people getting benefits for 10 kids the law was changed and this was written in that context - you can still have as many kids as you want you just won't get extra welfare for extra kids.
@Big_G_NorthWales I don’t see why him being 22 is such a defence. This, alongside my experiences with some older people in relation to #MeToo suggests that some seem to think that being under 25 is the equivalent of being idiot.
They don't *think* that, they remember it.
Well I’m sorry if they have such a bad opinion of their younger selves. But just because they think that their opinions back then were misguided does not mean that perspectives of young people today deserve to be dismissed.
Theresa May’s spokesman has said Ben Bradley will keep his job as Conservative vice-chair for young people, despite having suggested that unemployed people should opt for free vasectomies rather than having children they could not afford.
He suggested that there was no reason to have specifically 10 children if you couldn't afford them and that vasectomies are free. In the context of welfare changes affecting any children from the third onwards.
Do you think people should have 10 children if they can't afford them?
If its unreasonable to suggest birth control is an alternative to having 10 children then surely the governments change to remove child tax credits etc from children 3 to 10 is going to have a much bigger impact on livelihoods than this comment?
Re the ten children remark, see my reply to Richard Nabavi’s previous post.
There are plenty of other methods of birth control that he could have suggested - contraceptive pill for example. Vasectomies are not the only option. At least with the pill when you’re in a better place financially you can go back and have more kids if you want to. Maybe I’ve gone mad, but you can’t reverse a vasectomy. That’s the problematic element of what he’s saying.
You can reverse a vasectomy. And everyone sane, employed or not, has a think about their financial prospects when deciding whether to have children.
re vasectomy, see my post to Cyclefree just now. Re financial prospects, this is a point I’ve now addressed in several different replies. You can think about financial prospects when having kids without having to have a vasectomy.
Nobody said you had to have a vasectomy, he pointed out that if you don't want more kids then it [along with a plethora of other birth control] is free.
It remains your choice. Nobody suggested compulsion or making people have it.
Yeah, that’s advocating vascemoties based off of employment status. He’s saying unemployed people get more money from having lots of kids, that’s bad - ergo, in order for that to stop happening they should get vasectomies because of their employment status. My parstian blinkers? Right now I don’t really support any political party.
No its not what he's saying at all.
He's saying that those employed have to think whether they want more kids or not and those those on benefits should do the same, which is what the 2-child tax credit cap is there for.
He never said that to stop it from happening they should get a vasectomy. Instead to stop people getting benefits for 10 kids the law was changed and this was written in that context - you can still have as many kids as you want you just won't get extra welfare for extra kids.
I don’t agree. He said this: ‘Bradley said he was sorry on Tuesday after it emerged he had claimed that the UK would soon be “drowning in a vast sea of unemployed wasters” if jobless families had four or five children while others limited themselves to one or two.’ Which doesn’t indicate he’s talking about employed people.
He then goes on to state: ‘In the blogpost revealed by BuzzFeed, Bradley said: “It’s horrendous that there are families out there that can make vastly more than the average wage, (or in some cases more than a bloody good wage) just because they have 10 kids. Sorry but how many children you have is a choice; if you can’t afford them, stop having them! Vasectomies are free.’
That conveys (a he’s upset that people are getting benefits as a result of having lots of kids (b that the solution is for smaller families (c. Then he mentions vasectomies, advocating this as way to control poor people’s family size.
Edit: re your most recent reply, I’ve addressed that point in previous posts.
@Big_G_NorthWales I don’t see why him being 22 is such a defence. This, alongside my experiences with some older people in relation to #MeToo suggests that some seem to think that being under 25 is the equivalent of being idiot.
They don't *think* that, they remember it.
Well I’m sorry if they have such a bad opinion of their younger selves. But just because they think that their opinions back then were misguided does not mean that perspectives of young people today deserve to be dismissed.
No it doesn't, although it doesn't mean they should automatically be accepted either.
On the general point, being young does not excuse an idiotic point, although if someone agrees they made an idiotic point, they have grown, it is more forgivable.
