Vince Watch

Ten Bobsworth wrote:Had another chat with my son yesterday. He was brought up as the only Bolton supporter in his school but he's had his own business since soon after he left school.

Times though are hard. One of his  main suppliers went to the wall last month and most of his other suppliers are really struggling because they cannot get the materials they need through the pandemic. Its looking like his business will have to close too.

Hopefully your lads business will manage to get through this.

My daughter was furloughed and went through a companywide redundancy process but she was one of the lucky ones to keep her job - for now at least.

Times are clearly hard and I hope we can all get through it as unscathed as we can but everyday I still read about folk who just continually flout the 'rules' and help perpetuate Covid to spread and get worse for the people who end up sick through catching it, the NHS who is again becoming swamped with cases, those who have had their other medical issues postponed indefinitely because of the growing number of beds taken up by Covid patients and the economy itself.

Still no doubt they think as long as they do what they please who gives a fig about anybody else!

England v Barbarians: Thirteen Barbarians players charged by RFU after coronavirus protocol breached

The players left their hotel bubble - contrary to team protocols - to have dinner, and a number of players also went to a central London pub.

BBC Sport understands former England captain Chris Robshaw, who was among the players who apologised for the breach, is one of the players charged.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/54732478


I highlight this in particular.

Now I'm not a big rugby fan but plenty are and no doubt can easily recognise the faces of star players like an England captain. These days everyone has a phone with a camera and everyone is on social media so isn't it obvious to Robshaw and the other players that going out in public that there is more than a fair chance that someone or other will take a snap of them and tweet it/post it on Facebook, etc and sooner or later it will get to the knowledge of those at the RFU?

Of course it will!

Yet he and his mates still went outside their bubble wilfully and deliberately.

It's not as though they would not have known there were consequences - Archer was fined and dropped for breaching the cricket 'bubble', Fodden and Greenwood again fined and dropped for breaching the football one.

You just despair (well I do) at the continued selfishness and self entitlement belief of some/many people to do what the like and don't give a fuck about everyone else.

We get what we deserve I suppose.

As I say hope your son (and everyone else) manages to come through this despite of everything and everyone who put themselves before everyone else.

Thanks, Sluffy. If he can't get the supplies, the business will have to close and its looking unavoidable.

But he has no overdue creditors and has always kept bang up to date with HMRC. He could have taken advantage of VAT deferral but hasn't, so he doesn't have anything like that lurking in the background.

VAT deferral will have been a lifeline for many small businesses struggling to survive but I gather the good folks at Old Trafford have taken advantage of the deferral opportunity whilst paying £millions to shareholders.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:

Ten Bobsworth wrote:Best thing to do, Sluffy, is ignore him.

Anyway our hero's back in the news today with his diamonds from the sky. Its all in the Guardian so it must be kosher.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/oct/30/ecotricity-founder-to-grow-diamonds-made-entirely-from-the-sky

Does Sluffy want to remove FSMs or keep them? That’s all I’m trying to understand.

FSM are part of the welfare system.

I've never advocated their abolishment.

But that isn't what the discussion is about, it is in respect of Rashford's campaign to provide FSM out of term time.

I have pointed out at FSM don't actually cover weekend provision either in or out of term time, so doesn't there appear to be a gaping hole in its universal provision if indeed that is Rashford's aim?

My issue is and has always been about individual child welfare.

The government report I flagged up states the same, namely it isn't the system about feeding children that identity's neglect it is why isn't the parent isn't feeding the child at home in the first place?

Schools identifying such neglect are key in this respect.

Feeding children from school canteens out of term time when there are no teachers there can't identifying such neglect and as such are simply just a system to fill a perceived need (by Rashford and others of the general public but not by the government) but not to identify child neglect and abuse.

If you can't or deliberately don't want to grasp that, then that's down to you.

So you believe FSM’s shouldn’t be extended outside of term time - because it inhibits the identification of child neglect?

T.R.O.Y. wrote:So you believe FSM’s shouldn’t be extended outside of term time - because it inhibits the identification of child neglect?

No, I never said that.

I've constantly said that any child who is hungry should be fed.

What I have also been saying is that a FSM system outside of term time (where no teachers are dealing with the children throughout the day) will not detect neglect of a child and that identification of child neglect is the prime concern to be identified as quickly as it possibly can and be dealt with.

It really isn't difficult to understand what I've been saying so I can only conclude you are (and have been for a little while now) just arguing for arguing sake to simply amuse yourself.

I thought we might have moved on from that by now, seems not though.

You said you don’t believe in the cause. All I’ve been trying to understand is what you mean by that, the cause is to feed kids - which you clearly believe in. 

I completely agree with the notion that kids going hungry can be an indicator of neglect and feeding them is not a resolution to that wider issue. I’d say that’s painfully obvious unfortunately but it is not the purpose of FSM or of Rashford’s campaign. Hence my confusion over what it is you’ve been getting at.

