Well, completely off topic but an interesting if very sad family dilemma that a friend has.
One of the grown up children in their early 20's, since graduating, has completely failed to take any steps to find a job or some other useful activity. It is driving the parents insane and all attempts at forcing or incentivising the child to engage with life have failed. Suggestions have been made, opportunities offered, including medical assistance for possible depression Nothing has worked.
It is now getting to the stage where the parents feel that the only option, for themselves and the rest of the family, is to throw the child out, which means - in effect - the streets. Sink or swim, even though they fear that this means the very worst will happen. But what else can they do?
No-one is legally obliged to maintain a lazy adult who takes no steps to help themselves. But they feel that, having done everything possible long past the stage that many would think reasonable, they have no more moral or emotional obligation. They are, though, utterly heartbroken as well as infuriated by the situation.
What do PB'ers think?
What a dilemma - but throwing him out is the worst solution. The family would never forgive themselves if something terrible happened.
Sounds like he may need to be sectioned to protect him
@HYUFD It’s more than just about exceeding expectations. It’s important to remember that Corbyn actually did much better than Ed Miliband did. While him matching Ed M would have still likely have seen him keep his job, I doubt many would think he that would be in with a chance of winning the next GE if that’s all he’d have done. You’re getting a lot of the ‘fanfare’ around Corbyn now because he exceeded expectations to such an extent that people think he might get into government/win a majority.
There are unconventional ways of winning, but the potential route to power offered by supporters of JRM is hardly unconventional. Appealing to older, more socially conservative voters is something we’ve been told is the basis for winning a majority for some time now. That all you need is affluent baby boomers/silent generation, and the WWC vote, and that’s it = significant majority. If anything it’s Corbyn’s coalition and means of gaining votes which was highly unconventional.
Ed Miliband got 30% of the vote, the second lowest Labour voteshare for 28 years, the 42% May got was the highest Tory voteshare for 34 years, a totally different proposition.
At the moment Corbyn is not going to win a majority on current polling even with the government's current problems, that gives plenty of room for Rees Mogg to challenge
Having dined out for ages telling us all that Boris is the perfect next PM, you're now going to do the same with JRM? Omg and lol.
Both have a lot more support with Tory voters and the public at large than you would expect
In contrast, JRM's "really don't like" is 44%, so he's an absolute beacon of popularity in comparison. Don't look at Corbyn's scores, they'll only depress you.
RE those bringing up the IRA and Corbyn being a ‘Marxist’ - Corbyn’s supporters are unlikely to have lived through, or remembered the days where IRA bombed places in the UK, or indeed the fall of communism. I only know about these things because of (a. my interest in politics (b. my mum having discussions with me about them. On top of that, Corbyn’s more hardcore supporters see successive governments association with Saudi Arabia, and Thatcher’s association with Pinochet as morally equivalent (edit: actually, thinking about it - they see it as worse) to Corbyn’s IRA association. That’s a message which gets relayed down to his less hardcore supporters meaning that to this group, the moral distinctions that Conservatives and others feel exist between them and Corbyn on these kinds of matters evaporate in the eyes of Corbyn’s biggest and more lukewarm supporters.
I think the term ‘Marxist’ would mean nothing at all, to most people actually - how many ordinary voters do you know who could provide a specific definition of Marxism? Then there’s the matter that if you've grown up in the post-crash years, it’s is likely that it won’t be Marxism that will be the dirty word, but rather capitalism or, more specifically ‘neo-liberalism’. It will be that system that many will associate with hardship, a lack of social mobility and unfairness.
Then there’s the fact that many of these anti-Corbyn stories tended to be printed in outlets such as the Mail, and the right wing press more generally - sources of information that Corbyn’s voters by and large aren’t reading and don’t take seriously. The Tories have a real problem that their cheerleaders in the press are seen as joke by many of those who aren’t old.
In the age of the internet and smartphone, how can there be any excuse for people not to know the basic outline of recent history as far as the IRA and other subjects is concerned? They don't even have to go to the library to get a book on it. It's a duty of being a citizen to take an interest in the history of the country you live in.
The truth may be darker, that some of Corbyn's supporters like the IRA, and thoroughly approve of their actions. After all, they were killing Conservatives, Unionists, and members of the armed forces.
Quite a few Corbyn supporters proclaim the law is important, but all bets are off if you're a Tory.
Well, completely off topic but an interesting if very sad family dilemma that a friend has.
One of the grown up children in their early 20's, since graduating, has completely failed to take any steps to find a job or some other useful activity. It is driving the parents insane and all attempts at forcing or incentivising the child to engage with life have failed. Suggestions have been made, opportunities offered, including medical assistance for possible depression Nothing has worked.
It is now getting to the stage where the parents feel that the only option, for themselves and the rest of the family, is to throw the child out, which means - in effect - the streets. Sink or swim, even though they fear that this means the very worst will happen. But what else can they do?
No-one is legally obliged to maintain a lazy adult who takes no steps to help themselves. But they feel that, having done everything possible long past the stage that many would think reasonable, they have no more moral or emotional obligation. They are, though, utterly heartbroken as well as infuriated by the situation.
What do PB'ers think?
I think you're only hearing your friend's side of things. Very often when something goes wrong with *one* of the children in this way but not the others, there is a wider family based scenario that has caused the problem. It may be - for example - that one of the parents is a narcissist (in the medically defined sense) and there is a golden child / scapegoat child scenario in play. In other words, the parent may be at fault for their child's abnormal development behaviour. That's just one possibility - the point is, you just don't know. But one does worry about a parent who would be happy to put their own child out on the streets for being lazy. There's 'tough love' ...then there's no love at all.
So the modernisation of the Tory Party goes on......
It does. The marriage and abortion debates are history and his views are not electorally relevant (any more than Corbyn's ban the bomb and abolish the monarchy stuff), and what else should we and do we know at this stage about his policies? When May went into the election nobody knew that she was going to major on dementia care nor that Corbyn was going to score bigly with tuition fees.
@HYUFD I already made it. That few commentators doubt that most Conservative voters sympathise with JRM’s worldview, so he wouldn’t have ‘exceeded expectations’ if he keeps them. And BTW, many doubted prior to the GE the extent to which Labour voters sympathised with Corbyn’s worldview. That is why it was thought that Labour’s traditional voters would turn away from Corbyn in droves, when Corbyn ended up keeping the base and gaining votes. We had so many narratives and stories about lifelong Labour voters voting Tory for the first time because Corbyn is xyz. Now, we know that most of the Labour vote sympathises with Corbyn's worldview but people weren’t so sure prior to the GE.
Eh? If 42% vote for a Tory leader who opposes gay marriage and abortion, unlike May, that would be a dramatic reversal for the socially liberal consensus of the past few decades. Just as the 40% who voted for Corbyn was a dramatic reversal for neoliberal economic model of the past few decades too
Yeah, but your point is is about ‘exceeding expectations’. No one will be surprised about existing Tory voters staying with the party under a JRM leadership because we know prior to the GE that these voters share his world view for the most part. While most people are supportive of gay marriage as whole, most Tory MPs voted against it, and it caused a stir among members IIRC.
By contrast before the GE many didn’t know the extent to which people were unhappy with neo-liberalism.
Of course it would 'exceed expectations' William Hague and Michael Howard got 31% and 32% on a similar platform to what Rees-Mogg would run on in 2001 and 2005 respectively, 42% for that agenda would be a huge turnaround.
Well, completely off topic but an interesting if very sad family dilemma that a friend has.
One of the grown up children in their early 20's, since graduating, has completely failed to take any steps to find a job or some other useful activity. It is driving the parents insane and all attempts at forcing or incentivising the child to engage with life have failed. Suggestions have been made, opportunities offered, including medical assistance for possible depression Nothing has worked.
It is now getting to the stage where the parents feel that the only option, for themselves and the rest of the family, is to throw the child out, which means - in effect - the streets. Sink or swim, even though they fear that this means the very worst will happen. But what else can they do?
No-one is legally obliged to maintain a lazy adult who takes no steps to help themselves. But they feel that, having done everything possible long past the stage that many would think reasonable, they have no more moral or emotional obligation. They are, though, utterly heartbroken as well as infuriated by the situation.
What do PB'ers think?
Why not just cut off his allowance and savings and make him claim unemployment benefit and then he will be forced to look for work as a condition of its receipt. That would also be fairer than throwing him out of the house given how long it takes for single men to get social housing or to find a landlord that will take housing benefit if they have no family accommodation or wage of their own to pay the rent or mortgage.
@HYUFD It’s more than just about exceeding expectations. It’s important to remember that Corbyn actually did much better than Ed Miliband did. While him matching Ed M would have still likely have seen him keep his job, I doubt many would think he that would be in with a chance of winning the next GE if that’s all he’d have done. You’re getting a lot of the ‘fanfare’ around Corbyn now because he exceeded expectations to such an extent that people think he might get into government/win a majority.
There are unconventional ways of winning, but the potential route to power offered by supporters of JRM is hardly unconventional. Appealing to older, more socially conservative voters is something we’ve been told is the basis for winning a majority for some time now. That all you need is affluent baby boomers/silent generation, and the WWC vote, and that’s it = significant majority. If anything it’s Corbyn’s coalition and means of gaining votes which was highly unconventional.
Ed Miliband got 30% of the vote, the second lowest Labour voteshare for 28 years, the 42% May got was the highest Tory voteshare for 34 years, a totally different proposition.
At the moment Corbyn is not going to win a majority on current polling even with the government's current problems, that gives plenty of room for Rees Mogg to challenge
Having dined out for ages telling us all that Boris is the perfect next PM, you're now going to do the same with JRM? Omg and lol.
Both have a lot more support with Tory voters and the public at large than you would expect
In contrast, JRM's "really don't like" is 44%, so he's an absolute beacon of popularity in comparison. Don't look at Corbyn's scores, they'll only depress you.