@Big_G_NorthWales I don’t see why him being 22 is such a defence. This, alongside my experiences with some older people in relation to #MeToo suggests that some seem to think that being under 25 is the equivalent of being idiot.
They don't *think* that, they remember it.
Well I’m sorry if they have such a bad opinion of their younger selves. But just because they think that their opinions back then were misguided does not mean that perspectives of young people today deserve to be dismissed.
No it doesn't, although it doesn't mean they should automatically be accepted either.
On the general point, being young does not excuse an idiotic point, although if someone agrees they made an idiotic point, they have grown, it is more forgivable.
I’m not suggesting that they should be automatically accepted.
If you thought telephone boxes were moribund think again:
"Drug deals 'done in a BT phone box'
BT is being urged to move a public phone box in Stoke-on-Trent which it's claimed is being used for drug dealing.
The Labour MP for Stoke North, Ruth Smeeth, told the House of Commons today that the synthetic drug Black Mamba is being sold from the booth in Hanley."
@Big_G_NorthWales I don’t see why him being 22 is such a defence. This, alongside my experiences with some older people in relation to #MeToo suggests that some seem to think that being under 25 is the equivalent of being idiot.
They don't *think* that, they remember it.
Well I’m sorry if they have such a bad opinion of their younger selves. But just because they think that their opinions back then were misguided does not mean that perspectives of young people today deserve to be dismissed.
No it doesn't, although it doesn't mean they should automatically be accepted either.
On the general point, being young does not excuse an idiotic point, although if someone agrees they made an idiotic point, they have grown, it is more forgivable.
I’m not suggesting that they should be automatically accepted.
Ms Apocalypse: we broadly agree on the substance, I think.
I do think, though, that the poor or the unemployed are not thereby excused from doing what all of us have to do i.e. take account of what they can afford when making decisions about how large or small their family should be.
It would be absurd - and quite unfair to those not on benefits - to excuse those on benefits from thinking through the consequences of their actions i.e. if you can't afford to have a child, you shouldn't - and there are plenty of ways of ensuring this.
Being unemployed does not - or should not - excuse you from going through the same thought processes as the rest of us.
We cannot be in the single market or customs union without being tied to the EU so we will be out but all sectors are included in trade negotiations in Macron's own words.
I am convinced more than ever we will have a reasonable deal, be out of the EU, but it will not satisfy the hard remainers or leavers who are both on the extremes of the argument
Theresa May’s spokesman has said Ben Bradley will keep his job as Conservative vice-chair for young people, despite having suggested that unemployed people should opt for free vasectomies rather than having children they could not afford.
He suggested that there was no reason to have specifically 10 children if you couldn't afford them and that vasectomies are free. In the context of welfare changes affecting any children from the third onwards.
Do you think people should have 10 children if they can't afford them?
If its unreasonable to suggest birth control is an alternative to having 10 children then surely the governments change to remove child tax credits etc from children 3 to 10 is going to have a much bigger impact on livelihoods than this comment?
Re the ten children remark, see my reply to Richard Nabavi’s previous post.
There are plenty of other methods of birth control that he could have suggested - contraceptive pill for example. Vasectomies are not the only option. At least with the pill when you’re in a better place financially you can go back and have more kids if you want to. Maybe I’ve gone mad, but you can’t reverse a vasectomy. That’s the problematic element of what he’s saying.
You can reverse a vasectomy. And everyone sane, employed or not, has a think about their financial prospects when deciding whether to have children.
Vasectomy reversal has a poor success rate. That said, 10 kids would sufficient for most everybody! Vasectomy should be considered.
I seem to hace missed the outrage bus, when is the next one along?
I'm pretty sure I've occasionally posted stuff, either here or on other fora, that would rule out a career in public life, according to current standards.
On topic and particularly pleasing because of how much it will annoy TSE. Got to say that what I have seen of the Anglo-French deals done today are very pleasing.
