Crossrail and Tube upgrades spared the axe - NCE
 

On Wed, 06 Oct 2010 16:31:50 +0100
David Cantrell wrote:
On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 12:20:52PM +0000, d wrote:
On Mon, 04 Oct 2010 12:16:15 +0100
David Cantrell wrote:
No, a student is one who studies.
So a 5 year old in primary school is a student then?

I wouldn't really say that they study, so no.

No? So what do you consider studying then?

So what?

So, obviously, they can't afford full price fares, and so in the
interests of encouraging them to continue their education, they can get
cheaper travel.

If their parents didn't give them any money they couldn't afford ANY fares
so since its their parents paying theres no reason they can't cough up a
full fare.

B2003

Crossrail and Tube upgrades spared the axe - NCE
 

On Oct 6, 4:39*pm, wrote:

On Wed, 06 Oct 2010 16:31:50 +0100
David Cantrell wrote:
[snip]
So, obviously, they can't afford full price fares, and so in the
interests of encouraging them to continue their education, they can get
cheaper travel.

If their parents didn't give them any money they couldn't afford ANY fares
so since its their parents paying theres no reason they can't cough up a
full fare.

What? 16-18 year old Londoners in further edukashun (sixth form etc)
get free bus travel. It makes a world of difference to some.

Crossrail and Tube upgrades spared the axe - NCE
 

On 06/10/2010 19:03, Mizter T wrote:

On Oct 6, 4:39 pm, wrote:

On Wed, 06 Oct 2010 16:31:50 +0100
David wrote:
[snip]
So, obviously, they can't afford full price fares, and so in the
interests of encouraging them to continue their education, they can get
cheaper travel.

If their parents didn't give them any money they couldn't afford ANY fares
so since its their parents paying theres no reason they can't cough up a
full fare.

What? 16-18 year old Londoners in further edukashun (sixth form etc)
get free bus travel. It makes a world of difference to some.

Unless it gets axed, which is where we came in :)

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

Crossrail and Tube upgrades spared the axe - NCE
 

On Wed, 6 Oct 2010 11:03:19 -0700 (PDT)
Mizter T wrote:
so since its their parents paying theres no reason they can't cough up a
full fare.

What? 16-18 year old Londoners in further edukashun (sixth form etc)
get free bus travel. It makes a world of difference to some.

If they're so poor they can't afford a bus fare then their family is
probably already on benefits. Theres no justifiable reason for kids to
have free or subsidised travel on public transport.

B2003

Crossrail and Tube upgrades spared the axe - NCE
 

On 07/10/2010 09:54, d wrote:
On Wed, 6 Oct 2010 11:03:19 -0700 (PDT)
Mizter wrote:
so since its their parents paying theres no reason they can't cough up a
full fare.

What? 16-18 year old Londoners in further edukashun (sixth form etc)
get free bus travel. It makes a world of difference to some.

If they're so poor they can't afford a bus fare then their family is
probably already on benefits. Theres no justifiable reason for kids to
have free or subsidised travel on public transport.

Encouraging the habit for later? Supporting extra-curricular education?
Giving them something to do other than insert whatever the Daily
Express says young people today do with their time?

Perhaps it might also be a small help to kids faced with the "when I was
your age I was down pit[1] earning money to support my 10 siblings, not
wasting time with that namby-pamby education nonsense". In My Day people
fell into a bit of hole if their families were rich enough not to get
much help but not generally supportive of education.

[1]or whatever the London equivalent is.
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

Crossrail and Tube upgrades spared the axe - NCE
 

On Thu, 07 Oct 2010 17:45:12 +0100
Arthur Figgis wrote:
wasting time with that namby-pamby education nonsense". In My Day people
fell into a bit of hole if their families were rich enough not to get
much help but not generally supportive of education.

Having kids isn't required by law. If you can't afford them , don't have them.

B2003

Crossrail and Tube upgrades spared the axe - NCE
 

In message , at 08:50:35 on Fri, 8 Oct
2010, d remarked:

Having kids isn't required by law. If you can't afford them , don't have them.

People's circumstances change. Even Concorde pilots eventually get laid
off. Although he could always get one of Norman's bikes and live in a
bedsit if he can't sell his house in Surrey.

And if you are a divorcee with two kids (that you used to be able to
afford), and marry another divorcee with two kids (that they used to
able to afford), which of them do you expect to go hungry?

It seems to me there's an awful lot of "one size fits all-ism" in the
air at the moment, which is ironic given that much of the debate is
about a one-size-fits-all benefit payment.
--
Roland Perry

Crossrail and Tube upgrades spared the axe - NCE
 

In article , d ()
wrote:

On Thu, 07 Oct 2010 17:45:12 +0100
Arthur Figgis wrote:
wasting time with that namby-pamby education nonsense". In My Day
people fell into a bit of hole if their families were rich enough not
to get much help but not generally supportive of education.

Having kids isn't required by law. If you can't afford them , don't
have them.