So only a minority of the country actively dislike Rees-Mogg or Boris then
If you have to draw consolation from the fact that the over-two-thirds figure for Boris includes those who merely "don't like" him as well as the many who "really don't like" him, then yes, I can but salute your optimism.
The fact Rees-Mogg is favourite is illustrative of the one piece of good news May can cling too. There is no king over the water - just an unappealing selection of people who are equally if not more flawed than her.
Well, completely off topic but an interesting if very sad family dilemma that a friend has.
One of the grown up children in their early 20's, since graduating, has completely failed to take any steps to find a job or some other useful activity. It is driving the parents insane and all attempts at forcing or incentivising the child to engage with life have failed. Suggestions have been made, opportunities offered, including medical assistance for possible depression Nothing has worked.
It is now getting to the stage where the parents feel that the only option, for themselves and the rest of the family, is to throw the child out, which means - in effect - the streets. Sink or swim, even though they fear that this means the very worst will happen. But what else can they do?
No-one is legally obliged to maintain a lazy adult who takes no steps to help themselves. But they feel that, having done everything possible long past the stage that many would think reasonable, they have no more moral or emotional obligation. They are, though, utterly heartbroken as well as infuriated by the situation.
What do PB'ers think?
I can relate to their child's predicament. I'm coming up to the end of my fixed-term position, and I'm not exactly looking forward to finding a job in a completely different area if the current job search doesn't pan out.
@HYUFD It’s more than just about exceeding expectations. It’s important to remember that Corbyn actually did much better than Ed Miliband did. While him matching Ed M would have still likely have seen him keep his job, I doubt many would think he that would be in with a chance of winning the next GE if that’s all he’d have done. You’re getting a lot of the ‘fanfare’ around Corbyn now because he exceeded expectations to such an extent that people think he might get into government/win a majority.
There are unconventional ways of winning, but the potential route to power offered by supporters of JRM is hardly unconventional. Appealing to older, more socially conservative voters is something we’ve been told is the basis for winning a majority for some time now. That all you need is affluent baby boomers/silent generation, and the WWC vote, and that’s it = significant majority. If anything it’s Corbyn’s coalition and means of gaining votes which was highly unconventional.
Ed Miliband got 30% of the vote, the second lowest Labour voteshare for 28 years, the 42% May got was the highest Tory voteshare for 34 years, a totally different proposition.
At the moment Corbyn is not going to win a majority on current polling even with the government's current problems, that gives plenty of room for Rees Mogg to challenge
Having dined out for ages telling us all that Boris is the perfect next PM, you're now going to do the same with JRM? Omg and lol.
Both have a lot more support with Tory voters and the public at large than you would expect
In contrast, JRM's "really don't like" is 44%, so he's an absolute beacon of popularity in comparison. Don't look at Corbyn's scores, they'll only depress you.
So only a minority of the country actively dislike Rees-Mogg or Boris then
If you have to draw consolation from the fact that the over-two-thirds figure for Boris includes those who merely "don't like" him as well as the many who "really don't like" him, then yes, I can but salute your optimism.
Given that same poll has those who dislike Corbyn as the largest group in terms of those who have an opinion of him, in relative terms then yes
Given the same poll also has May with a far lower positivity rating than Corbyn and May beat Corbyn in seats and votes in June it is also questionable how useful it is.
@HYUFD It’s more than just about exceeding expectations. It’s important to remember that Corbyn actually did much better than Ed Miliband did. While him matching Ed M would have still likely have seen him keep his job, I doubt many would think he that would be in with a chance of winning the next GE if that’s all he’d have done. You’re getting a lot of the ‘fanfare’ around Corbyn now because he exceeded expectations to such an extent that people think he might get into government/win a majority.
There are unconventional ways of winning, but the potential route to power offered by supporters of JRM is hardly unconventional. Appealing to older, more socially conservative voters is something we’ve been told is the basis for winning a majority for some time now. That all you need is affluent baby boomers/silent generation, and the WWC vote, and that’s it = significant majority. If anything it’s Corbyn’s coalition and means of gaining votes which was highly unconventional.
Ed Miliband got 30% of the vote, the second lowest Labour voteshare for 28 years, the 42% May got was the highest Tory voteshare for 34 years, a totally different proposition.
At the moment Corbyn is not going to win a majority on current polling even with the government's current problems, that gives plenty of room for Rees Mogg to challenge
Having dined out for ages telling us all that Boris is the perfect next PM, you're now going to do the same with JRM? Omg and lol.
Both have a lot more support with Tory voters and the public at large than you would expect
In contrast, JRM's "really don't like" is 44%, so he's an absolute beacon of popularity in comparison. Don't look at Corbyn's scores, they'll only depress you.
RE those bringing up the IRA and Corbyn being a ‘Marxist’ - Corbyn’s supporters are unlikely to have lived through, or remembered the days where IRA bombed places in the UK, or indeed the fall of communism. I only know about these things because of (a. my interest in politics (b. my mum having discussions with me about them. On top of that, Corbyn’s more hardcore supporters see successive governments association with Saudi Arabia, and Thatcher’s association with Pinochet as morally equivalent (edit: actually, thinking about it - they see it as worse) to Corbyn’s IRA association. That’s a message which gets relayed down to his less hardcore supporters meaning that to this group, the moral distinctions that Conservatives and others feel exist between them and Corbyn on these kinds of matters evaporate in the eyes of Corbyn’s biggest and more lukewarm supporters.
I think the term ‘Marxist’ would mean nothing at all, to most people actually - how many ordinary voters do you know who could provide a specific definition of Marxism? Then there’s the matter that if you've grown up in the post-crash years, it’s is likely that it won’t be Marxism that will be the dirty word, but rather capitalism or, more specifically ‘neo-liberalism’. It will be that system that many will associate with hardship, a lack of social mobility and unfairness.
Then there’s the fact that many of these anti-Corbyn stories tended to be printed in outlets such as the Mail, and the right wing press more generally - sources of information that Corbyn’s voters by and large aren’t reading and don’t take seriously. The Tories have a real problem that their cheerleaders in the press are seen as joke by many of those who aren’t old.
In the age of the internet and smartphone, how can there be any excuse for people not to know the basic outline of recent history as far as the IRA and other subjects is concerned? They don't even have to go to the library to get a book on it. It's a duty of being a citizen to take an interest in the history of the country you live in.
There is actually serious problem with given the massive amount of information / choice available and this idea of "individualized" services, what is actually happening is people being prompted to only explore within their bubble of known interests e.g. Spotify will keep suggesting songs / artists of the genre it knows you like to listen to. Same with amazon, netflix, google, and the same is with news. It isn't just that people on social media are stuck in their own bubble by choice, the services prompt people to never leave it, in fact they do the opposite.
"The Government has bolstered its commitment for Parliament to have the final say on a Brexit deal - but immediately faced a backlash for not guarding against the UK leaving the EU without an agreement."
If there's no deal then we leave with no deal. That's why there's a 2-year limit in A50 in the first place.
All this "A50 is revocable" stuff is fantasy, because at a minimum it would require all EU27 to agree to it, and in any event it would change nothing. We have still voted to Leave, and the EU would still want to give us a terrible deal for their own political reasons. Delaying leaving won't change a thing.
Political arguments are never 100% over but on issues like the minimum wage, gay rights, abortion etc., things which were very controversial at the time but are now pretty settled.
If Brexit gets reversed it will be because it is very widely seen to be a huge error. There won’t then be much interest in going back over it.
Our EU membership was thought to have been settled, but it turned out that it was not. None of the factors that led to our being unhappy members is going to disappear.
Settled for quite some time though? Perhaps we will be reminded of some of the factors for why we joined in the first place.
Well we certainly haven't been reminded of them so far.
RE those bringing up the IRA and Corbyn being a ‘Marxist’ - Corbyn’s supporters are unlikely to have lived through, or remembered the days where IRA bombed places in the UK, or indeed the fall of communism. I only know about these things because of (a. my interest in politics (b. my mum having discussions with me about them. On top of that, Corbyn’s more hardcore supporters see successive governments association with Saudi Arabia, and Thatcher’s association with Pinochet as morally equivalent (edit: actually, thinking about it - they see it as worse) to Corbyn’s IRA association. That’s a message which gets relayed down to his less hardcore supporters meaning that to this group, the moral distinctions that Conservatives and others feel exist between them and Corbyn on these kinds of matters evaporate in the eyes of Corbyn’s biggest and more lukewarm supporters.
I think the term ‘Marxist’ would mean nothing at all, to most people actually - how many ordinary voters do you know who could provide a specific definition of Marxism? Then there’s the matter that if you've grown up in the post-crash years, it’s is likely that it won’t be Marxism that will be the dirty word, but rather capitalism or, more specifically ‘neo-liberalism’. It will be that system that many will associate with hardship, a lack of social mobility and unfairness.
Then there’s the fact that many of these anti-Corbyn stories tended to be printed in outlets such as the Mail, and the right wing press more generally - sources of information that Corbyn’s voters by and large aren’t reading and don’t take seriously. The Tories have a real problem that their cheerleaders in the press are seen as joke by many of those who aren’t old.
In the age of the internet and smartphone, how can there be any excuse for people not to know the basic outline of recent history as far as the IRA and other subjects is concerned? They don't even have to go to the library to get a book on it. It's a duty of being a citizen to take an interest in the history of the country you live in.
There is actually serious problem with given the massive amount of information / choice available and this idea of "individualized" services, what is actually happening is people being prompted to only explore within their bubble of known interests e.g. Spotify will keep suggesting songs / artists of the genre it knows you like to listen to. Same with amazon, netflix, google, and the same is with news. It isn't just that people on social media are stuck in their own bubble by choice, the services prompt people to never leave it, in fact they do the opposite.
Explains why my facebook feed is full of AV-related adverts...
Well, completely off topic but an interesting if very sad family dilemma that a friend has.
One of the grown up children in their early 20's, since graduating, has completely failed to take any steps to find a job or some other useful activity. It is driving the parents insane and all attempts at forcing or incentivising the child to engage with life have failed. Suggestions have been made, opportunities offered, including medical assistance for possible depression Nothing has worked.