Closer defence cooperation and the French agreeing that we will continue to process migrants on the French side of the channel rather than in England are very good decisions. It is obvious that there is a cost in this and we should be paying towards it so it is very good to see May and Macron making these sorts of grown up decisions.
I'm pretty sure I've occasionally posted stuff, either here or on other fora, that would rule out a career in public life, according to current standards.
I've been posting on Usenet since I was 17, twenty odd years ago, recorded for all time.
Ireview my posting history from time to time.
Its safe to say everyone I've ever called a twat thoroughly deserved it.
@Big_G_NorthWales I don’t see why him being 22 is such a defence. This, alongside my experiences with some older people in relation to #MeToo suggests that some seem to think that being under 25 is the equivalent of being idiot.
They don't *think* that, they remember it.
Well I’m sorry if they have such a bad opinion of their younger selves. But just because they think that their opinions back then were misguided does not mean that perspectives of young people today deserve to be dismissed.
I am so non-dismissive of the views of the young that I allowed my then 17 y.o. son to dictate how I should vote in the EUref, because I couldn't decide and it is going to be his problem longer than mine (I hope). There is much less of an intergenerational war on than you think there is.
Theresa May’s spokesman has said Ben Bradley will keep his job as Conservative vice-chair for young people, despite having suggested that unemployed people should opt for free vasectomies rather than having children they could not afford.
He suggested that there was no reason to have specifically 10 children if you couldn't afford them and that vasectomies are free. In the context of welfare changes affecting any children from the third onwards.
Do you think people should have 10 children if they can't afford them?
If its unreasonable to suggest birth control is an alternative to having 10 children then surely the governments change to remove child tax credits etc from children 3 to 10 is going to have a much bigger impact on livelihoods than this comment?
Re the ten children remark, see my reply to Richard Nabavi’s previous post.
There are plenty of other methods of birth control that he could have suggested - contraceptive pill for example. Vasectomies are not the only option. At least with the pill when you’re in a better place financially you can go back and have more kids if you want to. Maybe I’ve gone mad, but you can’t reverse a vasectomy. That’s the problematic element of what he’s saying.
You can reverse a vasectomy. And everyone sane, employed or not, has a think about their financial prospects when deciding whether to have children.
Vasectomy reversal has a poor success rate. That said, 10 kids would sufficient for most everybody! Vasectomy should be considered.
I seem to hace missed the outrage bus, when is the next one along?
I'm pretty sure I've occasionally posted stuff, either here or on other fora, that would rule out a career in public life, according to current standards.
On topic and particularly pleasing because of how much it will annoy TSE. Got to say that what I have seen of the Anglo-French deals done today are very pleasing.
Closer defence cooperation and the French agreeing that we will continue to process migrants on the French side of the channel rather than in England are very good decisions. It is obvious that there is a cost in this and we should be paying towards it so it is very good to see May and Macron making these sorts of grown up decisions.
@Big_G_NorthWales I don’t see why him being 22 is such a defence. This, alongside my experiences with some older people in relation to #MeToo suggests that some seem to think that being under 25 is the equivalent of being idiot.
They don't *think* that, they remember it.
Well I’m sorry if they have such a bad opinion of their younger selves. But just because they think that their opinions back then were misguided does not mean that perspectives of young people today deserve to be dismissed.
I am so non-dismissive of the views of the young that I allowed my then 17 y.o. son to dictate how I should vote in the EUref, because I couldn't decide and it is going to be his problem longer than mine (I hope). There is much less of an intergenerational war on than you think there is.
Sometimes it doesn’t feel like that, especially when you’re on twitter (and with some of the conversations that I’ve had with some family members). I hope you’re right.
Yeah, that’s advocating vascemoties based off of employment status. He’s saying unemployed people get more money from having lots of kids, that’s bad - ergo, in order for that to stop happening they should get vasectomies because of their employment status. My parstian blinkers? Right now I don’t really support any political party.
No its not what he's saying at all.
