No @OxfordBlue , you miss the point. The fact is that an average male currently aged 55 has a life expectancy of another 27 years. If we say that is around on average when the last of the kids move out, that means another 20-25 years of those kids bedrooms not being used.
Maybe the solution to the housing crisis is to incentivise by tax over 55s to move out of family homes into smaller houses more suitable for their current needs.
There are all sorts of questions we could get into @OxfordBlue about quality versus quantity of life and the implications about treating ailments of more elderly people but I think we are in danger of boring @Wendoverman already.
In essence though, while I wouldn't support compulsory euthanasia, I would make it easier for those mentally competent to make an informed choice to choose to die when their quality of life was severely reduced.
More mainstream though, if we are seeking to solve the housing crisis by legislation, I would prefer to target that legislation at encouraging by taxation housing stock to be more efficiently utilised (especially by over 55s) than by seeking to limit childbirth. if for no better reason than I need those kids to do the work and pay the taxes to pay my pension down the road.
@Malone the close to complete collapse of anything resembling the social care system under a succession of poor quality HR manager governments makes the culling of wrinklies the more likely option. The pinheads are repopulating the world and like The Last Man On Earth soon the non-pinheads will be the problem!
@DevC said:
No one is talking about an "unlimited" number @mooneyman . That is just a Farage style scare tactic.
Re you saying then that in order to keep out economic migrants masquerading as asylum seekers, you are prepared to bar the doors to fellow human beings genuinely fleeing for their lives?
Where did I say I want to bar true asylum seekers from settling in this country? The apparent difference in our views is that I want to see a vigorous investigation of all people wishing to settle in this country to exclude economic migrants, whereas you seem prepared to let everyone in willy nilly, even if they abuse the system.
@DevC said:
There are all sorts of questions we could get into @OxfordBlue about quality versus quantity of life and the implications about treating ailments of more elderly people but I think we are in danger of boring @Wendoverman already.
Sod @Wendoverman - He can go and sit in a darkened room and stuff his face with giant sized packets of crisps!
The problem is however @mooneyman telling apart someone genuinely in need of asylum from someone whose primary motive is economic. By definition they are likely to have come from countries in a degree of chaos, with limited on non-existent governments and very limited government records. I have no objection to such checks that are possible being made (but for god sake treat those awaiting assessment humanely - we fail abjectly on this minimum standard now). However in a world of uncertainty, I err on the side of the genuine asylum seeker. I would rather 10 economic migrants get through if it would prevent one genuine asylum seeker being incorrectly assessed and returned to a life of oppression and possibly death. I fear your priority is to prevent the 10 economic migrants.
By the way to pull this thread back to its purpose, my prediction is a 0-2 defeat for Saturday - but for at least some other results to go our way.
@DevC said:
There are all sorts of questions we could get into @OxfordBlue about quality versus quantity of life and the implications about treating ailments of more elderly people but I think we are in danger of boring @Wendoverman already.
In essence though, while I wouldn't support compulsory euthanasia, I would make it easier for those mentally competent to make an informed choice to choose to die when their quality of life was severely reduced.
More mainstream though, if we are seeking to solve the housing crisis by legislation, I would prefer to target that legislation at encouraging by taxation housing stock to be more efficiently utilised (especially by over 55s) than by seeking to limit childbirth. if for no better reason than I need those kids to do the work and pay the taxes to pay my pension down the road.
Reading some of your posts @DevC has me searching for the number of Dignitas!!
Abolition of the various right to buy schemes that don't help people who aren't already loaded and push prices up disadvantaging everyone except those already hoarding.
Amendment of affordable housing building requirements to get close to something actually affordable.
Higher taxes because stuff is kind of needed in any kind of civilized society and high earners and business owners tend to be the ones who benefit if all is swimming along.
A new contract for Dom "unspectacular" Gape.
Job creation based on investment and development of areas in need and the workforce that are keen regardless of their origination.
Better catering for all.
A new tannoy in the terrace, but shutting it up when people are singing.
Pre-pouring a pint or two when you know several hundred people want one.
All gasroomers to be given named 2020 Wycombe shirts prior to the Serrgio kickabout and health cover afterwards.
I echo @eric_plant 's praise of @DevC . But I'd go further even than Dev. I don't have "the answers", although @StrongestTeam has some of them in his excellent post. But I question the clear distinction some of you are trying to draw between a "genuine asylum seeker" (good) and an "economic migrant" (bad). Many of the latter have quite literally risked a fairly high chance of death in some rustbucket tub or flimsy inflatable crossing the Mediterranean. They may not have had "an immediate fear of persecution" but how shitty did their lives in their country of origin have to be before they took that desperate gamble? How many of you would abandon your lives here, your friends and your family, because you could make your life economically better somewhere else? And what clever thing did you do in order to earn the right to live here? You made a good choice of parent and that's more or less it.