It is now getting to the stage where the parents feel that the only option, for themselves and the rest of the family, is to throw the child out, which means - in effect - the streets. Sink or swim, even though they fear that this means the very worst will happen. But what else can they do?
No-one is legally obliged to maintain a lazy adult who takes no steps to help themselves. But they feel that, having done everything possible long past the stage that many would think reasonable, they have no more moral or emotional obligation. They are, though, utterly heartbroken as well as infuriated by the situation.
What do PB'ers think?
Has anyone asked the child why they do not want to engage with life or get a job? They must have a reason.
Well, completely off topic but an interesting if very sad family dilemma that a friend has.
One of the grown up children in their early 20's, since graduating, has completely failed to take any steps to find a job or some other useful activity. It is driving the parents insane and all attempts at forcing or incentivising the child to engage with life have failed. Suggestions have been made, opportunities offered, including medical assistance for possible depression Nothing has worked.
It is now getting to the stage where the parents feel that the only option, for themselves and the rest of the family, is to throw the child out, which means - in effect - the streets. Sink or swim, even though they fear that this means the very worst will happen. But what else can they do?
No-one is legally obliged to maintain a lazy adult who takes no steps to help themselves. But they feel that, having done everything possible long past the stage that many would think reasonable, they have no more moral or emotional obligation. They are, though, utterly heartbroken as well as infuriated by the situation.
What do PB'ers think?
Too harsh. Worse things than this. Are they poor or rich?
I don't think they could afford private medical care. Sectioning is only available I believe when a person is at risk of harming themselves or another and I don't think that is the situation. And medical services for the mentally ill are patchy at best. I understand that the GP has recommended therapy but the child - an adult really - has refused to attend.
Something needs to be done and throwing someone on the streets is very harsh. There was that journalist who did it with her son a few years back. But tolerating laziness in the face of plenty of opportunities which someone is refusing to take is not really acceptable either. And the longer someone is in such a situation it becomes so much harder for them to get out of it. What do they say to potential employers? For all the talk of being open about mental illness I am cynical about how willing employers really are to employ someone who admits on a CV to a period of mental illness.
What puzzles me is why the child refuses to do anything because they are clearly not happy in the situation either and would probably be best somewhere else. Families can become cockpits of unhappiness and, as someone once said, a mother is only as happy as her most unhappy child. It is all very sad.
RE those bringing up the IRA and Corbyn being a ‘Marxist’ - Corbyn’s supporters are unlikely to have lived through, or remembered the days where IRA bombed places in the UK, or indeed the fall of communism. I only know about these things because of (a. my interest in politics (b. my mum having discussions with me about them. On top of that, Corbyn’s more hardcore supporters see successive governments association with Saudi Arabia, and Thatcher’s association with Pinochet as morally equivalent (edit: actually, thinking about it - they see it as worse) to Corbyn’s IRA association. That’s a message which gets relayed down to his less hardcore supporters meaning that to this group, the moral distinctions that Conservatives and others feel exist between them and Corbyn on these kinds of matters evaporate in the eyes of Corbyn’s biggest and more lukewarm supporters.
I think the term ‘Marxist’ would mean nothing at all, to most people actually - how many ordinary voters do you know who could provide a specific definition of Marxism? Then there’s the matter that if you've grown up in the post-crash years, it’s is likely that it won’t be Marxism that will be the dirty word, but rather capitalism or, more specifically ‘neo-liberalism’. It will be that system that many will associate with hardship, a lack of social mobility and unfairness.
Then there’s the fact that many of these anti-Corbyn stories tended to be printed in outlets such as the Mail, and the right wing press more generally - sources of information that Corbyn’s voters by and large aren’t reading and don’t take seriously. The Tories have a real problem that their cheerleaders in the press are seen as joke by many of those who aren’t old.
In the age of the internet and smartphone, how can there be any excuse for people not to know the basic outline of recent history as far as the IRA and other subjects is concerned? They don't even have to go to the library to get a book on it. It's a duty of being a citizen to take an interest in the history of the country you live in.
There is actually serious problem with given the massive amount of information / choice available and this idea of "individualized" services, what is actually happening is people being prompted to only explore within their bubble of known interests e.g. Spotify will keep suggesting songs / artists of the genre it knows you like to listen to. Same with amazon, netflix, google, and the same is with news. It isn't just that people on social media are stuck in their own bubble by choice, the services prompt people to never leave it, in fact they do the opposite.
Yes that is a growing problem. It feels like the number of neutral news outlets is diminishing all the time. The daily newspapers are all more partisan than they used to be, for instance.
RE those bringing up the IRA and Corbyn being a ‘Marxist’ - Corbyn’s supporters are unlikely to have lived through, or remembered the days where IRA bombed places in the UK, or indeed the fall of communism. I only know about these things because of (a. my interest in politics (b. my mum having discussions with me about them. On top of that, Corbyn’s more hardcore supporters see successive governments association with Saudi Arabia, and Thatcher’s association with Pinochet as morally equivalent (edit: actually, thinking about it - they see it as worse) to Corbyn’s IRA association. That’s a message which gets relayed down to his less hardcore supporters meaning that to this group, the moral distinctions that Conservatives and others feel exist between them and Corbyn on these kinds of matters evaporate in the eyes of Corbyn’s biggest and more lukewarm supporters.
I think the term ‘Marxist’ would mean nothing at all, to most people actually - how many ordinary voters do you know who could provide a specific definition of Marxism? Then there’s the matter that if you've grown up in the post-crash years, it’s is likely that it won’t be Marxism that will be the dirty word, but rather capitalism or, more specifically ‘neo-liberalism’. It will be that system that many will associate with hardship, a lack of social mobility and unfairness.
Then there’s the fact that many of these anti-Corbyn stories tended to be printed in outlets such as the Mail, and the right wing press more generally - sources of information that Corbyn’s voters by and large aren’t reading and don’t take seriously. The Tories have a real problem that their cheerleaders in the press are seen as joke by many of those who aren’t old.
In the age of the internet and smartphone, how can there be any excuse for people not to know the basic outline of recent history as far as the IRA and other subjects is concerned? They don't even have to go to the library to get a book on it. It's a duty of being a citizen to take an interest in the history of the country you live in.
The truth may be darker, that some of Corbyn's supporters like the IRA, and thoroughly approve of their actions. After all, they were killing Conservatives, Unionists, and members of the armed forces.
Quite a few Corbyn supporters proclaim the law is important, but all bets are off if you're a Tory.
Much as I dislike the IRA and its methods, the route to peace in NI was inevitably through talking to them.
IMO the IRA and Marxist labels only really have impact with people who would never vote for Corbyn anyway.
Well, completely off topic but an interesting if very sad family dilemma that a friend has.
One of the grown up children in their early 20's, since graduating, has completely failed to take any steps to find a job or some other useful activity. It is driving the parents insane and all attempts at forcing or incentivising the child to engage with life have failed. Suggestions have been made, opportunities offered, including medical assistance for possible depression Nothing has worked.
It is now getting to the stage where the parents feel that the only option, for themselves and the rest of the family, is to throw the child out, which means - in effect - the streets. Sink or swim, even though they fear that this means the very worst will happen. But what else can they do?
No-one is legally obliged to maintain a lazy adult who takes no steps to help themselves. But they feel that, having done everything possible long past the stage that many would think reasonable, they have no more moral or emotional obligation. They are, though, utterly heartbroken as well as infuriated by the situation.
What do PB'ers think?
I couldn't begin to offer advice. If the parents think of their children in the way most people do they will forgive them almost anything even if it is not in the best interests of either party. There is nothing logical about it and for all that we might sit here and pontificate about doing what is 'best' for the child, I do wonder how many of us would in the end be willing and able to deliver the tough love that might be needed.
They have my utmost sympathy but beyond that I am afraid I can offer nothing more.
RE those bringing up the IRA and Corbyn being a ‘Marxist’ - Corbyn’s supporters are unlikely to have lived through, or remembered the days where IRA bombed places in the UK, or indeed the fall of communism. I only know about these things because of (a. my interest in politics (b. my mum having discussions with me about them. On top of that, Corbyn’s more hardcore supporters see successive governments association with Saudi Arabia, and Thatcher’s association with Pinochet as morally equivalent (edit: actually, thinking about it - they see it as worse) to Corbyn’s IRA association. That’s a message which gets relayed down to his less hardcore supporters meaning that to this group, the moral distinctions that Conservatives and others feel exist between them and Corbyn on these kinds of matters evaporate in the eyes of Corbyn’s biggest and more lukewarm supporters.
I think the term ‘Marxist’ would mean nothing at all, to most people actually - how many ordinary voters do you know who could provide a specific definition of Marxism? Then there’s the matter that if you've grown up in the post-crash years, it’s is likely that it won’t be Marxism that will be the dirty word, but rather capitalism or, more specifically ‘neo-liberalism’. It will be that system that many will associate with hardship, a lack of social mobility and unfairness.
Then there’s the fact that many of these anti-Corbyn stories tended to be printed in outlets such as the Mail, and the right wing press more generally - sources of information that Corbyn’s voters by and large aren’t reading and don’t take seriously. The Tories have a real problem that their cheerleaders in the press are seen as joke by many of those who aren’t old.
In the age of the internet and smartphone, how can there be any excuse for people not to know the basic outline of recent history as far as the IRA and other subjects is concerned? They don't even have to go to the library to get a book on it. It's a duty of being a citizen to take an interest in the history of the country you live in.
The NASA guy who wrote the official history of the space shuttle program was loaned a few interns to proofread the book. The idea was for them to read it and flag up anything they didn't understand, for it might need explaining in the text. These interns were intelligent (they had to be to get in at NASA). During one meeting, one of them put up her hand and asked: "What's the Cold War?"
This is what I don't understand about the whole Article 50 issue.