He's saying that those employed have to think whether they want more kids or not and those those on benefits should do the same, which is what the 2-child tax credit cap is there for.
He never said that to stop it from happening they should get a vasectomy. Instead to stop people getting benefits for 10 kids the law was changed and this was written in that context - you can still have as many kids as you want you just won't get extra welfare for extra kids.
I don’t agree. He said this: ‘Bradley said he was sorry on Tuesday after it emerged he had claimed that the UK would soon be “drowning in a vast sea of unemployed wasters” if jobless families had four or five children while others limited themselves to one or two.’ Which doesn’t indicate he’s talking about employed people.
He then goes on to state: ‘In the blogpost revealed by BuzzFeed, Bradley said: “It’s horrendous that there are families out there that can make vastly more than the average wage, (or in some cases more than a bloody good wage) just because they have 10 kids. Sorry but how many children you have is a choice; if you can’t afford them, stop having them! Vasectomies are free.’
That conveys (a he’s upset that people are getting benefits as a result of having lots of kids (b that the solution is for smaller families (c. Then he mentions vasectomies, advocating this as way to control poor people’s family size.
Edit: re your most recent reply, I’ve addressed that point in previous posts.
Can I ask - serious question - in what way are Bradley's remarks significantly different from this:
Theresa May’s spokesman has said Ben Bradley will keep his job as Conservative vice-chair for young people, despite having suggested that unemployed people should opt for free vasectomies rather than having children they could not afford.
Which isn't what you said he said.
It's hardly controversial to suggest that people should think about whether they can afford to bring up children. But perhaps you think people should have lots of children they can't afford to bring up properly.
How is not what I said he said? He’s advocating unemployed people get vasectomies. That’s advocating people get a vasectomy because of their employment status.
I think people should think about whether they can afford kids, yes. Do I think they should consider vasectomies? No. Circumstances can change - just because you’re unemployed at one time, doesn’t mean that will be the case forever.
So use some other form of birth control then. And vasectomies can, sometimes, be reversed.
It’s amazing how some can be outraged both at May appointing a woman who wanted to restrict access to abortion in some circumstances and appointing a man who points out the availability of free contraception.
It would be quicker if people said “They’re Tories and therefore everything they say is wrong and horrid and racist and whatever other boo-word is the day’s favourite”. And stop with all the hyper-ventilating outrage. There is quite enough out there to critcise calmly without all the crying wolf which goes on.
I don’t think poor people should get vasectomies because of their income, and I think that abortion should be decriminalised. I’m not ‘outraged’ these are simply my views.
Most people have the same view surely. Although a poll by party allegiance. and indeed age group would probably revealing.
On topic and particularly pleasing because of how much it will annoy TSE. Got to say that what I have seen of the Anglo-French deals done today are very pleasing.
Closer defence cooperation and the French agreeing that we will continue to process migrants on the French side of the channel rather than in England are very good decisions. It is obvious that there is a cost in this and we should be paying towards it so it is very good to see May and Macron making these sorts of grown up decisions.
+1
And the new treaty agreed on Calais is 'The Sandhurst Treaty'
On topic and particularly pleasing because of how much it will annoy TSE. Got to say that what I have seen of the Anglo-French deals done today are very pleasing.
Closer defence cooperation and the French agreeing that we will continue to process migrants on the French side of the channel rather than in England are very good decisions. It is obvious that there is a cost in this and we should be paying towards it so it is very good to see May and Macron making these sorts of grown up decisions.
Yeah, that’s advocating vascemoties based off of employment status. He’s saying unemployed people get more money from having lots of kids, that’s bad - ergo, in order for that to stop happening they should get vasectomies because of their employment status. My parstian blinkers? Right now I don’t really support any political party.
No its not what he's saying at all.
He's saying that those employed have to think whether they want more kids or not and those those on benefits should do the same, which is what the 2-child tax credit cap is there for.
