On Feb 20, 1:08*pm, (Cynic) wrote:
On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 14:40:34 -0800 (PST), Ste
wrote:

I'm not really sure what relevance this has to my position on the
matter. I must say I wouldn't be too keen in general to make use of
second-hand cookers and microwaves - the reason such second-hand goods
are cheap relative to new, is precisely because nobody wants them and
because they lack the quality (typically, in terms of appearance) of
new goods.

Rubbish! *I have bought most of my appliances second-hand and have
been very pleased with almost all of them. *Obviously you have to pick
and choose and wait for the bargains.

And where exactly do you do this picking, choosing, and waiting? The
only place I know of locally is a council-run 'recycling' outfit,
which many people are indeed now using - not least landlords of
furnished properties. Nevertheless, as I've said you can't be expected
to "wait" that long for essential household appliances like cookers
and washing machines - you have to pay the going rate in the end.



*There are many reasons why
people want to get rid of perfectly good appliances. *A common reason
is that they were given a new appliance as a gift (Christmas, birthday
etc.). *Another is that they are rich enough to afford to buy the
latest appliances each year. *Or perhaps they decided to replace a
unit with a bigger or smaller model. *Or were conned into buying an
appliance that is more "green" than the one they had. *People moving
house often sell their appliances and get new stuff for the new house
- and in that case they are frequently "free to collector" because the
person is really only looking for a free removal service.

I would say the primary reason above all for getting rid of appliances
that I know of, is that they are faulty or that they are badly
defective in appearance.



*In other
cases a well-off householder had replaced a unit simply because it was
getting a bit grubby and it avoided a cleaning job.

Which is exactly what I said, that they are cheap usually because they
"lack quality in terms of appearance". That's not to say I don't know
anyone who has appliances of poor appearance - the point is that their
whole houses and even their person, typically reflect their lack of
concern with appearance. That is something that you seem to suggest
reflects badly on them, rather than being a reasonable response to the
unaffordability of keeping up appearances.



Nevertheless, I can think of several people who are making do with
second-hand kitchen appliances - in two such cases, I was called upon
to fit them purely out of the goodness of my heart (which I did not
begrudge).
In a further case, I was asked by the landlord of the property to
replace a cooker as a favour to him. When I did so, I found the wiring
of the old cooker in a dangerous state, and I indulged the boyfriend
of the tenant who was bragging that he had fitted the last one
himself; I return to my point about most people lacking the necessary
skills to fit appliances themselves.

The skills required are minimal.

They are relatively straightforward to show somebody, but doing the
work safely is not intuitive to an inexperienced operator. In the end,
I have to look at the evidence, which is that most people who are not
professionals, have just enough skills to be dangerous.



*If a person does not want to learn
some very simple skills, I put the blame squarely on that person.

That's ludicrous. Society is constantly telling people *not* to do
electrics, plumbing, and gas work themselves - for good reason,
because it is dangerous if done incorrectly by inexperienced
operators.

It is also the case that the poor typically lack the correct tools for
the job - which are not inordinately expensive, but would still
require expenditure. So you get them using improvised tools like
scissors and kitchen knives to strip cables that generally give a poor
result and which are liable to cause injuries to themselves in the
process - partly because the tools are unsuited to the purpose, and
partly because they simply lack the everyday familiarity and skill
with manual tools and are therefore prone to use the tools in ways
that experienced users would deprecate (either from painful
experience, or from cultural transmission of the painful experience of
others).



besides, a cooker is about the only appliance that requires any sort
of skills at all - unless you count plugging a unit into the mains
socket a skill.

Cookers and washing machines are the most basic and irreducible of
kitchen appliances in today's society, and they are the appliances
that require the most skill. Even fitting a washing machine, will
often in practice require several tools and supplies.



Don't be such a drama queen. =A0It's all part and parcel of preparing to
live in a new home.
Cynic, exactly what class of people do you have in mind here? The
sorts of people I have in mind, are being forced to move around
involuntarily, and they are typically families who have been in long-
term receipt of benefits.

Why should they be forced to move around involuntarily? *I know
several families with all members on long-term benefits and was in
fact thinking of them when I wrote my post. *The state pays for their
rent in very reasonable houses that they have lived in for well over a
decade. *Apart from moving to more suitable accomodation due to a
change in the size of the *family, or moving at the request of the
benefit receiptient themself, the main reason for being shunted from
place to place is if the family cause a nuisance wto their neighbours.

Indeed, and that is a particular cause of involuntarily moving
address. I know others who have moved because of harassment from
creditors, the law, etc.