Until March 2019, as things stand, we are a full member of the EU. We cease being a member then because of the letter we sent in. If we passed an Act of Parliament saying that we were withdrawing the Article 50 notice and then sent a letter to the Commission saying just that, why does it need the other EU states to agree? We would be saying that the position remains the same as it was before 29 March 2017.
Article 50 does not, does it, force other EU states to expel a member which wanted to leave but then changed its mind?
A lot of "ifs" I realise.
And of course this does not deal with the political consequences within the UK of doing this nor within the wider EU.
I am just puzzled where the idea has come from that other states need to agree to a withdrawal of the Article 50 notice during the time when the state is an EU member state.
Maybe there is something there which has been explained before and I have missed it, in which case apologies.
Imagine you were a member of Grouchos and you dropped them a line saying you didn't want to renew your membership because the management were corrupt the other members stank... and you've seen Greek brothels run more efficiently and by the way I'm not paying the bar bill and if you don't like it you can go whistle.......and nine months later when Soho House have told you to go sling your hook you go back to Grouchos and tell them you're prepared to stay for a couple more years........
RE those bringing up the IRA and Corbyn being a ‘Marxist’ - Corbyn’s supporters are unlikely to have lived through, or remembered the days where IRA bombed places in the UK, or indeed the fall of communism. I only know about these things because of (a. my interest in politics (b. my mum having discussions with me about them. On top of that, Corbyn’s more hardcore supporters see successive governments association with Saudi Arabia, and Thatcher’s association with Pinochet as morally equivalent (edit: actually, thinking about it - they see it as worse) to Corbyn’s IRA association. That’s a message which gets relayed down to his less hardcore supporters meaning that to this group, the moral distinctions that Conservatives and others feel exist between them and Corbyn on these kinds of matters evaporate in the eyes of Corbyn’s biggest and more lukewarm supporters.
I think the term ‘Marxist’ would mean nothing at all, to most people actually - how many ordinary voters do you know who could provide a specific definition of Marxism? Then there’s the matter that if you've grown up in the post-crash years, it’s is likely that it won’t be Marxism that will be the dirty word, but rather capitalism or, more specifically ‘neo-liberalism’. It will be that system that many will associate with hardship, a lack of social mobility and unfairness.
Then there’s the fact that many of these anti-Corbyn stories tended to be printed in outlets such as the Mail, and the right wing press more generally - sources of information that Corbyn’s voters by and large aren’t reading and don’t take seriously. The Tories have a real problem that their cheerleaders in the press are seen as joke by many of those who aren’t old.
In the age of the internet and smartphone, how can there be any excuse for people not to know the basic outline of recent history as far as the IRA and other subjects is concerned? They don't even have to go to the library to get a book on it. It's a duty of being a citizen to take an interest in the history of the country you live in.
The truth may be darker, that some of Corbyn's supporters like the IRA, and thoroughly approve of their actions. After all, they were killing Conservatives, Unionists, and members of the armed forces.
Quite a few Corbyn supporters proclaim the law is important, but all bets are off if you're a Tory.
Much as I dislike the IRA and its methods, the route to peace in NI was inevitably through talking to them.
IMO the IRA and Marxist labels only really have impact with people who would never vote for Corbyn anyway.
But did he have to speak to them days after they tried to assassinate the PM and Cabinet?
Well, completely off topic but an interesting if very sad family dilemma that a friend has.
One of the grown up children in their early 20's, since graduating, has completely failed to take any steps to find a job or some other useful activity. It is driving the parents insane and all attempts at forcing or incentivising the child to engage with life have failed. Suggestions have been made, opportunities offered, including medical assistance for possible depression Nothing has worked.
It is now getting to the stage where the parents feel that the only option, for themselves and the rest of the family, is to throw the child out, which means - in effect - the streets. Sink or swim, even though they fear that this means the very worst will happen. But what else can they do?
No-one is legally obliged to maintain a lazy adult who takes no steps to help themselves. But they feel that, having done everything possible long past the stage that many would think reasonable, they have no more moral or emotional obligation. They are, though, utterly heartbroken as well as infuriated by the situation.
What do PB'ers think?
Too harsh. Worse things than this. Are they poor or rich?
I don't think they could afford private medical care. Sectioning is only available I believe when a person is at risk of harming themselves or another and I don't think that is the situation. And medical services for the mentally ill are patchy at best. I understand that the GP has recommended therapy but the child - an adult really - has refused to attend.
Something needs to be done and throwing someone on the streets is very harsh. There was that journalist who did it with her son a few years back. But tolerating laziness in the face of plenty of opportunities which someone is refusing to take is not really acceptable either. And the longer someone is in such a situation it becomes so much harder for them to get out of it. What do they say to potential employers? For all the talk of being open about mental illness I am cynical about how willing employers really are to employ someone who admits on a CV to a period of mental illness.
What puzzles me is why the child refuses to do anything because they are clearly not happy in the situation either and would probably be best somewhere else. Families can become cockpits of unhappiness and, as someone once said, a mother is only as happy as her most unhappy child. It is all very sad.
As I said get them claiming unemployment benefits as their sole source of income but otherwise keep them in the family home, that way they are on the radar of the authorities and have to look for a job to keep their income coming in
Well, completely off topic but an interesting if very sad family dilemma that a friend has.
One of the grown up children in their early 20's, since graduating, has completely failed to take any steps to find a job or some other useful activity. It is driving the parents insane and all attempts at forcing or incentivising the child to engage with life have failed. Suggestions have been made, opportunities offered, including medical assistance for possible depression Nothing has worked.
It is now getting to the stage where the parents feel that the only option, for themselves and the rest of the family, is to throw the child out, which means - in effect - the streets. Sink or swim, even though they fear that this means the very worst will happen. But what else can they do?
No-one is legally obliged to maintain a lazy adult who takes no steps to help themselves. But they feel that, having done everything possible long past the stage that many would think reasonable, they have no more moral or emotional obligation. They are, though, utterly heartbroken as well as infuriated by the situation.
What do PB'ers think?
I can relate to their child's predicament. I'm coming up to the end of my fixed-term position, and I'm not exactly looking forward to finding a job in a completely different area if the current job search doesn't pan out.
I wish you the best of luck.
I think there is a difference between being unemployed but looking for work and being unemployed and doing nothing about it.
@AndyJS that may be true, but the reality is it doesn’t happen like that. Despite information being so easily accessible these days, many people are pretty ill-informed about basic things. And then there’s simply the fact that some people just aren’t interested in these things. I’m someone interested in politics but I don’t know everything about past events either, I’m still learning. So even when you make the effort to read up about things, you still won’t know everything.
Well, completely off topic but an interesting if very sad family dilemma that a friend has.
One of the grown up children in their early 20's, since graduating, has completely failed to take any steps to find a job or some other useful activity. It is driving the parents insane and all attempts at forcing or incentivising the child to engage with life have failed. Suggestions have been made, opportunities offered, including medical assistance for possible depression Nothing has worked.
It is now getting to the stage where the parents feel that the only option, for themselves and the rest of the family, is to throw the child out, which means - in effect - the streets. Sink or swim, even though they fear that this means the very worst will happen. But what else can they do?
No-one is legally obliged to maintain a lazy adult who takes no steps to help themselves. But they feel that, having done everything possible long past the stage that many would think reasonable, they have no more moral or emotional obligation. They are, though, utterly heartbroken as well as infuriated by the situation.
What do PB'ers think?
I can relate to their child's predicament. I'm coming up to the end of my fixed-term position, and I'm not exactly looking forward to finding a job in a completely different area if the current job search doesn't pan out.
I wish you the best of luck.
I think there is a difference between being unemployed but looking for work and being unemployed and doing nothing about it.
Yeah, but I can understand where the huge lack of motivation comes from. I can feel that in myself and it worries me a bit. Ho-hum, I'm sure something will come up!
Well, completely off topic but an interesting if very sad family dilemma that a friend has.
One of the grown up children in their early 20's, since graduating, has completely failed to take any steps to find a job or some other useful activity. It is driving the parents insane and all attempts at forcing or incentivising the child to engage with life have failed. Suggestions have been made, opportunities offered, including medical assistance for possible depression Nothing has worked.
It is now getting to the stage where the parents feel that the only option, for themselves and the rest of the family, is to throw the child out, which means - in effect - the streets. Sink or swim, even though they fear that this means the very worst will happen. But what else can they do?
No-one is legally obliged to maintain a lazy adult who takes no steps to help themselves. But they feel that, having done everything possible long past the stage that many would think reasonable, they have no more moral or emotional obligation. They are, though, utterly heartbroken as well as infuriated by the situation.
What do PB'ers think?
This sounds like a good description of me a few years ago. (I'm not being frivolous). There's not much that can be done apart from waiting for them to do something of their own accord.
Well, completely off topic but an interesting if very sad family dilemma that a friend has.
One of the grown up children in their early 20's, since graduating, has completely failed to take any steps to find a job or some other useful activity. It is driving the parents insane and all attempts at forcing or incentivising the child to engage with life have failed. Suggestions have been made, opportunities offered, including medical assistance for possible depression Nothing has worked.
It is now getting to the stage where the parents feel that the only option, for themselves and the rest of the family, is to throw the child out, which means - in effect - the streets. Sink or swim, even though they fear that this means the very worst will happen. But what else can they do?
No-one is legally obliged to maintain a lazy adult who takes no steps to help themselves. But they feel that, having done everything possible long past the stage that many would think reasonable, they have no more moral or emotional obligation. They are, though, utterly heartbroken as well as infuriated by the situation.
What do PB'ers think?
How controlling are the parents/family?
Do they relate to the child as an adult now that they actually are an adult? Infantilization of adult children by parents is a huge problem, although it may not be relevant in this instance.
If he meant it to be revocable he would have written that into it. He has already said that when it was written it was not envisaged that anyone would actually ever want to use it. SO his word on this is garbage.
Ultimately the only court that can decide whether it is revocable is the ECJ. That is, after all, what they are there for, to interpret the law on the basis of the treaties.
