mudsticks
Squire
The fact that you 'cant see the relevance' tells us plenty.
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
The fact that you 'cant see the relevance' tells us plenty.
newfhouse
pleb
Of course you can. In this case it was not just the same sentence but the same phrase, epithet even. Do your posts have an intended meaning or are you just throwing words at the page as they occur to you? *
* Rhetorical.
ebikeerwidnes
Senior Member
Just catching up on this thread but this stood out to me
never seen this said in writing
but I have heard it many times
with context normally "everyone from THAT estate is a scumbag - they are ALL druggies and whores and [whatever]"
This especially applied to an estate that was very close to where I used to live - literally over a wall from the 'posh' estate I lived on
quite a few people informed us that everyone living there was a scumbag - using whatever tersm we appropraite to them
FUnny thing was that over half of my daughter school was from that estate and hence we visited the houses of their parents for kid pick ups and all that
Also - she went to a play group which was on 'that estate' and the people we met from the estate were just fine - a bit "rough and ready" maybe but fine
There were a lot of druggies on that estate - a very senior Police Office was heavily criticised for commenting that he wouldn;t let his kids anywhere near there in case they got AIDS from treading on a discarded needle!!!!!
but overall that was a minority
Anyway - to get closer to the thread title
WHen I was teaching out catchement area was way worse that the estate I lived next to - actually officially the most deprived area in EUROPE at the time!
When the kids reached Year 11 their expected GCSE result loomed large on the teachers' radar
WHen I say 'extected GCSE result' you might think it is based on previous test results and assessments - but no
it was based on an assessment by an external organisation that had been very successful in predicting GCSE result over the whole country
It was all based on - to some extent SATS results and the like - but a lot was on family circumstances and where they lived and stuff live that
It a kid was from a broken home on a bad estate in a deprived area and was on Free School Meals and had a disabled parent - then they would be predicted to get D's and E's at GCSE
Hence, if that was what they were looking to get then the teachers were under pressure to let them coast and concentrate on other kids that were from 'better homes' in nice areas with married parents living together - who would be predicted to get As and Bs
Thing is - this all works statistically across the whole country - and even county. But it doesn;t work too well when applied to individual kids
I had a class with a lazy a******e of a boy who was down to get As but I would be surprised if he managed to spell his name right on the exam paper - I had his predicted grade as an E
anotehr kid was down for an F but was working like he would get a D - I was trying everything to help him because some help and encouragement could get him up to a C which would be in the magic "A* to C" band and would help him a lot in college admission and job seeking
But I was "encouraged" to forget him and help the lazy whatsit because he should be getting a C or above - but never would
The same applies to truancy - people (people like the Tories) like to have people in nice boxes
He's from 'THAT' estate - scumbag
Good Bloke that - rich family went to public school - gotta trust him
Judge people by what they do and how they think - not by where they come from
Oh - hang on - the topic
same thing applies to truancy - don;t just judge them by what they are doing and why - not just the surface stuff
AuroraSaab
Squire
The whole point of child benefit was that it was to pay for the kids. For years it went directly to mothers, rather than in to the father's pay packet, to ensure that the kids saw the benefit rather than parents not passing it on. The truly feckless parents won't be deterred by losing child benefit. They'll simply cut back on what their children do get - whether it's food, clothes, toys, heating, whatever - to ensure they don't lose out as adults.
We all know there are useless parents, loads of them. It takes a huge amount of character and determination for a child brought up in that kind of home to get themselves up and out for school at age 11 when their uniform is filthy, there's nothing for breakfast, and mum and dad don't get up til lunchtime, or aren't even home. The best we can do for these kids is get them in school because school and qualifications are the solution not the problem. All cutting child benefit will do is make this harder because truly useless parents aren't scared of losing £20 a week.
We all know there are useless parents, loads of them. It takes a huge amount of character and determination for a child brought up in that kind of home to get themselves up and out for school at age 11 when their uniform is filthy, there's nothing for breakfast, and mum and dad don't get up til lunchtime, or aren't even home. The best we can do for these kids is get them in school because school and qualifications are the solution not the problem. All cutting child benefit will do is make this harder because truly useless parents aren't scared of losing £20 a week.
D
Deleted member 28
Guest
I don't really understand your problem here, If I thought EVERY person on EVERY council estate were scumbags I certainly wouldn't be afraid to say so, the fact myself and probably most of my acquaintances were born on council estates but AREN'T scumbags proves this.
You'll find my 'intended' meaning is generally as it's written, I can't really be any clearer.
D
Deleted member 28
Guest
No it doesn't, and you still can't bring yourself to answer.
Scenario, you and your fellow farmer types are in the local enjoying a hard earned drink after work.
In comes a friend who's had his/her/she/him/they/them/it/it's/pineapple/cucumber or whatever's farming equipment stolen from the barn, starts complaining about the *add expletive here* thieving *******'s that are responsible, what is your reaction?
a. Do you stop the rant and inform said complainant that they're all 'fellow humans' and shouldn't be described in this manner.
b. Explain that the current government is far worse and should be blamed for what's happened.
c. Agree that certain members of society are indeed *add chosen expletive* and deserve all they get.
d. None of the above.
newfhouse
pleb
If true, it means you ‘intended‘ to associate the terms ‘council estate’ and ‘scumbag’ by using them in the same disparaging phrase, and we’re back to where we started. You clearly think there’s some sort of link or a correlation between the two, else why put them together?
Me, I think there are noxious people in all parts of society but in general the ones with the most power do the most overall harm.
D
Deleted member 28
Guest
I can't work out what you're attempting to do here, but it seems fun, the 'link' I 'clearly think' exists between being a scumbag and living on a council estate is due to me actually seeing, witnessing and living amongst these very scumbags on a council estate so in light of that experience I can safely say it's true.
I'm pretty sure there are plenty of people that are scumbags that live in 'private' housing estates but in my experience since moving out of the estate in question wherever I've lived the level of crime has never been so high.
I couldn't really give a flying fu*k what you think I'm 'intending' to say what I am saying is that from what I've experience there were far more scumbags on the estate I grew up in than in the next 3 areas I bought a house.
I really can't be any clearer.
Do you think crime rates are higher or lower in social housing areas?
Last edited by a moderator:
newfhouse
pleb
What sort of crime do you mean?
Ian H
Legendary Member
The sins of the poor are often not as easily hidden. 'Twas ever so. Peacock nailed it: https://www.poetrynook.com/poem/rich-and-poor-or-saint-and-sinner
D
Deleted member 28
Guest
Well, crime rates that any form of statistics are based on.
What exactly is your agenda with all this, if you have something clear to say please feel free.
newfhouse
pleb
I suggest you read the poem linked by Ian above.
D
Deleted member 28
Guest
Very moving.
icowden
Squire
Can you spot the scumbag?
How about this chap? A bloke who is a habitual drug user, regularly borrows cash off mates, has had multiple partners with children by many of them, got involved in beating up a friend, known to lie to both friends and the police, has incurred multiple fines.
But enough of the former Prime Minister...
D
Deleted member 28
Guest
Very good, is there a point to all this ?
Can you spell out to me in simple terms what these last dozen or exchanges are about, am I at fault in your eyes for thinking there are people out there that commit crimes for example?
Am I at fault for believing that some even choose to commit those crimes because they want to and see it as an easy way to make a quick buck?
Am I at fault for sharing my experiences of living amongst these people and therefore knowing the circumstances in which they chose to commit these crimes?
Am I mistaken in believing that in areas where there's a lot of poverty and hardship that more crimes against the locals will be higher than in more affluent areas?
Am I mistaken in thinking that there's been crimes of this nature committed whichever government was in power, bearing in mind the yrs I'm specifically talking about were mid seventies to early eighties.
Please enlighten me all seeing and knowing brethren.