And the reality is, if you have a particularly difficult or high-
energy child to raise, it's often the case that poor parents have no
ability or inclination to manage that. A lot of mothers in that sort
of situation genuinely despair of their children's behaviour (often
because it does have real consequences, like frequent changes of
address), but at the same time are loath to generate poor relations
within the family purely for the benefit of those outside the family -
in other words, whilst they might not always condone the behaviour,
they're not going to incur the psychological and relational stress
involved in effective discipline (which might be a very significant
undertaking when you have few rewards available to offer for better
behaviour, and no ability to spend money in order to change
circumstances or provide alternative leisure pursuits for the child),
when in contrast to those 'costs' the family itself will derive no
great benefits from the discipline (which mainly accrues to the
community at large). You're effectively expecing parents to become
prison warders of their own children, in a system in which they
themselves feel like inmates.



=A0A basic microwave (if necessary borrowed from
friends or family)
How many people do you know who have spare cookers or microwaves just
lying around? I'm clean and creditworthy amongst my friends, and I'm
not sure any of them could easily spare me a microwave or cooker.

Not even for a week or two to tide you over?

What I'm saying is that it would basically involve the lender going
without the relevant appliance, since almost all people (including
myself) only have one such appliance.



*As said, you can cook
everything you need to eat with just a microwave and a kettle (I've
done it). *It's not ideal, but it is perfectly acceptable while you
source other appliances.

It depends what sort of other support you have, and how long it takes
to source the other appliances.



In
fact, it's more the case that I'd be called upon to spare one for
others, but I would be extremely reluctant to spare my relatively
expensive appliances to people who do not have the same standards of
cleanliness as I do (or security in their home, or honest social
circle, etc.), and it would be a pure act of charity which I'm sure
any reasonable person would be embarassed to grovel for.

Yes, I can see that the sort of people who are dirty and dishonest
might have a more difficult time getting favours from friends and
relatives than clean, decent honest people. *Now how are you going to
blame that on the nasty rish businessmen?

Yes, because as I've said cleanliness is a costly pretense to maintain
(and its a habit that is built up over a lifetime - not switched on
and off at will), and so is honesty. There's no point being
scrupulously clean and honest simply in order to gain charity from
friends and relatives, if the cost of the cleanliness and honesty
outweighs the reputational benefits. And in communities that are poor
as a whole, there are going to be relatively few people in a position
to give - there's no point having excellent creditworthiness, amongst
friends who have no credit to offer.



I really do think you're living in a completely different world to the
one I live in Cynic. At the very least, you don't seem to be facing up
to the reality of life in poor *communities*, where it's not just a
case of isolated individuals suffering temporary hard times who can
survive for a while on the charity and goodwill of those who are
comfortable, but where the balance of those who are quite comfortable
in a social group is far too little to possibly subsidise all those
who are not, and where those who are not comfortable will, given the
general trends in society, probably become more uncomfortable with
time rather than less.

Ste, I have actually *lived* in that situation, and so know *very*
well what I am talking about.

When exactly was this? And for how many *generations* had your family
lived in that 'situation'?



*Perhaps it is yourself who is placing
too much reliance on the veracity of hard-luck stories you have been
told.

Rubbish. None of what I am saying is second-hand. Some of the poor
characters I have in mind when giving accounts here, are no friends of
mine, and are actually the sorts of people who *cause problems* for
friends and relatives of mine, so it's laughable the idea that I'm
just swallowing what I'm being given to swallow.



Whilst I am relatively well off now, I know quite a few people
of all ages who are out of work and have no assets. *i know *very*
well what's possible and what's not.

And what *are* you contending is possible? If we take the example of
how you contend it is "possible" to feed one's self in a kitchen to
contain only a kettle and a microwave, is quite a different question
from whether it is reasonable to expect it as a matter of routine in
our society. It is "possible" to feed children on flour and banana
skins - but it is not reasonable to do so for any significant period
in a society where the physical and mental effects of doing so would
put them at a significant disadvantage and will make them less
socially useful; a stunted idiot is no use to himself or anybody
else.

So far as it is "possible" to live in poverty for generations, and
maintain the same cleanliness, honesty and moral uprightness, optimism
and cheeriness of the 'middle class', I'm not sure I can think of any
examples of this. Even if such characters exist, their sheer rarity
may well prove my rule that it is not possible to maintain those
behavioural traits under the conditions of extreme poverty and the
exclusion from the normal culture of society that comes with it.



is sufficient to make meals, and the local
laundromat or mummy will clean your clothes - or wash them in the bath
as people used to do if you're really stuck.
So we go back to what I said earlier, about the everyday life of the
poor being actually quite a bit more strenuous and demanding (at least
if they follow your prescriptions), but simultaneously less rewarding.
Even within your own terms Cynic, if a certain behaviour is harder and
less rewarding, you must surely agree it is less likely to be
exhibited.