A50 cannot be revoked unilaterally. If it could be, every MS would have served an A50 notice to extract concessions from the Commission, safe in the knowledge that they could pull the notice if things did not develop to their advantage. It absolutely wasn't drafted that way and you can tell Lord Kerr knows it.
Indeed, I think Lord Kerr drafted A50(3) to provide that any attempt to extend would only extract further concessions from the notifying MS. To extend the two-year deadline, one needs the unanimous consent of the remaining 27 MSs. In the UK's case, an application to extend would, I think, be met with a response along the lines of "The Fontainebleau abatement buys you a year, Sterling another, and Schengen another". Then after three years of no progress and a change of government in the notifying MS it's concessions time again.
I don't think the remaining MSs would countenance an indefinite extension, not least because a short one gives more bang for the buck, but because a notifying MS with an indefinite extension would probably get its vetoes back.
Well, completely off topic but an interesting if very sad family dilemma that a friend has.
One of the grown up children in their early 20's, since graduating, has completely failed to take any steps to find a job or some other useful activity. It is driving the parents insane and all attempts at forcing or incentivising the child to engage with life have failed. Suggestions have been made, opportunities offered, including medical assistance for possible depression Nothing has worked.
It is now getting to the stage where the parents feel that the only option, for themselves and the rest of the family, is to throw the child out, which means - in effect - the streets. Sink or swim, even though they fear that this means the very worst will happen. But what else can they do?
No-one is legally obliged to maintain a lazy adult who takes no steps to help themselves. But they feel that, having done everything possible long past the stage that many would think reasonable, they have no more moral or emotional obligation. They are, though, utterly heartbroken as well as infuriated by the situation.
What do PB'ers think?
Has anyone asked the child why they do not want to engage with life or get a job? They must have a reason.
They have. No clear reason has been given, as I understand it. There has been a history of mental illness and the concern is that the current situation will lead to its recurrence in a more extreme form.
Not knowing what you want to do when you are young, if you don't have a vocation, is not unusual. People often have to try lots of different things before finding a niche. But it is odd when someone who is talented and intelligent but clearly unhappy does not wish to get out of the situation, itself probably a mark of illness, and the whole situation is making family relations very difficult. The parents feel they are being manipulated into tolerating an untenable situation because they will be criticised for not loving their child or feel guilty if the worst happens.
Well, completely off topic but an interesting if very sad family dilemma that a friend has.
One of the grown up children in their early 20's, since graduating, has completely failed to take any steps to find a job or some other useful activity. It is driving the parents insane and all attempts at forcing or incentivising the child to engage with life have failed. Suggestions have been made, opportunities offered, including medical assistance for possible depression Nothing has worked.
It is now getting to the stage where the parents feel that the only option, for themselves and the rest of the family, is to throw the child out, which means - in effect - the streets. Sink or swim, even though they fear that this means the very worst will happen. But what else can they do?
No-one is legally obliged to maintain a lazy adult who takes no steps to help themselves. But they feel that, having done everything possible long past the stage that many would think reasonable, they have no more moral or emotional obligation. They are, though, utterly heartbroken as well as infuriated by the situation.
What do PB'ers think?
Too harsh. Worse things than this. Are they poor or rich?
I don't think they could afford private medical care. Sectioning is only available I believe when a person is at risk of harming themselves or another and I don't think that is the situation. And medical services for the mentally ill are patchy at best. I understand that the GP has recommended therapy but the child - an adult really - has refused to attend.
Something needs to be done and throwing someone on the streets is very harsh. There was that journalist who did it with her son a few years back. But tolerating laziness in the face of plenty of opportunities which someone is refusing to take is not really acceptable either. And the longer someone is in such a situation it becomes so much harder for them to get out of it. What do they say to potential employers? For all the talk of being open about mental illness I am cynical about how willing employers really are to employ someone who admits on a CV to a period of mental illness.
What puzzles me is why the child refuses to do anything because they are clearly not happy in the situation either and would probably be best somewhere else. Families can become cockpits of unhappiness and, as someone once said, a mother is only as happy as her most unhappy child. It is all very sad.
The only thing I can suggest is to send them to live for 6 months with another relative, family friend, or friends of the child, who might have the patience to try a different approach.
I think the term ‘Marxist’ would mean nothing at all, to most people actually - how many ordinary voters do you know who could provide a specific definition of Marxism? Then there’s the matter that if you've grown up in the post-crash years, it’s is likely that it won’t be Marxism that will be the dirty word, but rather capitalism or, more specifically ‘neo-liberalism’. It will be that system that many will associate with hardship, a lack of social mobility and unfairness.
Then there’s the fact that many of these anti-Corbyn stories tended to be printed in outlets such as the Mail, and the right wing press more generally - sources of information that Corbyn’s voters by and large aren’t reading and don’t take seriously. The Tories have a real problem that their cheerleaders in the press are seen as joke by many of those who aren’t old.
In the age of the internet and smartphone, how can there be any excuse for people not to know the basic outline of recent history as far as the IRA and other subjects is concerned? They don't even have to go to the library to get a book on it. It's a duty of being a citizen to take an interest in the history of the country you live in.
The truth may be darker, that some of Corbyn's supporters like the IRA, and thoroughly approve of their actions. After all, they were killing Conservatives, Unionists, and members of the armed forces.
Quite a few Corbyn supporters proclaim the law is important, but all bets are off if you're a Tory.
Much as I dislike the IRA and its methods, the route to peace in NI was inevitably through talking to them.
IMO the IRA and Marxist labels only really have impact with people who would never vote for Corbyn anyway.
But did he have to speak to them days after they tried to assassinate the PM and Cabinet?
No, I wouldn't defend his actions. I am only trying to say they don't have massive resonance with most of today's voters.
There is also often a lot of hypocrisy in dealings with terrorists and similar. The route to peace almost inevitably involves talking to people who have erstwhile been despised or hate figures; history is littered with examples. Often the talks are going on in the background in parallel with official pronouncements that we will 'only talk when you renounce violence'.
As Churchill said it is 'better to jaw-jaw than to war-war'.
Well, completely off topic but an interesting if very sad family dilemma that a friend has.
One of the grown up children in their early 20's, since graduating, has completely failed to take any steps to find a job or some other useful activity. It is driving the parents insane and all attempts at forcing or incentivising the child to engage with life have failed. Suggestions have been made, opportunities offered, including medical assistance for possible depression Nothing has worked.
It is now getting to the stage where the parents feel that the only option, for themselves and the rest of the family, is to throw the child out, which means - in effect - the streets. Sink or swim, even though they fear that this means the very worst will happen. But what else can they do?
No-one is legally obliged to maintain a lazy adult who takes no steps to help themselves. But they feel that, having done everything possible long past the stage that many would think reasonable, they have no more moral or emotional obligation. They are, though, utterly heartbroken as well as infuriated by the situation.
What do PB'ers think?
Too harsh. Worse things than this. Are they poor or rich?
I don't think they could afford private medical care. Sectioning is only available I believe when a person is at risk of harming themselves or another and I don't think that is the situation. And medical services for the mentally ill are patchy at best. I understand that the GP has recommended therapy but the child - an adult really - has refused to attend.
Something needs to be done and throwing someone on the streets is very harsh. There was that journalist who did it with her son a few years back. But tolerating laziness in the face of plenty of opportunities which someone is refusing to take is not really acceptable either. And the longer someone is in such a situation it becomes so much harder for them to get out of it. What do they say to potential employers? For all the talk of being open about mental illness I am cynical about how willing employers really are to employ someone who admits on a CV to a period of mental illness.
What puzzles me is why the child refuses to do anything because they are clearly not happy in the situation either and would probably be best somewhere else. Families can become cockpits of unhappiness and, as someone once said, a mother is only as happy as her most unhappy child. It is all very sad.
The only thing I can suggest is to send them to live for 6 months with another relative, family friend, or friends of the child, who might have the patience to try a different approach.
Well, completely off topic but an interesting if very sad family dilemma that a friend has.
One of the grown up children in their early 20's, since graduating, has completely failed to take any steps to find a job or some other useful activity. It is driving the parents insane and all attempts at forcing or incentivising the child to engage with life have failed. Suggestions have been made, opportunities offered, including medical assistance for possible depression Nothing has worked.
It is now getting to the stage where the parents feel that the only option, for themselves and the rest of the family, is to throw the child out, which means - in effect - the streets. Sink or swim, even though they fear that this means the very worst will happen. But what else can they do?
No-one is legally obliged to maintain a lazy adult who takes no steps to help themselves. But they feel that, having done everything possible long past the stage that many would think reasonable, they have no more moral or emotional obligation. They are, though, utterly heartbroken as well as infuriated by the situation.
What do PB'ers think?
Too harsh. Worse things than this. Are they poor or rich?
I don't think they could afford private medical care. Sectioning is only available I believe when a person is at risk of harming themselves or another and I don't think that is the situation. And medical services for the mentally ill are patchy at best. I understand that the GP has recommended therapy but the child - an adult really - has refused to attend.
Something needs to be done and throwing someone on the streets is very harsh. There was that journalist who did it with her son a few years back. But tolerating laziness in the face of plenty of opportunities which someone is refusing to take is not really acceptable either. And the longer someone is in such a situation it becomes so much harder for them to get out of it. What do they say to potential employers? For all the talk of being open about mental illness I am cynical about how willing employers really are to employ someone who admits on a CV to a period of mental illness.
What puzzles me is why the child refuses to do anything because they are clearly not happy in the situation either and would probably be best somewhere else. Families can become cockpits of unhappiness and, as someone once said, a mother is only as happy as her most unhappy child. It is all very sad.
The only thing I can suggest is to send them to live for 6 months with another relative, family friend, or friends of the child, who might have the patience to try a different approach.
Sounds like a good idea - change of environment might break the lethargy.
This is what I don't understand about the whole Article 50 issue.
Until March 2019, as things stand, we are a full member of the EU. We cease being a member then because of the letter we sent in. If we passed an Act of Parliament saying that we were withdrawing the Article 50 notice and then sent a letter to the Commission saying just that, why does it need the other EU states to agree? We would be saying that the position remains the same as it was before 29 March 2017.