He never said that to stop it from happening they should get a vasectomy. Instead to stop people getting benefits for 10 kids the law was changed and this was written in that context - you can still have as many kids as you want you just won't get extra welfare for extra kids.
I don’t agree. He said this: ‘Bradley said he was sorry on Tuesday after it emerged he had claimed that the UK would soon be “drowning in a vast sea of unemployed wasters” if jobless families had four or five children while others limited themselves to one or two.’ Which doesn’t indicate he’s talking about employed people.
He then goes on to state: ‘In the blogpost revealed by BuzzFeed, Bradley said: “It’s horrendous that there are families out there that can make vastly more than the average wage, (or in some cases more than a bloody good wage) just because they have 10 kids. Sorry but how many children you have is a choice; if you can’t afford them, stop having them! Vasectomies are free.’
That conveys (a he’s upset that people are getting benefits as a result of having lots of kids (b that the solution is for smaller families (c. Then he mentions vasectomies, advocating this as way to control poor people’s family size.
Edit: re your most recent reply, I’ve addressed that point in previous posts.
Can I ask - serious question - in what way are Bradley's remarks significantly different from this:
The author of the piece doesn’t specifically advocate vasectomies for people in that families position. If Bradley had said ‘the contraceptive pill’ in place of vasectomies his blog post likely wouldn’t be generating headlines.
Comments
Got to be off now, to plod around in the cold. Humbug.
Do you think people should have 10 children if they can't afford them?
If its unreasonable to suggest birth control is an alternative to having 10 children then surely the governments change to remove child tax credits etc from children 3 to 10 is going to have a much bigger impact on livelihoods than this comment?
I think people should think about whether they can afford kids, yes. Do I think they should consider vasectomies? No. Circumstances can change - just because you’re unemployed at one time, doesn’t mean that will be the case forever.
There are plenty of other methods of birth control that he could have suggested - contraceptive pill for example. Vasectomies are not the only option. At least with the pill when you’re in a better place financially you can go back and have more kids if you want to. Maybe I’ve gone mad, but you can’t reverse a vasectomy. That’s the problematic element of what he’s saying.
“It’s horrendous that there are families out there that can make vastly more than the average wage, (or in some cases more than a bloody good wage) just because they have 10 kids. Sorry but how many children you have is a choice; if you can’t afford them, stop having them! Vasectomies are free'.
He was talking about a minority of unemployed people who have large numbers of children they can't afford. You are quite smart enough to understand the difference between that and your grotesque mischaracterisation of what he said, if you take your partisan blinkers off.
There was a nastierundercurrent to his remarks suggesting that poor people should not have families because, being poor, they are worthless: an implication I dislike.
But the idea that you should take into account what you can afford when making life decisions is not - or should not be - controversial.
Most people limit the size of their families to what they can afford.
At no point did he say they should "have to have" vasectomies, as far as I'm aware.
After apologising for his comments and deleting the blog on which they appeared, is Bradley a persecuted victim of a twitter mob driven mad by political correctness, or a watery bowelled sap without the courage of his (perfectly correct according to PB Tories) convictions?
It’s amazing how some can be outraged both at May appointing a woman who wanted to restrict access to abortion in some circumstances and appointing a man who points out the availability of free contraception.
It would be quicker if people said “They’re Tories and therefore everything they say is wrong and horrid and racist and whatever other boo-word is the day’s favourite”. And stop with all the hyper-ventilating outrage. There is quite enough out there to critcise calmly without all the crying wolf which goes on.
'He was talking about a minority of unemployed people who have large numbers of children they can't afford. You are quite smart enough to understand the difference between that and your grotesque mischaracterisation of what he said, if you take your partisan blinkers off.
Yeah, that’s advocating vascemoties based off of employment status. He’s saying unemployed people get more money from having lots of kids, that’s bad - ergo, in order for that to stop happening they should get vasectomies because of their employment status. My parstian blinkers? Right now I don’t really support any political party.'
...................................................................................................................
I haven't commented on this before but it does seem to be political point scoring. The point he was making would resonate well with many and his error was to suggest vasectomy rather than birth control.