I was discussing the *temporary* situation after the person has just
moved in to a new unfurnished home. *Yes, it will indeed be more
demanding during that time.

Which, given the upheaval of moving house, is probably going to be the
least reasonable time to impose such demands. Anyway, I don't think I
was saying that I'm aware of anybody having any particular problem in
being without a washing machine for a few days while they move house,
so you are not really addressing any relevant point with this
alternative interpretation - I quite reasonably assumed that what you
meant was that they should be washing their clothes in the bath as a
matter of routine, not as an exceptional stop-gap.



*Some people will sit on their arse, buy
some cheap cider and moan about how unfair everything is whilst not
bothering to wash the home or themselves properly, or even get out of
bed before noon. *Others will see it as a challenge and get stuck in
to improve the situation for themselves.

But failing to bargain for better social terms *won't* improve the
situation - it will actually get worse, the more people compete for
dwindling rewards.

And those with a bit of get-up-and-go are just as likely to become
organised criminals - I know many people with determination and
backbone, and the justice system intends to give them no leniency
whatever for trying to improve themselves. In fact, evidence of
significant rewards, is likely to attract stiffer punishment.

That's the problem in the end for people who talk about "getting stuck
in" - they end up having to say "but only within the rules", and then
that raises the question of who exactly had the greatest input into
those rules and why those rules should not be changed.



=A0You can indeed rent kitchen appliances instead of buying,
but it is not terrifically cost-effective IMO. =A0Renting electonic
goods such as TV and computers makes a bit more sense in order to
upgrade to the latest and greatest every year.
It probably is not cost effective, but it solves people's problems in
the short term, at the expense of long-term finances. Normally what
people do in the long-term, is start giving up their social and moral
pretenses in order to shed stressors and shed financial costs. So for
example, people stop paying the rent and do moonlight flits, etc.

I don't see "black" work as being immoral.

Neither do I, but in reality it is sanctioned if detected - and I
understand the new real-time PAYE system means that benefit claimants
who work are detected almost instantly.



*Nor smuggling for tax
evasion purposes. *Both are artificial crimes that have been created
due to the inadequacies of the state-imposed systems. *HB rent is paid
direct to the landlord, so there is no opportunity to avoid paying it.

HB is paid direct to the tenant in the first place now, and only after
a history of mis-spending the rent might it be paid direct to the
landlord. Also, people who move between work and benefits are in a
position at times to avoid paying the rent out of their own earnings.

On Feb 20, 1:19*pm, (Cynic) wrote:
On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 14:48:44 -0800 (PST), Ste
wrote:

It's not just the electrical appliances, there are tiles falling off the
wall, doors falling off the cabinets and so on.
Those things *are* the landlord's responsibility if not caused by the
tenant, as is reasonable redecoration. =A0I appreciate that many
landlords drag their heels, but any tenant should be able to get it
done with persistance.
It's often necessary to simply withhold the rent to get repairs done,
and people who I know in that position simply don't want the risk of
upheaval if the landlord decides they are too much hassle or too
demanding and so terminates their tenancy.

In which case they would probably benefit from moving to a place with
a more reasonable landlord, as much of a pain as it will be.

It's a question of finding such a landlord. In the end, a competitive
rental market and a competitive society, is not going to yield many
"reasonable landlords", because it is always more profitable to be a
Hoogstraten.



And from the other side of the coin, landlords are often loath to make
repairs to properties that the tenants do not take any real care of,
and themselves cause either careless damage or wilful damage in the
course of arguments/fights and such (though not necessarily the same
damage as the disrepair complained of), which the tenants themselves
are in no financial position to make good.

Perhaps you should be taking issue with the behaviour of the tenants
in that case instead of moaning about the landlord?

I don't recall "moaning about the landlord". As for the behaviour of
the tenants, again to take pride in your surroundings, you have to
have some degree of security, some degree of personalisation, and some
sense that it's of a commensurate social standard. So too, whereas
middle class partners might replace any crockery and fittings damaged
in a plate-throwing argument, the poor cannot generally afford to do
so (their income was not sufficient to have afforded those fittings
even in the first place).



=A0In any case those things can usually be tided
sufficiently to not be an eyesore, and do not make the place less
comfortable.
Are you really as comfortable in a house with no doors on the kitchen
cabinets and tiles falling off the wall, as one with a sound kitchen?
Or is it just double standards?