Article 50 does not, does it, force other EU states to expel a member which wanted to leave but then changed its mind?
A lot of "ifs" I realise.
And of course this does not deal with the political consequences within the UK of doing this nor within the wider EU.
I am just puzzled where the idea has come from that other states need to agree to a withdrawal of the Article 50 notice during the time when the state is an EU member state.
Maybe there is something there which has been explained before and I have missed it, in which case apologies.
Imagine you were a member of Grouchos and you dropped them a line saying you didn't want to renew your membership because the management were corrupt the other members stank... and you've seen Greek brothels run more efficiently and by the way I'm not paying the bar bill and if you don't like it you can go whistle.......and nine months later when Soho House have told you to go sling your hook you go back to Grouchos and tell them you're prepared to stay for a couple more years........
Would you expect them to kill the fatted calf?
Of course not. I expect a club would expel such a member. But Article 50 does not talk about expulsion.
It's a narrow point, really. And theoretical. I was just pondering it.
RE those bringing up the IRA and Corbyn being a ‘Marxist’ - Corbyn’s supporters are unlikely to have lived through, or remembered the days where IRA bombed places in the UK, or indeed the fall of communism. I only know about these things because of (a. my interest in politics (b. my mum having discussions with me about them. On top of that, Corbyn’s more hardcore supporters see successive governments association with Saudi Arabia, and Thatcher’s association with Pinochet as morally equivalent (edit: actually, thinking about it - they see it as worse) to Corbyn’s IRA association. That’s a message which gets relayed down to his less hardcore supporters meaning that to this group, the moral distinctions that Conservatives and others feel exist between them and Corbyn on these kinds of matters evaporate in the eyes of Corbyn’s biggest and more lukewarm supporters.
I think the term ‘Marxist’ would mean nothing at all, to most people actually - how many ordinary voters do you know who could provide a specific definition of Marxism? Then there’s the matter that if you've grown up in the post-crash years, it’s is likely that it won’t be Marxism that will be the dirty word, but rather capitalism or, more specifically ‘neo-liberalism’. It will be that system that many will associate with hardship, a lack of social mobility and unfairness.
Then there’s the fact that many of these anti-Corbyn stories tended to be printed in outlets such as the Mail, and the right wing press more generally - sources of information that Corbyn’s voters by and large aren’t reading and don’t take seriously. The Tories have a real problem that their cheerleaders in the press are seen as joke by many of those who aren’t old.
In the age of the internet and smartphone, how can there be any excuse for people not to know the basic outline of recent history as far as the IRA and other subjects is concerned? They don't even have to go to the library to get a book on it. It's a duty of being a citizen to take an interest in the history of the country you live in.
The NASA guy who wrote the official history of the space shuttle program was loaned a few interns to proofread the book. The idea was for them to read it and flag up anything they didn't understand, for it might need explaining in the text. These interns were intelligent (they had to be to get in at NASA). During one meeting, one of them put up her hand and asked: "What's the Cold War?"
Not particularly surprising - the decade or so before you were born isn't yet history - not the kind you are taught about, anyhow. Worse still, it's when your parents were young, and who wants to know about that... ?
So the modernisation of the Tory Party goes on......
It does. The marriage and abortion debates are history and his views are not electorally relevant (any more than Corbyn's ban the bomb and abolish the monarchy stuff), and what else should we and do we know at this stage about his policies? When May went into the election nobody knew that she was going to major on dementia care nor that Corbyn was going to score bigly with tuition fees.
I like the word 'bigly'? Sounds like it was appropriated from Disney
Well, completely off topic but an interesting if very sad family dilemma that a friend has.
One of the grown up children in their early 20's, since graduating, has completely failed to take any steps to find a job or some other useful activity. It is driving the parents insane and all attempts at forcing or incentivising the child to engage with life have failed. Suggestions have been made, opportunities offered, including medical assistance for possible depression Nothing has worked.
It is now getting to the stage where the parents feel that the only option, for themselves and the rest of the family, is to throw the child out, which means - in effect - the streets. Sink or swim, even though they fear that this means the very worst will happen. But what else can they do?
No-one is legally obliged to maintain a lazy adult who takes no steps to help themselves. But they feel that, having done everything possible long past the stage that many would think reasonable, they have no more moral or emotional obligation. They are, though, utterly heartbroken as well as infuriated by the situation.
What do PB'ers think?
Sounds like fairly classic "failure to launch".
I have a couple of nephews that are much the same, spending their days computer gaming and similar. Work is not very appealing at the bottom end. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy is probably the best psychotherapy.
There may well be a degree of social anxiety and depression underlying. The key is to get the person out engaging with others and off electronic devices. Voluuntary work, political organisations or campaign groups etc are good places to start.
For the mentally well, but lazy, it is tricky until they realise that work gives meaning and purpose to life. It is not a burden.
I had a friend who was made redundant from his factory job aged 21. He was 7 years on the dole, but in the end started work in the Oxfam Bookshop. Despite having few qualifications and leaving school at 16 he was quite well read. He went on to run his own second hand bookstore.
I think the term ‘Marxist’ would mean nothing at all, to most people actually - how many ordinary voters do you know who could provide a specific definition of Marxism? Then there’s the matter that if you've grown up in the post-crash years, it’s is likely that it won’t be Marxism that will be the dirty word, but rather capitalism or, more specifically ‘neo-liberalism’. It will be that system that many will associate with hardship, a lack of social mobility and unfairness.
Then there’s the fact that many of these anti-Corbyn stories tended to be printed in outlets such as the Mail, and the right wing press more generally - sources of information that Corbyn’s voters by and large aren’t reading and don’t take seriously. The Tories have a real problem that their cheerleaders in the press are seen as joke by many of those who aren’t old.
In the age of the internet and smartphone, how can there be any excuse for people not to know the basic outline of recent history as far as the IRA and other subjects is concerned? They don't even have to go to the library to get a book on it. It's a duty of being a citizen to take an interest in the history of the country you live in.
The NASA guy who wrote the official history of the space shuttle program was loaned a few interns to proofread the book. The idea was for them to read it and flag up anything they didn't understand, for it might need explaining in the text. These interns were intelligent (they had to be to get in at NASA). During one meeting, one of them put up her hand and asked: "What's the Cold War?"
Not particularly surprising - the decade or so before you were born isn't yet history - not the kind you are taught about, anyhow. Worse still, it's when your parents were young, and who wants to know about that... ?
Reminds me, I was working on a very large data migration one weekend in 2012 and in the small hours someone said "Oh, the BBC are saying Neil Armstrong has died". To which, the 20-something on our team said "who's Neil Armstrong?"
Well, completely off topic but an interesting if very sad family dilemma that a friend has.
One of the grown up children in their early 20's, since graduating, has completely failed to take any steps to find a job or some other useful activity. It is driving the parents insane and all attempts at forcing or incentivising the child to engage with life have failed. Suggestions have been made, opportunities offered, including medical assistance for possible depression Nothing has worked.
It is now getting to the stage where the parents feel that the only option, for themselves and the rest of the family, is to throw the child out, which means - in effect - the streets. Sink or swim, even though they fear that this means the very worst will happen. But what else can they do?
No-one is legally obliged to maintain a lazy adult who takes no steps to help themselves. But they feel that, having done everything possible long past the stage that many would think reasonable, they have no more moral or emotional obligation. They are, though, utterly heartbroken as well as infuriated by the situation.
What do PB'ers think?
Search online for hikikomori. There's a phenomenon in Japan where no shortage of young men withdraw from society like this. Treatment seems to revolve around improving self-confidence.
"The Government has bolstered its commitment for Parliament to have the final say on a Brexit deal - but immediately faced a backlash for not guarding against the UK leaving the EU without an agreement."
If there's no deal then we leave with no deal. That's why there's a 2-year limit in A50 in the first place.
All this "A50 is revocable" stuff is fantasy, because at a minimum it would require all EU27 to agree to it, and in any event it would change nothing. We have still voted to Leave, and the EU would still want to give us a terrible deal for their own political reasons. Delaying leaving won't change a thing.
The majority of our law-makers seem to be totally and utterly clueless...
Well, completely off topic but an interesting if very sad family dilemma that a friend has.
One of the grown up children in their early 20's, since graduating, has completely failed to take any steps to find a job or some other useful activity. It is driving the parents insane and all attempts at forcing or incentivising the child to engage with life have failed. Suggestions have been made, opportunities offered, including medical assistance for possible depression Nothing has worked.
It is now getting to the stage where the parents feel that the only option, for themselves and the rest of the family, is to throw the child out, which means - in effect - the streets. Sink or swim, even though they fear that this means the very worst will happen. But what else can they do?
No-one is legally obliged to maintain a lazy adult who takes no steps to help themselves. But they feel that, having done everything possible long past the stage that many would think reasonable, they have no more moral or emotional obligation. They are, though, utterly heartbroken as well as infuriated by the situation.
What do PB'ers think?
How controlling are the parents/family?
Do they relate to the child as an adult now that they actually are an adult? Infantilization of adult children by parents is a huge problem, although it may not be relevant in this instance.
I think they would desperately like the child to be adult and leave home and work and be independent. Or at least work and earn.
My friends feel that the whole situation is bringing the worst out in them, that they are handling it badly and don't know what else to do. And yet they are both very hard-working and loving and the other children are a joy as is this one when they can be arsed to be so but it's as if there's a switch gone wrong or something missing and relations are in a vicious cycle.
If he meant it to be revocable he would have written that into it. He has already said that when it was written it was not envisaged that anyone would actually ever want to use it. SO his word on this is garbage.
Ultimately the only court that can decide whether it is revocable is the ECJ. That is, after all, what they are there for, to interpret the law on the basis of the treaties.