So don’t start this nonsense about arguing for the sake of it, you haven’t been clear and I’m allowed to try and find out what your point is.

wanderlust wrote:
Think I mentioned it a year or two ago, but a senior Jewish Council whose name eludes me defined anti-semitism in order to provide clarity and included in that definition were criticisms of the State of Israel - effectively stating that the State and the religion are inseparable.
Accordingly any criticism of Israel, the Israeli Government, their actions etc etc are deemed as anti-semitic under their definition.

I think you will find that in 2018 the Labour party adopted (despite the objections of Corbyn) the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's definition of anti-Semitism. Although it includes drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis and holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel there is no restriction on criticising either Israeli policies or politicians.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:You said you don’t believe in the cause. All I’ve been trying to understand is what you mean by that, the cause is to feed kids - which you clearly believe in. 

I completely agree with the notion that kids going hungry can be an indicator of neglect and feeding them is not a resolution to that wider issue. I’d say that’s painfully obvious unfortunately but it is not the purpose of FSM or of Rashford’s campaign. Hence my confusion over what it is you’ve been getting at.

So don’t start this nonsense about arguing for the sake of it, you haven’t been clear and I’m allowed to try and find out what your point is.

Of course I've been clear about what I've been saying I've spelt it out to you several times already.

Don't come blaming me that you've clearly not read what I've written!

I've had to correct you a number of times that I hadn't said the things to which you obviously thought I had after you skim read or even didn't bother to read what I wrote.

Either that or you were just playing your normal games again.

And I know which I believe it to be!

I don't think you've been clear in any way, 'I don't believe in the cause' apparently relates to the cause of using FSM to identify neglect - something that hadn't even been discussed up to that point.

Silly me. I thought the debate on this thread was all about individuals holding themselves out to be public-spirited, caring and sharing souls yet, when you scratch off the veneer, they appear to be self-serving, egocentric, nest-feathering tax dodgers.

Ten Bobsworth wrote:Silly me. I thought the debate on this thread was all about individuals holding themselves out to be public-spirited, caring and sharing souls yet, when you scratch off the veneer, they appear to be self-serving, egocentric, nest-feathering tax dodgers.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:I don't think you've been clear in any way, 'I don't believe in the cause' apparently relates to the cause of using FSM to identify neglect - something that hadn't even been discussed up to that point.

You what???

Look back to post 43 where I was calling parents 'inhuman' sending their kids out hungry!

I've been talking about the issue of neglect long before you decided to chip in!

FSM DOESN'T identify neglect, it is simply a mechanism of feeding children irrespective if they've been neglected or not.

I've been saying that the issue of FSM is masking what the actual of causes for the need are in the first place and how those cause can be satisfactorily addressed - maybe even eventually do way with the need for FSM at all (or alternatively give FSM to all).

Simply introducing a system that perpetuates itself, is open to abuse by some/many parents and is open ended and presumably a permanent cost burden to the tax payer, is not an objective I support.

Isn't it far better to deal with kids not being fed - ie neglected - and dealt with at source than provide a perpetuating system at open ended cost to the state, that feeds the kids of people who are capable of feeding their own and not identify the ones who actually are being neglected at home?

I believe so.

And before we go full circle once again I'm not against feeding children who aren't being fed but the issue clearly should be WHY aren't they being fed in the first place and dealing with the cause at source and FSM is simply not designed to do that.

Look, I agree with you that it doesn't resolve the cause - but that's not what it's intended to do - and i think I've said that multiple times now.

So let's just draw a line under it given we both know the others position now.

Did anyone on here actually have free school meals when they were kids? I did and i always felt slightly ashamed by it.

We were a one parent low income family and the stigma is hard to shake off.

Norpig wrote:Did anyone on here actually have free school meals when they were kids? I did and i always felt slightly ashamed by it.

We were a one parent low income family and the stigma is hard to shake off.

What I hated at our school was that they had the FSM kids line up in a separate queue, thus marking them out for ridicule.
Unforgivable in my opinion.

boltonbonce wrote:
What I hated at our school was that they had the FSM kids line up in a separate queue, thus marking them out for ridicule.
Unforgivable in my opinion.

Sounds familiar 

Norpig wrote:

boltonbonce wrote:
What I hated at our school was that they had the FSM kids line up in a separate queue, thus marking them out for ridicule.
Unforgivable in my opinion.

Sounds familiar 

Yes, I was on free school meals. I also hated the fact they had to check my name against a list to show I was entitled to free school meals. So much so the money I earned from babysitting. I used to use to buy my own lunch.

BoltonTillIDie wrote:So much so the money I earned from babysitting. I used to use to buy my own lunch.

Full marks to you, your folks must have been proud.

Shame you spoilt it by becoming a mod

Norpig wrote:Did anyone on here actually have free school meals when they were kids? I did and i always felt slightly ashamed by it.

We were a one parent low income family and the stigma is hard to shake off.

Perhaps it would be better to just give all kids free school meals.

They do currently do this for the first couple of years at Primary school.