I have two hands and a brain, and would most certainly be able to
effect sufficient repairs to make a vast improvement.

I'd be quite interested to see you fit a kitchen with nothing but your
fingernails - and no prior experience.



In any case, I think it is yourself who is being completely
unrealistic in your scenarios, because I have visited many homes of
people who have no money and are surviving completely on state
benefits, and have not seen any homes in anything close to such a
state of disrepair. *I concede that they no doubt exist, but put it to
you that they are very much the exception (except in places where the
people deliberately damage their own homes - to which I say nobody has
any duty whatsoever to make it better).

All I can say is, for people who have survived on basic income support
(i.e. not disability benefits or any of the other considerably higher
benefits) for a significant period of time (possibly all their lives,
possibly generations), and without working on the side or receiving
other consistent subsidy from wealthier friends or relatives, I do not
observe their homes to be of any reasonable standard.

As I've said, some of the worst cases I'm describing are not even
friends or relatives of mine, and they are actually families of ill
repute in the local community - in some cases, I've seen the inside of
their homes only because I've entered the property with the landlord,
not because I have any personal relationship with them whatsoever.

In message
, at
13:56:53 on Mon, 20 Feb 2012, Ste remarked:
I have bought most of my appliances second-hand and have
been very pleased with almost all of them. *Obviously you have to pick
and choose and wait for the bargains.

And where exactly do you do this picking, choosing, and waiting?

eBay, Gumtree, Freecycle...

Postcards in the newsagent's window, newspaper small ads...
--
Roland Perry

In message
, at
14:20:02 on Mon, 20 Feb 2012, Ste remarked:
Are you really as comfortable in a house with no doors on the kitchen
cabinets and tiles falling off the wall, as one with a sound kitchen?
Or is it just double standards?

I have two hands and a brain, and would most certainly be able to
effect sufficient repairs to make a vast improvement.

I'd be quite interested to see you fit a kitchen with nothing but your
fingernails - and no prior experience.

I was the one with the dodgy kitchen cabinets, and I have tools and
experience. Indeed I have repaired several of them (the most easily
fixed problem being one of the two hinges having had its screws pull out
of the chipboard).
--
Roland Perry

On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 13:56:53 -0800 (PST), Ste
wrote:

Rubbish! =A0I have bought most of my appliances second-hand and have
been very pleased with almost all of them. =A0Obviously you have to pick
and choose and wait for the bargains.

And where exactly do you do this picking, choosing, and waiting? The
only place I know of locally is a council-run 'recycling' outfit,
which many people are indeed now using - not least landlords of
furnished properties. Nevertheless, as I've said you can't be expected
to "wait" that long for essential household appliances like cookers
and washing machines - you have to pay the going rate in the end.

Go to your local pub or takeway that carries free copies of "Friday
Ads". I can temporarily use very basic cooking appliances while I
wait, and do my laundry in the bath. I have had actual personal
experience with being in such a situation, so don't try to tell me
that I have no idea what I am talking about.

=A0There are many reasons why
people want to get rid of perfectly good appliances. =A0A common reason
is that they were given a new appliance as a gift (Christmas, birthday
etc.). =A0Another is that they are rich enough to afford to buy the
latest appliances each year. =A0Or perhaps they decided to replace a
unit with a bigger or smaller model. =A0Or were conned into buying an
appliance that is more "green" than the one they had. =A0People moving
house often sell their appliances and get new stuff for the new house
- and in that case they are frequently "free to collector" because the
person is really only looking for a free removal service.

I would say the primary reason above all for getting rid of appliances
that I know of, is that they are faulty or that they are badly
defective in appearance.

Then you do not have the same experiences as myself. have you ever
actually looked for decent second-hand appliances?

=A0In other
cases a well-off householder had replaced a unit simply because it was
getting a bit grubby and it avoided a cleaning job.

Which is exactly what I said, that they are cheap usually because they
"lack quality in terms of appearance".

Well, if you are out of work yet unwilling to spend a one-off couple
of hours cleaning a good but dirty cooker, you really don't deserve
any help.

The skills required are minimal.

They are relatively straightforward to show somebody, but doing the
work safely is not intuitive to an inexperienced operator. In the end,
I have to look at the evidence, which is that most people who are not
professionals, have just enough skills to be dangerous.

Then they should learn. Sorry, but I have no time for people who moan
that nobody is helping them but are unwilling to do anything to help
themselves. If you cannot change a wheel, then either don't moan
about the cost of a call-out when you get a puncture, or don't buy a
car.