Kids can arrive unplanned, even with what should be the right precautions
taken.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Crossrail and Tube upgrades spared the axe - NCE
 

On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 04:30:21 -0500
wrote:
In article , d ()
wrote:

On Thu, 07 Oct 2010 17:45:12 +0100
Arthur Figgis wrote:
wasting time with that namby-pamby education nonsense". In My Day
people fell into a bit of hole if their families were rich enough not
to get much help but not generally supportive of education.

Having kids isn't required by law. If you can't afford them , don't
have them.

Kids can arrive unplanned, even with what should be the right precautions
taken.

Abortions have been legal for decades. No kid should arrive "unplanned"
any more even if contraception fails.

B2003

Crossrail and Tube upgrades spared the axe - NCE
 

On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 10:11:28 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 08:50:35 on Fri, 8 Oct
2010, d remarked:

Having kids isn't required by law. If you can't afford them , don't have them.

People's circumstances change. Even Concorde pilots eventually get laid
off. Although he could always get one of Norman's bikes and live in a
bedsit if he can't sell his house in Surrey.

And if you are a divorcee with two kids (that you used to be able to
afford), and marry another divorcee with two kids (that they used to
able to afford), which of them do you expect to go hungry?

Well that you can't predict. I was refering to people who plan a family
without being able to afford to have children from the start other than
via benefits. There are 7 billion people on this rock and over 60 million
on this little island. Effectively paying people in kind to have kids is
bordering on the criminal IMO.

B2003

Crossrail and Tube upgrades spared the axe - NCE
 

In message , at 09:53:59 on Fri, 8 Oct
2010, d remarked:
Having kids isn't required by law. If you can't afford them , don't have them.

People's circumstances change. Even Concorde pilots eventually get laid
off. Although he could always get one of Norman's bikes and live in a
bedsit if he can't sell his house in Surrey.

And if you are a divorcee with two kids (that you used to be able to
afford), and marry another divorcee with two kids (that they used to
able to afford), which of them do you expect to go hungry?

Well that you can't predict. I was refering to people who plan a family
without being able to afford to have children from the start other than
via benefits. There are 7 billion people on this rock and over 60 million
on this little island. Effectively paying people in kind to have kids is
bordering on the criminal IMO.

How would fix that? Have people have to fill in something like a
mortgage application form before they are allowed to have kids, to see
if they can afford it? Or you could just choose the ones with blue eyes
and blond hair.
--
Roland Perry

Crossrail and Tube upgrades spared the axe - NCE
 

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 04:30:21 -0500
wrote:
In article , d ()
wrote:

On Thu, 07 Oct 2010 17:45:12 +0100
Arthur Figgis wrote:
wasting time with that namby-pamby education nonsense". In My Day
people fell into a bit of hole if their families were rich enough not
to get much help but not generally supportive of education.

Having kids isn't required by law. If you can't afford them , don't
have them.

Kids can arrive unplanned, even with what should be the right precautions
taken.

Abortions have been legal for decades. No kid should arrive "unplanned"
any more even if contraception fails.

Whilst I don't accept that nutty religious types should force their views
onto me, I do respect their right to hold them and ISTM that a belief that
abortion is fundamentally wrong is a reasonable view to hold

tim

Crossrail and Tube upgrades spared the axe - NCE
 

In message , d
writes

Abortions have been legal for decades. No kid should arrive "unplanned"
any more even if contraception fails.

Being unable to afford the child is not grounds for a legal abortion in
the UK.

--
Paul Terry

Crossrail and Tube upgrades spared the axe - NCE
 

On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 11:41:46 +0100
"tim...." wrote:
Whilst I don't accept that nutty religious types should force their views
onto me, I do respect their right to hold them and ISTM that a belief that
abortion is fundamentally wrong is a reasonable view to hold

They can hold whatever views they like but it doesn't mean they should
have subsidised kids because they refuse methods to prevent having them.

B2003

Crossrail and Tube upgrades spared the axe - NCE
 

On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 11:32:37 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
Well that you can't predict. I was refering to people who plan a family
without being able to afford to have children from the start other than
via benefits. There are 7 billion people on this rock and over 60 million
on this little island. Effectively paying people in kind to have kids is
bordering on the criminal IMO.

How would fix that? Have people have to fill in something like a
mortgage application form before they are allowed to have kids, to see
if they can afford it? Or you could just choose the ones with blue eyes
and blond hair.

How about they check their bank accounts and payslips and work from there.
Its not rocket science. If they have them and can't afford them then tough.
They'll have to give up the Sky+ and fags won't they.

B2003

Crossrail and Tube upgrades spared the axe - NCE
 

On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 12:45:27 +0100
Paul Terry wrote:
In message , d
writes

Abortions have been legal for decades. No kid should arrive "unplanned"
any more even if contraception fails.

Being unable to afford the child is not grounds for a legal abortion in
the UK.

You don't need any grounds, you just make an appointment. What year are you
living in?

B2003

Crossrail and Tube upgrades spared the axe - NCE
 

In message , at 12:52:47 on Fri, 8 Oct
2010, d remarked:
How would fix that? Have people have to fill in something like a
mortgage application form before they are allowed to have kids, to see
if they can afford it? Or you could just choose the ones with blue eyes
and blond hair.

