Showing posts with label cull. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cull. Show all posts

Monday, 6 April 2015

Troublesome Recidividuals

Recidivism, definition : a tendency to relapse into a previous condition or mode of behaviour; especially relapse into criminal behaviour. How refreshing then, you might think, that a more or less guaranteed recidivist recognises his weakness and has asked to remain in prison where he is getting some treatment for his addictions. There has been some debate about whether prison is the best place to facilitate his rehabilitation, or whether we can afford it, but the alternative – releasing him – is almost certain to end in his own prediction that he will return to criminal means to fuel his drug habit. But what’s a caring society to do?

Meanwhile Brian May tweets about food banks and the NASUWT Conference regales its members with tales of Dickensian squalor, as illustrated by anecdotes of unfed, raggedy children arriving in school. The cry, as always, is that we must do more, spend more to save the children the addicts, the sick, the stupid and those incapable of healing themselves. The mark of a civilised society, they tell us, is how it cares for its most vulnerable. But is colluding with that ‘vulnerable’ sector of society to increase the numbers who rely on state intervention an entirely intelligent response to the problems that same expanding sector creates?

Has it ever occurred to those who use feeble, touchy-feely aphorisms about how we treat those specimens (who would be referred to as parasites in any objective analysis) that rewarding aberrant behaviour is always going to end badly? We enforce the ‘human rights’ of clearly unfit degenerates to procreate, then - when they abandon their offspring to a life of care, delinquency, addiction, criminality and prison – throw ever more, increasingly scarce resources at the problem of containing them. We can’t create prisons, hospitals, rehab centres, probation services, hospital, schools, court and social services fast enough to cope as the uneducated and uncivilised underclasses outbreed those who have to pay for them.

And how do those who rely on the misplaced charity of a society afraid to confront cold, hard reality repay those who do pay for it all? With scorn, contempt and a sneering declaration of their entitlement to do whatever they wish. The only people who get to do as they like are the comfortably rich and the comfortably unemployable. But at least the rich pay their own way, while the ‘new poor’ have become some sort of sacred cow, to be appeased but never curbed. Give somebody something for nothing and they will value it exactly as much as it costs them.

You 'work' for a living? That's hilarious!
The future Prime Minister and Chancellor greet the nation.

At some point, however, we will have to face up to the fact that curbs and sanctions will need to be deployed. Curb? What am I saying; there is another four-letter word beginning with ‘c’ that is far more apt under the circumstances. The only certainty is that unless we do something drastic soon we will eventually become too stupid a society to even contemplate it. Already several generations of teachers, social workers, lawyers, policemen, politicians and a whole plethora of various ‘rights’ campaigners have grown to depend for their living on the continuation of this impossible model. A truly caring society should wage a committed war on want and reduce to a minimum those who live appalling lives. Time for a cull. 

Tuesday, 6 November 2012

It's ALL about the money - ker-ching, ker-ching


While everybody is banging on about the living wage it’s convenient to forget that money is an abstract, constructed by man in order to trade. It’s also probably the closest thing we've got to an accurate measure of exactly what somebody is worth – morally fair or not - to the society in which they live.

We each accrue what we are able, by whatever means we have at our disposal. So, if increasing numbers of people who go out to work are unable to live within their means it can only mean that our society does not value their labours. Let’s look at a few numbers… (Where’s Carol Vorderman when you need her?) 

The proposed living wage, outside London, is calculated at £7.45 per hour, presumably based on a 37.5 hour EU working time directive week. That’s a little over £14,500 per year. Take off Income Tax and National Insurance and you’re left with around £11,500 or £220 a week. You’re not worth a whole lot, are you? And after a rise in wages pushes up the price of goods – because it’s the economy, stupid – you’ll be worth even less. 

Contrast that with a family of non-workers having their benefits ‘ruthlessly’ capped by the Nasty, Nasty Tories at a mere £26,500 or £500 a week. So, let me get this straight… in effect the Labour party are opposing any reduction in benefits received while pushing for workers to survive on less than half the proposed reduced benefit ceiling? 

And then of course, a disproportionate amount of government spending goes to stopping some welfare-dependent families from eating their own kids, succumbing to various addictions, spreading disease and making the whole country look untidy. No wonder they think working is a mug’s game. It doesn't seem to make sense, does it? But then, nothing does in Socialism. 

And when all the social spending doesn't work – and it rarely seems to – we take them off benefits and bang them up in jail. Well, if it costs £47,000 a year to keep a man in prison that means they accrue some £900 a week of national wealth merely to keep them off the streets. Crime don't pay? 

Following, so far? A quick summary then, of your net worth to the country as it stands: 
  • Honest worker = £220 p.w.
  • Unemployable layabout = £500 p.w.
  • Nasty thieving bastard = £900 p.w.
It seems pretty clear to me that this is arse-about-face and it has to change. LESS should be spent on the non-productive and the unwanted. Prison should be hard and cheap – lock ‘em up & make ‘em work to survive. Benefits should be bloody difficult to come by unless you’re genuinely needy. And work should pay enough to live a reasonable life. Who can possibly argue that this isn't how it should be?


I've got my eye on you... one false move...

But there’s no way we’re going to be able to get to that position with a population fast approaching 70 million. So, unless anybody has a better answer than my oft-proposed cull, I’ll be away to ready the snipers.