=A0If a person does not want to learn
some very simple skills, I put the blame squarely on that person.

That's ludicrous. Society is constantly telling people *not* to do
electrics, plumbing, and gas work themselves - for good reason,
because it is dangerous if done incorrectly by inexperienced
operators.

That's true if you are talking about a home rewiring. It is not true
if you are merely talking about fitting an electric cooker or washing
machine. It has become an excuse for being lazy and wanting other
people to do your work for you. What's next? Complaining that it's
too dangerous to get out of bed without a paid carer to help you up?

It is also the case that the poor typically lack the correct tools for
the job - which are not inordinately expensive, but would still
require expenditure.

There is no excuse in the UK not to have acquired set of very basic
tools by the time you reach adulthood. But if you haven't even
managed that, they are things that almost everyone will be able to
borrow from friends and neighbours. And the vast majority of people
know someone who will be willing to fit an appliance if they really
cannot manage the job themselves.

So you get them using improvised tools like
scissors and kitchen knives to strip cables that generally give a poor
result and which are liable to cause injuries to themselves in the
process - partly because the tools are unsuited to the purpose, and
partly because they simply lack the everyday familiarity and skill
with manual tools and are therefore prone to use the tools in ways
that experienced users would deprecate (either from painful
experience, or from cultural transmission of the painful experience of
others).

I wonder how such people manage to go to the toilet and wipe
themselves, never having had the opportunity to attend a
government-paid training course?

Look, Ste - IMO people need to get into the mindset that they *need*
to learn those basic skills to cope with modern life. It doesn't cost
anything, so you cannot blame lack of finances. if you have decided
that carrying out such jobs is beneath you, then you have to have the
money to pay someone else to do it for you. Otherwise tough titties -
I have zero sympathy.

besides, a cooker is about the only appliance that requires any sort
of skills at all - unless you count plugging a unit into the mains
socket a skill.

Cookers and washing machines are the most basic and irreducible of
kitchen appliances in today's society, and they are the appliances
that require the most skill. Even fitting a washing machine, will
often in practice require several tools and supplies.

Yes, extremely complex jobs. For a total moron, perhaps. My son
connected all the fittings for a washing machine in my kitchen when he
was 9 - and he even worked out how to do it by himself without any
instructions. Setting up a playstation or X-box requires *far* more
expertise, and most unemplyed people seem to manage that task OK.

Why should they be forced to move around involuntarily? =A0I know
several families with all members on long-term benefits and was in
fact thinking of them when I wrote my post. =A0The state pays for their
rent in very reasonable houses that they have lived in for well over a
decade. =A0Apart from moving to more suitable accomodation due to a
change in the size of the =A0family, or moving at the request of the
benefit receiptient themself, the main reason for being shunted from
place to place is if the family cause a nuisance wto their neighbours.

Indeed, and that is a particular cause of involuntarily moving
address. I know others who have moved because of harassment from
creditors, the law, etc.

Unless the harassment was unjustified you surely don't expect anyone
to be sympathetic?

And the reality is, if you have a particularly difficult or high-
energy child to raise, it's often the case that poor parents have no
ability or inclination to manage that. A lot of mothers in that sort
of situation genuinely despair of their children's behaviour (often
because it does have real consequences, like frequent changes of
address), but at the same time are loath to generate poor relations
within the family purely for the benefit of those outside the family -
in other words, whilst they might not always condone the behaviour,
they're not going to incur the psychological and relational stress
involved in effective discipline (which might be a very significant
undertaking when you have few rewards available to offer for better
behaviour, and no ability to spend money in order to change
circumstances or provide alternative leisure pursuits for the child),
when in contrast to those 'costs' the family itself will derive no
great benefits from the discipline (which mainly accrues to the
community at large). You're effectively expecing parents to become
prison warders of their own children, in a system in which they
themselves feel like inmates.

I expect people to refrain from having children until they are able
and willing to raise them properly. If that task is beyond them, put
the child up for adoption. You are describing situations caused by
the person's own failings, and trying to blame it on someone else.

=3DA0A basic microwave (if necessary borrowed from
friends or family)
How many people do you know who have spare cookers or microwaves just
lying around? I'm clean and creditworthy amongst my friends, and I'm
not sure any of them could easily spare me a microwave or cooker.

Not even for a week or two to tide you over?

What I'm saying is that it would basically involve the lender going
without the relevant appliance, since almost all people (including
myself) only have one such appliance.