How about they check their bank accounts and payslips and work from there.
Its not rocket science. If they have them and can't afford them then tough.
They'll have to give up the Sky+ and fags won't they.

But if they don't (give up those things) and the kids starve, are you
happy about that?
--
Roland Perry

Crossrail and Tube upgrades spared the axe - NCE
 

In message , d
writes

On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 12:45:27 +0100
Paul Terry wrote:

Being unable to afford the child is not grounds for a legal abortion in
the UK.

You don't need any grounds, you just make an appointment.

http://www.mariestopes.org.uk/Womens...rtion_law.aspx

"UK abortion law. To comply with the 1967 Abortion Act, two doctors must
give their consent, stating that to continue with the pregnancy would
present a risk to the physical or mental health of the woman or her
existing children. However, the 1967 Act does not extend to Northern
Ireland, where abortion is still illegal. "

You can read the act for yourself here (note the four conditions in
section 1):
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content...tDocId=1181037

What year are you living in?

In a year in which people don't mind parading their ignorance in public,
it would seem. :(

--
Paul Terry

Crossrail and Tube upgrades spared the axe - NCE
 

On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 14:29:58 +0100
Paul Terry wrote:
"UK abortion law. To comply with the 1967 Abortion Act, two doctors must
give their consent, stating that to continue with the pregnancy would
present a risk to the physical or mental health of the woman or her
existing children. However, the 1967 Act does not extend to Northern
Ireland, where abortion is still illegal. "

Impressive wording, the real world however is another matter.

You can read the act for yourself here (note the four conditions in
section 1):
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content...tDocId=1181037

What year are you living in?

In a year in which people don't mind parading their ignorance in public,
it would seem. :(

Says someone who seems think cutting and pasting off a website makes him
knowledgable on a subject.

If a woman wants an abortion in this country she can get one whatever the
reason. I know what I'm talking about in this matter but you believe what
you like.

B2003

Crossrail and Tube upgrades spared the axe - NCE
 

In message , d
writes

On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 14:29:58 +0100
Paul Terry wrote:
"UK abortion law. To comply with the 1967 Abortion Act, two doctors must
give their consent, stating that to continue with the pregnancy would
present a risk to the physical or mental health of the woman or her
existing children. However, the 1967 Act does not extend to Northern
Ireland, where abortion is still illegal. "

Impressive wording, the real world however is another matter.

It is the law of the land. Anything is possible if you choose to break
the law, of course. Are you now suggesting that parents who cannot
afford children should have illegal abortions?

Says someone who seems think cutting and pasting off a website makes him
knowledgable on a subject.

Not at all. The whole point of the references to the UK's leading
authority on the matter and the 1967 Act itself were to enable you to
read the law for yourself and thus become better informed (a forlorn
hope, I know).

If a woman wants an abortion in this country she can get one whatever the
reason.

I said LEGAL abortion, as you very well know.

I know what I'm talking about in this matter

That would be a first ...
--
Paul Terry

Crossrail and Tube upgrades spared the axe - NCE
 

On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 15:15:44 +0100
Paul Terry wrote:
If a woman wants an abortion in this country she can get one whatever the
reason.

I said LEGAL abortion, as you very well know.

Oh for heavens sake. Most private clinics have doctors who will rubber stamp
the womans decision to have an abortion. Its happens all the time and its
perfectly legal. The NHS might be another matter, I don't know.

B2003

Crossrail and Tube upgrades spared the axe - NCE
 

In message , d
writes

Most private clinics have doctors who will rubber stamp the womans
decision to have an abortion.

Some have doctors who will issue prescriptions for medications without
even meeting the patient.

Its happens all the time and its perfectly legal.

Read the Act, or the advice given by Marie Stopes, Brook and other
reputable clinics, and you will begin to understand the circumstances
under which abortion can be legal. In most cases, doctors certify that
termination is necessary for the mental health of the mother, which is
suitably vague to comply with the law.

However, your suggestion that abortion should be carried out simply
because the mother cannot afford the child is outwith the current law.

The NHS might be another matter, I don't know.

The law is the same for everyone - but doctors who bend the law are more
likely to be reported by whistle-blowers in the NHS than they are in
private clinics.

Anyway, this has gone far off-topic so do feel free to have the last
word, however inaccurate it is.
--
Paul Terry

Crossrail and Tube upgrades spared the axe - NCE
 

On 08/10/2010 09:50, d wrote:
On Thu, 07 Oct 2010 17:45:12 +0100
Arthur wrote:
wasting time with that namby-pamby education nonsense". In My Day people
fell into a bit of hole if their families were rich enough not to get
much help but not generally supportive of education.

Having kids isn't required by law. If you can't afford them , don't have them.

But people who "were rich enough not to get much help" could afford it.

Anyway, it is not really about the parents, it is about the kids. The
kids didn't choose to get spawned, so it is a bit harsh to take it out
on them.

And providing people with education is on average a way of reducing the
number of kids produced in the future.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK