In the referenced article, (E-Mail Removed) writes:
>M J Carley <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>> Other way round: poverty only makes sense as a relative
>> concept. Otherwise, we would be saying that nobody is poor because
>> Louis XVI didn't have a Gameboy.

>Take a look at the real world - Anything more than shelter,
>sanitation, clean water, adequate clothing and adequate food is
>something to aspire and work for, anything below this standard is
>poverty.

What do you mean by `adequate' and why do you think of poverty as
being purely material?
--
Qualcuno era comunista perché abbiamo il peggiore Partito Socialista d'Europa.
Qualcuno era comunista perché lo Stato peggio che da noi solo l'Uganda.

Michael Carley: http://people.bath.ac.uk/ensmjc/

(E-Mail Removed) wrote in news:it50da$bea$(E-Mail Removed):

> M J Carley <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> In the referenced article, Ace <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>
>> >Now _that_ is irrelevant. for the term 'poverty' to be taken
>> >seriously in the context you used, it, it must be understandable as
>> >some sort of absolute, as Burnt is saying.
>>
>> Other way round: poverty only makes sense as a relative
>> concept. Otherwise, we would be saying that nobody is poor because
>> Louis XVI didn't have a Gameboy.
>
> Take a look at the real world -
> Anything more than shelter, sanitation, clean water, adequate clothing
> and adequate food is something to aspire and work for, anything below
> this standard is poverty.
>
> The so-called "poor" in the UK and in Europe generally have never
> had it so good.
>
>
>

TOG, Steve & Ace sitting in a tree, with crn.

Who'd have thought?

--
wessie at tesco dot net

BMW R1150GS

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 12:57:19 +0000 (UTC), wessie
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>(E-Mail Removed) wrote in news:it50da$bea$(E-Mail Removed):

>> The so-called "poor" in the UK and in Europe generally have never
>> had it so good.

>TOG, Steve & Ace sitting in a tree, with crn.
>
>Who'd have thought?

Not I. And you're wrong anyway, if you think I agree with crn's point.
But I do specifically take issue with your assertion that 25% of the
population (or children, or whatever) live in 'poverty'. It's clearly
a nonsense, and the fact that government and NGOs misuse the term
doesn't justify you doing so too.

Real poverty _does_ exist, and needs to be addressed, but expanding
the definition in this way serves only to divert attention from those
really in need.

Ace <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >(E-Mail Removed) wrote in news:it50da$bea$(E-Mail Removed):
> >> The so-called "poor" in the UK and in Europe generally have never
> >> had it so good.
> >TOG, Steve & Ace sitting in a tree, with crn.
> >Who'd have thought?
>
> Not I. And you're wrong anyway, if you think I agree with crn's point.
> But I do specifically take issue with your assertion that 25% of the
> population (or children, or whatever) live in 'poverty'. It's clearly
> a nonsense, and the fact that government and NGOs misuse the term
> doesn't justify you doing so too.
>
> Real poverty _does_ exist, and needs to be addressed, but expanding
> the definition in this way serves only to divert attention from those
> really in need.

There are maybe a few tens of thousands in the UK in REAL poverty,
often sleeping rough or in squats. Most of these have substance abuse
and/or mental health issues. This small but important group is not
receiving the help needed. Money that is currently buying 40 inch
televisions for the workshy should be used to target these people
with proper treatment, targeted education, and in some cases
proper long term residential care for the mentally ill who were
thrown out of residential mental care in the name of "care in the
community".

--
01Y CBR600F
78 Honda 400/4 in black
98 Yamaha YP250 Majesty

On Jun 13, 3:27*pm, c...@NOSPAM.netunix.com wrote:

> There are maybe a few tens of thousands in the UK in REAL poverty,
> often sleeping rough or in squats.

I'd suspect there are rather more than this, actually.

Stephen wrote:
> On Jun 13, 11:52 am, ens...@bath.ac.uk (M J Carley) wrote:
>> In the referenced article, "Hog." <sm911S...@SPAMhotmail.co.uk>
>> writes:
>>
>>> inheritance provisions, not via social engineering.
>>
>> What's the difference?
>
> Heh. Exactly what I was going to say.
>
> Any regulation on salary 'stuff' (corportate regulation) or
> inheritance which seeks to manage/control/redistribute income is
> social engineering.

Well you can chop it up as fine as you might like but my argument was
grounded and the differentiation is clear enough. And there needs to be
clear division.

--
Hog