Yes, and I have many friends who would be perfectly willing to suffer
a temporary inconvenience of being without an appliance if I were
desperate and, unlike them, had no alternative whatsoever. And of
course I would do the same for them - though these days I would
probably give my microwave to a friend who was in need and buy a new
one for myself. When the son of a friend of mine recently left home
to live in his own place for the first time, it was an excellent
excuse for me to de-clutter and give him lots of perfectly good stuff
I no longer used or wished to upgrade.

=A0As said, you can cook
everything you need to eat with just a microwave and a kettle (I've
done it). =A0It's not ideal, but it is perfectly acceptable while you
source other appliances.

It depends what sort of other support you have, and how long it takes
to source the other appliances.

In the UK it won't take long if you actually put your mind to it.

Yes, I can see that the sort of people who are dirty and dishonest
might have a more difficult time getting favours from friends and
relatives than clean, decent honest people. =A0Now how are you going to
blame that on the nasty rish businessmen?

Yes, because as I've said cleanliness is a costly pretense to maintain
(and its a habit that is built up over a lifetime - not switched on
and off at will), and so is honesty.

It's a matter of upbringing and personal integrity and pride. Poor
people simply have less ability to disguise those shortcomings than
rich people - but they are still the fault of the individual, and also
something that the individual is perfectly capable of correcting
themself.

Ste, I have actually *lived* in that situation, and so know *very*
well what I am talking about.

When exactly was this? And for how many *generations* had your family
lived in that 'situation'?

As a mature adult, I believe that I am fully responsible for my own
actions, so the situation my ancestors or even my parents were in no
longer has any bearing on how I behave or what I do. I survived on
practically sod-all income just after leaving school in the late 60's,
and again after leaving the country I had been living in the mid 70's.
Since then my fortunes have been up and down like a fiddlers's elbow,
and I have adapted to each change. When my fortunes take a downturn,
I regard it as a challenge to compensate, and thus far have managed to
maintain or regain a lifestyle that is perfectly acceptable through my
own efforts.

Whilst I am relatively well off now, I know quite a few people
of all ages who are out of work and have no assets. =A0i know *very*
well what's possible and what's not.

And what *are* you contending is possible? If we take the example of
how you contend it is "possible" to feed one's self in a kitchen to
contain only a kettle and a microwave, is quite a different question
from whether it is reasonable to expect it as a matter of routine in
our society.

I maintain that it is possible to do so *and* remain happy and have a
perfectly adequate standard of living. i have done so and I see other
people doing so today. Obviously having something more is *desirable*
but it is not *necessary* in order to enjoy a perfectly good and
comfortable life. If you speak to a millionaire, he will no doubt say
that becoming a billionaire would be desirable and allow him an even
better quality of life.

So far as it is "possible" to live in poverty for generations, and
maintain the same cleanliness, honesty and moral uprightness, optimism
and cheeriness of the 'middle class', I'm not sure I can think of any
examples of this. Even if such characters exist, their sheer rarity
may well prove my rule that it is not possible to maintain those
behavioural traits under the conditions of extreme poverty and the
exclusion from the normal culture of society that comes with it.

In the UK, the poorest people are at the same standard as the
middle-classes in other countries. So of course it is possible. It
is also possible to get from very poor to poor, and from poor to
nearly-average in the UK without a particularly huge amount of effort
or luck.

I was discussing the *temporary* situation after the person has just
moved in to a new unfurnished home. =A0Yes, it will indeed be more
demanding during that time.

Which, given the upheaval of moving house, is probably going to be the
least reasonable time to impose such demands. Anyway, I don't think I
was saying that I'm aware of anybody having any particular problem in
being without a washing machine for a few days while they move house,
so you are not really addressing any relevant point with this
alternative interpretation - I quite reasonably assumed that what you
meant was that they should be washing their clothes in the bath as a
matter of routine, not as an exceptional stop-gap.

Then you misunderstood. In the UK today it will only ever be
*necessary* as a stop-gap. Not that it is all that onerous to do so
all the time - I hand-washed my clothes for several years without
regarding myself as being hard done-by. Your state of mind is mainly
due to your perception of what is and what is not reasonable rather
than the actual "hardships" you are subjected to. At the time I was
living on a small (31') cruising yacht, and hand-washing was an
accepted part of life for we yotties. As was doing *all* cooking on a
two burner paraffin stove and having no appliances (and no mains
electricity) whatsoever. As said, despite having none of the things
you regard as being absolutely essential, it was honestly the happiest
period of my life.

=A0Some people will sit on their arse, buy
some cheap cider and moan about how unfair everything is whilst not
bothering to wash the home or themselves properly, or even get out of
bed before noon. =A0Others will see it as a challenge and get stuck in
to improve the situation for themselves.