And I'm quite happy to give money to a beggar in the full knowledge that he, or more rarely she, may spend it on drugs or alcohol. The question I always ask myself - would I rather be me or them? I'm not claiming some massive virtue - I give away far less than I could easily afford. But I am saying that, if you never give money to a beggar in person because of the risk that they might spend it in a way that you morally disapprove of or because of the very small chance that they've chosen the life of a professional beggar, then you're just using a bad excuse for your lack of basic human charity.
If you think life is fair
You are a fool.
Do you really believe that all you have
Was earned by the sweat of your brow,
Your own efforts and nothing else?
How clever of you to choose your mum and dad so well
To be born in a country with the infrastructure to support
Your enterprise and effort.
And, come to that, how well you chose the genes that helped to make you what you are.
Well done for avoiding the chronic ailments that lesser, weaker mortals
Allow to hold them back.
Well done for being white, and tall,
And straight of bone and fair of face.
But what if those rewards that life has showered so richly on you
Are not entirely yours by right of worth?
What then?
Easier not to think about it.
Easier to condemn the chavs and skivers,
Easier to forget the starving millions
Who had the foolishness to choose
Corrupt leaders
Who siphon away the billions we send them, crumbs from our groaning table.
How very much harder
To do something about it.
Because "something" can never be enough,
Because the problems of the world
Are infinitely intractable.
But, at the very least,
You could be
A bit less smug
About it.
Last minute equaliser and winner for wycombe as Wimbledon wobble 2.1
Immigration is far more complicated then you think you can’t ignore the organised crime element behind it far more bad then good comes out of it. Always give money to the homeless and and in the past have had quite a lot of dealing with drug addicts/ alcoholics / ex prisoners etc the most appalling thing is the system that you can’t get a job without a home and can’t get a home without a job vicious circle. Well done Dev C for your work this season and raising the issue within the gas room.
Comments
No @OxfordBlue , you miss the point. The fact is that an average male currently aged 55 has a life expectancy of another 27 years. If we say that is around on average when the last of the kids move out, that means another 20-25 years of those kids bedrooms not being used.
Maybe the solution to the housing crisis is to incentivise by tax over 55s to move out of family homes into smaller houses more suitable for their current needs.
(to be clear I am very much part of this problem)
I understand the concept of an ageing population Dev. But that can't really be solved without prematurely killing people can it?
People could have less kids though, and stop the population growing. This becomes especially more important as life expectancy goes up.
I paid £10 to make poor predictions just so I didn't have to have these sorts of moral discussions...
There are all sorts of questions we could get into @OxfordBlue about quality versus quantity of life and the implications about treating ailments of more elderly people but I think we are in danger of boring @Wendoverman already.
In essence though, while I wouldn't support compulsory euthanasia, I would make it easier for those mentally competent to make an informed choice to choose to die when their quality of life was severely reduced.
More mainstream though, if we are seeking to solve the housing crisis by legislation, I would prefer to target that legislation at encouraging by taxation housing stock to be more efficiently utilised (especially by over 55s) than by seeking to limit childbirth. if for no better reason than I need those kids to do the work and pay the taxes to pay my pension down the road.
@DevC anything above a one line richie or a @Malone or @micra crafted paragraph and I'm struggling....especially if it is about changing the world.
@Wendoverman, thank goodness for more light hearted posters on here.
Though, i'd be more keen to stop those who cannot hope to support their kids bringing more into the world, then killing off old people early!
@Malone the close to complete collapse of anything resembling the social care system under a succession of poor quality HR manager governments makes the culling of wrinklies the more likely option. The pinheads are repopulating the world and like The Last Man On Earth soon the non-pinheads will be the problem!
Where did I say I want to bar true asylum seekers from settling in this country? The apparent difference in our views is that I want to see a vigorous investigation of all people wishing to settle in this country to exclude economic migrants, whereas you seem prepared to let everyone in willy nilly, even if they abuse the system.
Sod @Wendoverman - He can go and sit in a darkened room and stuff his face with giant sized packets of crisps!
I would @mooneyman but the economic migrant refugee I sent out to get them hasn't come back. I don't think I'll see that fiver again...
Dev's best day on here for ages
Good work Devvers
The problem is however @mooneyman telling apart someone genuinely in need of asylum from someone whose primary motive is economic. By definition they are likely to have come from countries in a degree of chaos, with limited on non-existent governments and very limited government records. I have no objection to such checks that are possible being made (but for god sake treat those awaiting assessment humanely - we fail abjectly on this minimum standard now). However in a world of uncertainty, I err on the side of the genuine asylum seeker. I would rather 10 economic migrants get through if it would prevent one genuine asylum seeker being incorrectly assessed and returned to a life of oppression and possibly death. I fear your priority is to prevent the 10 economic migrants.