A50 cannot be revoked unilaterally. If it could be, every MS would have served an A50 notice to extract concessions from the Commission, safe in the knowledge that they could pull the notice if things did not develop to their advantage. It absolutely wasn't drafted that way and you can tell Lord Kerr knows it.
Indeed, I think Lord Kerr drafted A50(3) to provide that any attempt to extend would only extract further concessions from the notifying MS. To extend the two-year deadline, one needs the unanimous consent of the remaining 27 MSs. In the UK's case, an application to extend would, I think, be met with a response along the lines of "The Fontainebleau abatement buys you a year, Sterling another, and Schengen another". Then after three years of no progress and a change of government in the notifying MS it's concessions time again.
I don't think the remaining MSs would countenance an indefinite extension, not least because a short one gives more bang for the buck, but because a notifying MS with an indefinite extension would probably get its vetoes back.
The idea of contagious A50 hokey cokey is nonsense. The EU would simply not engage in negotiations if they thought a country was abusing their goodwill.
So the modernisation of the Tory Party goes on......
It does. The marriage and abortion debates are history and his views are not electorally relevant (any more than Corbyn's ban the bomb and abolish the monarchy stuff), and what else should we and do we know at this stage about his policies? When May went into the election nobody knew that she was going to major on dementia care nor that Corbyn was going to score bigly with tuition fees.
I like the word 'bigly'? Sounds like it was appropriated from Disney
So the modernisation of the Tory Party goes on......
It does. The marriage and abortion debates are history and his views are not electorally relevant (any more than Corbyn's ban the bomb and abolish the monarchy stuff), and what else should we and do we know at this stage about his policies? When May went into the election nobody knew that she was going to major on dementia care nor that Corbyn was going to score bigly with tuition fees.
I like the word 'bigly'? Sounds like it was appropriated from Disney
A Trumpism I believe.
”Embiggens” (makes bigger) appears in an inscription in the opening sequence of some Simpsons episodes.
So the modernisation of the Tory Party goes on......
It does. The marriage and abortion debates are history and his views are not electorally relevant (any more than Corbyn's ban the bomb and abolish the monarchy stuff), and what else should we and do we know at this stage about his policies? When May went into the election nobody knew that she was going to major on dementia care nor that Corbyn was going to score bigly with tuition fees.
I like the word 'bigly'? Sounds like it was appropriated from Disney
A Trumpism I believe.
”Embiggens” (makes bigger) appears in an inscription in the opening sequence of some Simpsons episodes.
I think the term ‘Marxist’ would mean nothing at all, to most people actually - how many ordinary voters do you know who could provide a specific definition of Marxism? Then there’s the matter that if you've grown up in the post-crash years, it’s is likely that it won’t be Marxism that will be the dirty word, but rather capitalism or, more specifically ‘neo-liberalism’. It will be that system that many will associate with hardship, a lack of social mobility and unfairness.
Then there’s the fact that many of these anti-Corbyn stories tended to be printed in outlets such as the Mail, and the right wing press more generally - sources of information that Corbyn’s voters by and large aren’t reading and don’t take seriously. The Tories have a real problem that their cheerleaders in the press are seen as joke by many of those who aren’t old.
In the age of the internet and smartphone, how can there be any excuse for people not to know the basic outline of recent history as far as the IRA and other subjects is concerned? They don't even have to go to the library to get a book on it. It's a duty of being a citizen to take an interest in the history of the country you live in.
The NASA guy who wrote the official history of the space shuttle program was loaned a few interns to proofread the book. The idea was for them to read it and flag up anything they didn't understand, for it might need explaining in the text. These interns were intelligent (they had to be to get in at NASA). During one meeting, one of them put up her hand and asked: "What's the Cold War?"
Not particularly surprising - the decade or so before you were born isn't yet history - not the kind you are taught about, anyhow. Worse still, it's when your parents were young, and who wants to know about that... ?
Reminds me, I was working on a very large data migration one weekend in 2012 and in the small hours someone said "Oh, the BBC are saying Neil Armstrong has died". To which, the 20-something on our team said "who's Neil Armstrong?"
The yoof of today, eh?
When the new £5 note came out a young colleague of mine pointed at Churchill and said "who's the old man?"
The majority of our law-makers lawyers seem to be totally and utterly clueless...
Having dealt with some of the legal profession's finest recently, I simply had to correct your statement
Hmph.
*sulks*
Sorry Mr Meeks, but they caused a complete FUBAR situation. I did not injure any of them but the verbal lashing they got will stay with them for some time to come. As for the letters of complaint I am drafting for the attention of the senior partners ......
The joy of doing a lot of stuff by email is that I have a record of everything and it is all date stamped. That is going to work so well in my favour
If he meant it to be revocable he would have written that into it. He has already said that when it was written it was not envisaged that anyone would actually ever want to use it. SO his word on this is garbage.
Ultimately the only court that can decide whether it is revocable is the ECJ. That is, after all, what they are there for, to interpret the law on the basis of the treaties.
A50 cannot be revoked unilaterally. If it could be, every MS would have served an A50 notice to extract concessions from the Commission, safe in the knowledge that they could pull the notice if things did not develop to their advantage. It absolutely wasn't drafted that way and you can tell Lord Kerr knows it.
Indeed, I think Lord Kerr drafted A50(3) to provide that any attempt to extend would only extract further concessions from the notifying MS. To extend the two-year deadline, one needs the unanimous consent of the remaining 27 MSs. In the UK's case, an application to extend would, I think, be met with a response along the lines of "The Fontainebleau abatement buys you a year, Sterling another, and Schengen another". Then after three years of no progress and a change of government in the notifying MS it's concessions time again.
I don't think the remaining MSs would countenance an indefinite extension, not least because a short one gives more bang for the buck, but because a notifying MS with an indefinite extension would probably get its vetoes back.
The idea of contagious A50 hokey cokey is nonsense. The EU would simply not engage in negotiations if they thought a country was abusing their goodwill.
A50 compels them, but one can imagine the law of diminshing returns does apply.
Sweden at up to 20-1 in the in-play. Might be the value bet if you expect Italy to throw everything at it and leave themselves exposed at the back
Well, completely off topic but an interesting if very sad family dilemma that a friend has.
One of the grown up children in their early 20's, since graduating, has completely failed to take any steps to find a job or some other useful activity. It is driving the parents insane and all attempts at forcing or incentivising the child to engage with life have failed. Suggestions have been made, opportunities offered, including medical assistance for possible depression Nothing has worked.
It is now getting to the stage where the parents feel that the only option, for themselves and the rest of the family, is to throw the child out, which means - in effect - the streets. Sink or swim, even though they fear that this means the very worst will happen. But what else can they do?
No-one is legally obliged to maintain a lazy adult who takes no steps to help themselves. But they feel that, having done everything possible long past the stage that many would think reasonable, they have no more moral or emotional obligation. They are, though, utterly heartbroken as well as infuriated by the situation.
it can be more effective than individual therapy. Often it takes an external event or an external person to drag someone out of this slump. It is tough though but my advice would be ride it out with love and compassion and the guy will probably get there.
I think the term ‘Marxist’ would mean nothing at all, to most people actually - how many ordinary voters do you know who could provide a specific definition of Marxism? Then there’s the matter that if you've grown up in the post-crash years, it’s is likely that it won’t be Marxism that will be the dirty word, but rather capitalism or, more specifically ‘neo-liberalism’. It will be that system that many will associate with hardship, a lack of social mobility and unfairness.
Then there’s the fact that many of these anti-Corbyn stories tended to be printed in outlets such as the Mail, and the right wing press more generally - sources of information that Corbyn’s voters by and large aren’t reading and don’t take seriously. The Tories have a real problem that their cheerleaders in the press are seen as joke by many of those who aren’t old.
In the age of the internet and smartphone, how can there be any excuse for people not to know the basic outline of recent history as far as the IRA and other subjects is concerned? They don't even have to go to the library to get a book on it. It's a duty of being a citizen to take an interest in the history of the country you live in.
The truth may be darker, that some of Corbyn's supporters like the IRA, and thoroughly approve of their actions. After all, they were killing Conservatives, Unionists, and members of the armed forces.
Quite a few Corbyn supporters proclaim the law is important, but all bets are off if you're a Tory.
Much as I dislike the IRA and its methods, the route to peace in NI was inevitably through talking to them.
IMO the IRA and Marxist labels only really have impact with people who would never vote for Corbyn anyway.
But did he have to speak to them days after they tried to assassinate the PM and Cabinet?
No, I wouldn't defend his actions. I am only trying to say they don't have massive resonance with most of today's voters.
There is also often a lot of hypocrisy in dealings with terrorists and similar. The route to peace almost inevitably involves talking to people who have erstwhile been despised or hate figures; history is littered with examples. Often the talks are going on in the background in parallel with official pronouncements that we will 'only talk when you renounce violence'.
As Churchill said it is 'better to jaw-jaw than to war-war'.
They don't have massive resonance, but they should IMO.
Thanks Dr Fox - I have every confidence in my consultant but was diagnosed in June 2016 and only now given a date of 27th Nov 2017 so Wales NHS having all the problems seen in England
I think the term ‘Marxist’ would mean nothing at all, to most people actually - how many ordinary voters do you know who could provide a specific definition of Marxism? Then there’s the matter that if you've grown up in the post-crash years, it’s is likely that it won’t be Marxism that will be the dirty word, but rather capitalism or, more specifically ‘neo-liberalism’. It will be that system that many will associate with hardship, a lack of social mobility and unfairness.
Then there’s the fact that many of these anti-Corbyn stories tended to be printed in outlets such as the Mail, and the right wing press more generally - sources of information that Corbyn’s voters by and large aren’t reading and don’t take seriously. The Tories have a real problem that their cheerleaders in the press are seen as joke by many of those who aren’t old.
In the age of the internet and smartphone, how can there be any excuse for people not to know the basic outline of recent history as far as the IRA and other subjects is concerned? They don't even have to go to the library to get a book on it. It's a duty of being a citizen to take an interest in the history of the country you live in.