But failing to bargain for better social terms *won't* improve the
situation - it will actually get worse, the more people compete for
dwindling rewards.

The resources are available to everyone in the UK. The serious
hardships could be overcome with a bit of effort, and so I regard them
as being self-imposed.

And those with a bit of get-up-and-go are just as likely to become
organised criminals - I know many people with determination and
backbone, and the justice system intends to give them no leniency
whatever for trying to improve themselves. In fact, evidence of
significant rewards, is likely to attract stiffer punishment.

That is certainly one way to choose to go, and probably the fastest
way to improve your position, albeit carrying a high risk. I do not
even condemn many type of such crime as being immoral, though other
types of crime cause a great deal of harm to other people and so I do
not condone it.

That's the problem in the end for people who talk about "getting stuck
in" - they end up having to say "but only within the rules", and then
that raises the question of who exactly had the greatest input into
those rules and why those rules should not be changed.

Yes, depression and "getting into a rut" are very real things. The
point is though, that they are both more a state of mind rather than a
physical reality. The solution lies within the person, not outside.

I don't see "black" work as being immoral.

Neither do I, but in reality it is sanctioned if detected - and I
understand the new real-time PAYE system means that benefit claimants
who work are detected almost instantly.

Then it is important that they don't get caught. But of course, the
sort of people you mentioned earlier who are unwilling to learn how to
use a screwdriver *will* get caught, because they are just as unlikely
to make an effort to remain undetected as they are to learn or use
simple DIY skills. Most people are caught because they made very
elementary mistakes.

=A0Nor smuggling for tax
evasion purposes. =A0Both are artificial crimes that have been created
due to the inadequacies of the state-imposed systems. =A0HB rent is paid
direct to the landlord, so there is no opportunity to avoid paying it.

HB is paid direct to the tenant in the first place now, and only after
a history of mis-spending the rent might it be paid direct to the
landlord. Also, people who move between work and benefits are in a
position at times to avoid paying the rent out of their own earnings.

Frequently moving between work and unemployment is a situation that
the present system is least satisfactory, as is being employed in work
that is "on demand" and so does not produce a fixed wage. Smart
people try to find ways to benefit from the bad system rather than
become disadvantaged by it. Learn exactly what the rules are, and
find a way how a person in your situation might use them to your
advantage. it is, after all, what the very wealthy people do wrt
their tax liabilities.

--
Cynic

On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 15:03:18 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In which case they would probably benefit from moving to a place with
a more reasonable landlord, as much of a pain as it will be.

Such a strategy has its downside. Not just playing whack-a-mole with the
Royal Mail redirection, but until you've settled somewhere three years
getting credit is more tiresome.

The sort of people being discussed in that scenario will not *have* a
credit rating that needs protecting.

I've moved twice in the last 18 months, and did not have any need to
get my mail redirected either time. I simply notified everyone who I
needed/wanted to be notified of my change of address, and have no
desire to receive mail from anyone else. How many people and
organisations communicate with you by snail-mail these days?

--
Cynic

On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 14:20:02 -0800 (PST), Ste
wrote:

Perhaps you should be taking issue with the behaviour of the tenants
in that case instead of moaning about the landlord?

I don't recall "moaning about the landlord". As for the behaviour of
the tenants, again to take pride in your surroundings, you have to
have some degree of security, some degree of personalisation, and some
sense that it's of a commensurate social standard. So too, whereas
middle class partners might replace any crockery and fittings damaged
in a plate-throwing argument, the poor cannot generally afford to do
so (their income was not sufficient to have afforded those fittings
even in the first place).

Perhaps people who cannot afford replacement plates should not be
throwing them at each other in the first place? Or do you believe
that it is an unreasonable thing to ask people not to do?

I think I have thrown one plate in anger in my entire life (and that
was at an inanimate object), so I know full well that it doesn't take
a huge amount of self-control.

Are you really as comfortable in a house with no doors on the kitchen
cabinets and tiles falling off the wall, as one with a sound kitchen?
Or is it just double standards?

I have two hands and a brain, and would most certainly be able to
effect sufficient repairs to make a vast improvement.

I'd be quite interested to see you fit a kitchen with nothing but your
fingernails - and no prior experience.

Anyone of adult years has no excuse for not having such basic skills
if they are living in a situation where such skills are very
desirable. I would be able to acquire a bit more than my fingernails
in the UK, no matter how poor I was.

All I can say is, for people who have survived on basic income support
(i.e. not disability benefits or any of the other considerably higher
benefits) for a significant period of time (possibly all their lives,
possibly generations), and without working on the side or receiving
other consistent subsidy from wealthier friends or relatives, I do not
observe their homes to be of any reasonable standard.