He was also 22 and not in politics.
Immature maybe but hanging offence no
https://twitter.com/rbrharrison/status/954050584251961344
https://order-order.com/2018/01/18/tracy-brabins-tough-stance-on-misogyny-and-homophobia/
The ultimate in hypocracy of some Labour MPs, they call for Toby Young to be sacked one week and embrace Jared O’Mara the next.
Men really are taking a risk on a vasectomy being reversible if they get it. Seems like more often than not it isn’t reversible after nine years.
I don’t see how it’s ‘amazing’ to be outraged at both at all. I don’t think poor people should get vasectomies because of their income, and I think that abortion should be decriminalised. I’m not ‘outraged’ these are simply my views.
I seem to hace missed the outrage bus, when is the next one along?
I don’t see why him being 22 is such a defence. This, alongside my experiences with some older people in relation to #MeToo suggests that some seem to think that being under 25 is the equivalent of being idiot.
Perturbing how much outrage I can extract from the monosyllable "this".
Should be compulsory listening for all hard remainers and hard Brexiteers
He's saying that those employed have to think whether they want more kids or not and those those on benefits should do the same, which is what the 2-child tax credit cap is there for.
He never said that to stop it from happening they should get a vasectomy. Instead to stop people getting benefits for 10 kids the law was changed and this was written in that context - you can still have as many kids as you want you just won't get extra welfare for extra kids.
Is it outrageous Canadians chose not to become Americans?
It remains your choice. Nobody suggested compulsion or making people have it.
He then goes on to state: ‘In the blogpost revealed by BuzzFeed, Bradley said: “It’s horrendous that there are families out there that can make vastly more than the average wage, (or in some cases more than a bloody good wage) just because they have 10 kids. Sorry but how many children you have is a choice; if you can’t afford them, stop having them! Vasectomies are free.’
That conveys (a he’s upset that people are getting benefits as a result of having lots of kids (b that the solution is for smaller families (c. Then he mentions vasectomies, advocating this as way to control poor people’s family size.
Edit: re your most recent reply, I’ve addressed that point in previous posts.
On the general point, being young does not excuse an idiotic point, although if someone agrees they made an idiotic point, they have grown, it is more forgivable.
It is called 'The Sandhurst Treaty'
"Drug deals 'done in a BT phone box'
BT is being urged to move a public phone box in Stoke-on-Trent which it's claimed is being used for drug dealing.
The Labour MP for Stoke North, Ruth Smeeth, told the House of Commons today that the synthetic drug Black Mamba is being sold from the booth in Hanley."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-england-birmingham-42666978
I do think, though, that the poor or the unemployed are not thereby excused from doing what all of us have to do i.e. take account of what they can afford when making decisions about how large or small their family should be.
It would be absurd - and quite unfair to those not on benefits - to excuse those on benefits from thinking through the consequences of their actions i.e. if you can't afford to have a child, you shouldn't - and there are plenty of ways of ensuring this.
Being unemployed does not - or should not - excuse you from going through the same thought processes as the rest of us.
I am convinced more than ever we will have a reasonable deal, be out of the EU, but it will not satisfy the hard remainers or leavers who are both on the extremes of the argument
We've said what we want. Mrs May has had several speeches about it, and there have been extensive talks. Its pretty much Canada+
Closer defence cooperation and the French agreeing that we will continue to process migrants on the French side of the channel rather than in England are very good decisions. It is obvious that there is a cost in this and we should be paying towards it so it is very good to see May and Macron making these sorts of grown up decisions.
Ireview my posting history from time to time.
Its safe to say everyone I've ever called a twat thoroughly deserved it.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/children-victims-tory-welfare-cap-5784476
She then said
'I've never been the right age to jump out of a building'
And then goes on to say use No 7 day cream with our clinically proven serum.
I was utterly appalled at the inexcusable bad taste following Grenfell.
I hope the Company is castigated and reported to the ASA