The NASA guy who wrote the official history of the space shuttle program was loaned a few interns to proofread the book. The idea was for them to read it and flag up anything they didn't understand, for it might need explaining in the text. These interns were intelligent (they had to be to get in at NASA). During one meeting, one of them put up her hand and asked: "What's the Cold War?"
Not particularly surprising - the decade or so before you were born isn't yet history - not the kind you are taught about, anyhow. Worse still, it's when your parents were young, and who wants to know about that... ?
Reminds me, I was working on a very large data migration one weekend in 2012 and in the small hours someone said "Oh, the BBC are saying Neil Armstrong has died". To which, the 20-something on our team said "who's Neil Armstrong?"
Then there’s the matter that if you've grown up in the post-crash years, it’s is likely that it won’t be Marxism that will be the dirty word, but rather capitalism or, more specifically ‘neo-liberalism’. It will be that system that many will associate with hardship, a lack of social mobility and unfairness.
Then there’s the fact that many of these anti-Corbyn stories tended to be printed in outlets such as the Mail, and the right wing press more generally - sources of information that Corbyn’s voters by and large aren’t reading and don’t take seriously. The Tories have a real problem that their cheerleaders in the press are seen as joke by many of those who aren’t old.
In the age of the internet and smartphone, how can there be any excuse for people not to know the basic outline of recent history as far as the IRA and other subjects is concerned? They don't even have to go to the library to get a book on it. It's a duty of being a citizen to take an interest in the history of the country you live in.
The truth may be darker, that some of Corbyn's supporters like the IRA, and thoroughly approve of their actions. After all, they were killing Conservatives, Unionists, and members of the armed forces.
Quite a few Corbyn supporters proclaim the law is important, but all bets are off if you're a Tory.
Much as I dislike the IRA and its methods, the route to peace in NI was inevitably through talking to them.
IMO the IRA and Marxist labels only really have impact with people who would never vote for Corbyn anyway.
But did he have to speak to them days after they tried to assassinate the PM and Cabinet?
No, I wouldn't defend his actions. I am only trying to say they don't have massive resonance with most of today's voters.
There is also often a lot of hypocrisy in dealings with terrorists and similar. The route to peace almost inevitably involves talking to people who have erstwhile been despised or hate figures; history is littered with examples. Often the talks are going on in the background in parallel with official pronouncements that we will 'only talk when you renounce violence'.
As Churchill said it is 'better to jaw-jaw than to war-war'.
They don't have massive resonance, but they should IMO.
Well you're certainly entitled to your opinion.
Do you feel the same about Margaret Thatcher cosying up to Pinochet and apartheid South Africa?
On David Davis announcement it may have caused problems for the conservative remainers but it must ask questions of labour as to their voting intention
Thanks Dr Fox - I have every confidence in my consultant but was diagnosed in June 2016 and only now given a date of 27th Nov 2017 so Wales NHS having all the problems seen in England
Worse, I think. Waiting time targets in England start to get fairly punitive after 18 weeks. For conditions like hernias better to get it right than quick.
In the eighties, I was doing a locum in the West country, and this eighty year old came to me with an enormous hernia. I asked how long he had had it. 46 years came the answer, I remember exactly as I was cranking my tractor at the time. I asked why he had left it so long. The answer was that he didn't want anyone else milking his cows! A charming old fellow, he had only been out of the county once in his life, to an agricultural show. He couldn't enjoy it though, as he worried about his stock all the time.
Comments
Sounds like he may need to be sectioned to protect him
Given the same poll also has May with a far lower positivity rating than Corbyn and May beat Corbyn in seats and votes in June it is also questionable how useful it is.
Do MPs not understand how this works?
"The Government has bolstered its commitment for Parliament to have the final say on a Brexit deal - but immediately faced a backlash for not guarding against the UK leaving the EU without an agreement."
https://news.sky.com/story/david-davis-under-fire-over-pledge-for-mps-vote-on-brexit-deal-11125412
If there's no deal then we leave with no deal. That's why there's a 2-year limit in A50 in the first place.
All this "A50 is revocable" stuff is fantasy, because at a minimum it would require all EU27 to agree to it, and in any event it would change nothing. We have still voted to Leave, and the EU would still want to give us a terrible deal for their own political reasons. Delaying leaving won't change a thing.
Something needs to be done and throwing someone on the streets is very harsh. There was that journalist who did it with her son a few years back. But tolerating laziness in the face of plenty of opportunities which someone is refusing to take is not really acceptable either. And the longer someone is in such a situation it becomes so much harder for them to get out of it. What do they say to potential employers? For all the talk of being open about mental illness I am cynical about how willing employers really are to employ someone who admits on a CV to a period of mental illness.
What puzzles me is why the child refuses to do anything because they are clearly not happy in the situation either and would probably be best somewhere else. Families can become cockpits of unhappiness and, as someone once said, a mother is only as happy as her most unhappy child. It is all very sad.
IMO the IRA and Marxist labels only really have impact with people who would never vote for Corbyn anyway.
They have my utmost sympathy but beyond that I am afraid I can offer nothing more.
Would you expect them to kill the fatted calf?
I think there is a difference between being unemployed but looking for work and being unemployed and doing nothing about it.
Italy down 1 - 0 on first leg and need to win to qualify for World Cup
Great game so far at 0 - 0
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/football/41967488
Do they relate to the child as an adult now that they actually are an adult? Infantilization of adult children by parents is a huge problem, although it may not be relevant in this instance.
Indeed, I think Lord Kerr drafted A50(3) to provide that any attempt to extend would only extract further concessions from the notifying MS. To extend the two-year deadline, one needs the unanimous consent of the remaining 27 MSs. In the UK's case, an application to extend would, I think, be met with a response along the lines of "The Fontainebleau abatement buys you a year, Sterling another, and Schengen another". Then after three years of no progress and a change of government in the notifying MS it's concessions time again.
I don't think the remaining MSs would countenance an indefinite extension, not least because a short one gives more bang for the buck, but because a notifying MS with an indefinite extension would probably get its vetoes back.
They have. No clear reason has been given, as I understand it. There has been a history of mental illness and the concern is that the current situation will lead to its recurrence in a more extreme form.
Not knowing what you want to do when you are young, if you don't have a vocation, is not unusual. People often have to try lots of different things before finding a niche. But it is odd when someone who is talented and intelligent but clearly unhappy does not wish to get out of the situation, itself probably a mark of illness, and the whole situation is making family relations very difficult. The parents feel they are being manipulated into tolerating an untenable situation because they will be criticised for not loving their child or feel guilty if the worst happens.
Anyway, I will pass the advice on. Thanks all.
There is also often a lot of hypocrisy in dealings with terrorists and similar. The route to peace almost inevitably involves talking to people who have erstwhile been despised or hate figures; history is littered with examples. Often the talks are going on in the background in parallel with official pronouncements that we will 'only talk when you renounce violence'.
As Churchill said it is 'better to jaw-jaw than to war-war'.
Sound advice.
It's a narrow point, really. And theoretical. I was just pondering it.
Doh!
@Popehat: Pro tip: do not identify yourself as a deputy district attorney in your yearbook inscriptions for teen girls
I have a couple of nephews that are much the same, spending their days computer gaming and similar. Work is not very appealing at the bottom end. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy is probably the best psychotherapy.
There may well be a degree of social anxiety and depression underlying. The key is to get the person out engaging with others and off electronic devices. Voluuntary work, political organisations or campaign groups etc are good places to start.
For the mentally well, but lazy, it is tricky until they realise that work gives meaning and purpose to life. It is not a burden.
I had a friend who was made redundant from his factory job aged 21. He was 7 years on the dole, but in the end started work in the Oxfam Bookshop. Despite having few qualifications and leaving school at 16 he was quite well read. He went on to run his own second hand bookstore.
The yoof of today, eh?
My friends feel that the whole situation is bringing the worst out in them, that they are handling it badly and don't know what else to do. And yet they are both very hard-working and loving and the other children are a joy as is this one when they can be arsed to be so but it's as if there's a switch gone wrong or something missing and relations are in a vicious cycle.
Anyway, back to Brexit......
”Embiggens” (makes bigger) appears in an inscription in the opening sequence of some Simpsons episodes.
That big cruise ship has sunk. Do you want to hear the good news or bad news.
Bad news - there are no survivors
What on earth is the good news
They were all lawyers !!!!!
*sulks*
(And is Immobile showing enough movement?)
Sweden hanging on - very nervy for Italy
"How?"
"The sharks wouldn't eat them."
"Why not?"
"Professional courtesy..."
"It's Winston Churchill"
"Who's that?"
The joy of doing a lot of stuff by email is that I have a record of everything and it is all date stamped. That is going to work so well in my favour
Still 0 - 0 after 89 mins
Sweden at up to 20-1 in the in-play. Might be the value bet if you expect Italy to throw everything at it and leave themselves exposed at the back
However, some of the Remainers seem to think that it is still The Multi-Coloured Swap Shop.
Oh, and Noel's House Party isn't yet another new centrist pro-EU proto-party.
I would suggest family therapy might be an option. http://www.ift.org.uk/counselling-therapy-services/
it can be more effective than individual therapy. Often it takes an external event or an external person to drag someone out of this slump. It is tough though but my advice would be ride it out with love and compassion and the guy will probably get there.
On the streets you are looking more 50/50
Do you feel the same about Margaret Thatcher cosying up to Pinochet and apartheid South Africa?
No way would the SNP back the government on a no confidence vote - it would be 1st degree political suicide!
In the eighties, I was doing a locum in the West country, and this eighty year old came to me with an enormous hernia. I asked how long he had had it. 46 years came the answer, I remember exactly as I was cranking my tractor at the time. I asked why he had left it so long. The answer was that he didn't want anyone else milking his cows! A charming old fellow, he had only been out of the county once in his life, to an agricultural show. He couldn't enjoy it though, as he worried about his stock all the time.
Mine is a great job. I meet all sorts of folk.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5078311/Pictured-David-Cameron-s-2million-Cornish-bolthole.html