By the way to pull this thread back to its purpose, my prediction is a 0-2 defeat for Saturday - but for at least some other results to go our way.
I've already got a list of suitable candidates.
Anyway back to the score predictions ...
I'll go Wimbledon 1 - Wycombe 1
Reading some of your posts @DevC has me searching for the number of Dignitas!!
1-0 to the Wanderers
Abolition of the various right to buy schemes that don't help people who aren't already loaded and push prices up disadvantaging everyone except those already hoarding.
Amendment of affordable housing building requirements to get close to something actually affordable.
Higher taxes because stuff is kind of needed in any kind of civilized society and high earners and business owners tend to be the ones who benefit if all is swimming along.
A new contract for Dom "unspectacular" Gape.
Job creation based on investment and development of areas in need and the workforce that are keen regardless of their origination.
Better catering for all.
A new tannoy in the terrace, but shutting it up when people are singing.
Pre-pouring a pint or two when you know several hundred people want one.
All gasroomers to be given named 2020 Wycombe shirts prior to the Serrgio kickabout and health cover afterwards.
voteforme
@EwanHoosaami , its 0041-368-472356
Don't forget to cancel the milk..........
Sorry @StrongestTeam, I already voted for the Kashket v Pompy goal.
Is this still the prediction thread! If so, Wimbledon 2 Wycombe 3.
Wycombe have rarely (never?) scored three against Wimbledon in the EFL so I’ll go for 2-2.
I echo @eric_plant 's praise of @DevC . But I'd go further even than Dev. I don't have "the answers", although @StrongestTeam has some of them in his excellent post. But I question the clear distinction some of you are trying to draw between a "genuine asylum seeker" (good) and an "economic migrant" (bad). Many of the latter have quite literally risked a fairly high chance of death in some rustbucket tub or flimsy inflatable crossing the Mediterranean. They may not have had "an immediate fear of persecution" but how shitty did their lives in their country of origin have to be before they took that desperate gamble? How many of you would abandon your lives here, your friends and your family, because you could make your life economically better somewhere else? And what clever thing did you do in order to earn the right to live here? You made a good choice of parent and that's more or less it.
And I'm quite happy to give money to a beggar in the full knowledge that he, or more rarely she, may spend it on drugs or alcohol. The question I always ask myself - would I rather be me or them? I'm not claiming some massive virtue - I give away far less than I could easily afford. But I am saying that, if you never give money to a beggar in person because of the risk that they might spend it in a way that you morally disapprove of or because of the very small chance that they've chosen the life of a professional beggar, then you're just using a bad excuse for your lack of basic human charity.
Here's one I wrote earlier:
If you think life is fair
You are a fool.
Do you really believe that all you have
Was earned by the sweat of your brow,
Your own efforts and nothing else?
How clever of you to choose your mum and dad so well
To be born in a country with the infrastructure to support
Your enterprise and effort.
And, come to that, how well you chose the genes that helped to make you what you are.
Well done for avoiding the chronic ailments that lesser, weaker mortals
Allow to hold them back.
Well done for being white, and tall,
And straight of bone and fair of face.
But what if those rewards that life has showered so richly on you
Are not entirely yours by right of worth?
What then?
Easier not to think about it.
Easier to condemn the chavs and skivers,
Easier to forget the starving millions
Who had the foolishness to choose
Corrupt leaders
Who siphon away the billions we send them, crumbs from our groaning table.
How very much harder
To do something about it.
Because "something" can never be enough,
Because the problems of the world
Are infinitely intractable.
But, at the very least,
You could be
A bit less smug
About it.
But Wimbledon have conceded 3 or more 7 times in the league this season.
any recommendations on parking at Wimbledon?
Have been before, but yonks back.
Wimbledon 1 Wycombe 1
Posts of the day from @OakwoodExile
And I reckon we’ll win so i’ll Hedge it with a 2-0 defeat and a lot to play for next weekend
Wimbledon 3-2 Wycombe
Euthanise old people, shoot economic migrants and anyone who is on a low salary that has multiple kids....did I miss anything?
This is why I love the gasroom as i thought this was prediction thread. 2-1 Wycombe.
AFC Wimbledon 1 Wycombe Wanderers 1
Last minute equaliser and winner for wycombe as Wimbledon wobble 2.1
Immigration is far more complicated then you think you can’t ignore the organised crime element behind it far more bad then good comes out of it. Always give money to the homeless and and in the past have had quite a lot of dealing with drug addicts/ alcoholics / ex prisoners etc the most appalling thing is the system that you can’t get a job without a home and can’t get a home without a job vicious circle. Well done Dev C for your work this season and raising the issue within the gas room.