Every able-bodied adult of at least minimal intelligence is able to
find a way to achieve more than basic income support in the UK, so
there is no excuse for anyone to live that way for any length of time
except by choice.

As I've said, some of the worst cases I'm describing are not even
friends or relatives of mine, and they are actually families of ill
repute in the local community - in some cases, I've seen the inside of
their homes only because I've entered the property with the landlord,
not because I have any personal relationship with them whatsoever.

And yet you think the blame lies elsewhere? Incredible!

--
Cynic

On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 12:17:17 +0000, tony sayer
wrote:

Magnolia is the rented accommodation standard colour dontcha know;!...

It is considered to be a "neutral" colour that will not put off
prospective tenants or buyers.

--
Cynic

In message 4f43b57f.16838437@localhost, at 15:21:38 on Tue, 21 Feb
2012, Cynic remarked:
In which case they would probably benefit from moving to a place with
a more reasonable landlord, as much of a pain as it will be.

Such a strategy has its downside. Not just playing whack-a-mole with the
Royal Mail redirection, but until you've settled somewhere three years
getting credit is more tiresome.

The sort of people being discussed in that scenario will not *have* a
credit rating that needs protecting.

That's typecasting tenants a bit, isn't it?

I've moved twice in the last 18 months, and did not have any need to
get my mail redirected either time. I simply notified everyone who I
needed/wanted to be notified of my change of address, and have no
desire to receive mail from anyone else. How many people and
organisations communicate with you by snail-mail these days?

A hundred or so (plus Xmas cards). But address these days isn't so much
to mail you things, but part of your online "identity". eg The address
you quote has to match the one they, or Experian or whatever, have for
you.
--
Roland Perry

On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 16:43:09 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

Such a strategy has its downside. Not just playing whack-a-mole with the
Royal Mail redirection, but until you've settled somewhere three years
getting credit is more tiresome.

The sort of people being discussed in that scenario will not *have* a
credit rating that needs protecting.

That's typecasting tenants a bit, isn't it?

We were discussing tenants who *you* stated were being forced to move
frequently because they were being harrassed by creditors. Thus that
is the subset of tenant I was referring to. Are people who are being
forced to move for that reason (a) likely to have a credit rating or
(b) likely to *want* mail from their creditors to be redirected?

I've moved twice in the last 18 months, and did not have any need to
get my mail redirected either time. I simply notified everyone who I
needed/wanted to be notified of my change of address, and have no
desire to receive mail from anyone else. How many people and
organisations communicate with you by snail-mail these days?

A hundred or so (plus Xmas cards).

If you are not going to communicate with a person before next
Christmas, I really don't see why you would want to receive their
Christmas card. If you need to impress visitors with how popular you
are, buy some cards yourself to hang up, or use last years' cards.
How many of your "hundred or so" people and organisations that you
claim communicate with you by snailmail (seems extrordinarily high) do
you actually *want* to receive mail from? To reach that figure, I
assume you are including all the junk mail you receive. Do you
*really* want the post office to redirect offers from double glazing
companies and book-of-the-month clubs?

But address these days isn't so much
to mail you things, but part of your online "identity". eg The address
you quote has to match the one they, or Experian or whatever, have for
you.

You will no doubt have informed your bank, utility companies and every
other organisation that you have current financial dealings with. The
change will filter through in due course. You could also inform the
two credit rating companies if it is something that is important to
you. When you order any goods via the mail from your new address, you
would update any address held by the mailorder company as a matter of
course. Untill then you will lose out on their marketing fliers - is
that a problem?

--
Cynic

In message 4f44f04d.97428390@localhost, at 14:02:51 on Wed, 22 Feb
2012, Cynic remarked:
On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 16:43:09 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

Such a strategy has its downside. Not just playing whack-a-mole with the
Royal Mail redirection, but until you've settled somewhere three years
getting credit is more tiresome.

The sort of people being discussed in that scenario will not *have* a
credit rating that needs protecting.

That's typecasting tenants a bit, isn't it?

We were discussing tenants who *you* stated were being forced to move
frequently because they were being harrassed by creditors.

No, I was only talking about being on the receiving end of dilapidated
fixtures and fittings.

Thus that is the subset of tenant I was referring to.

So most of the rest you wrote is at cross purposes

How many people and
organisations communicate with you by snail-mail these days?

A hundred or so (plus Xmas cards).

If you are not going to communicate with a person before next
Christmas, I really don't see why you would want to receive their
Christmas card.

Because they often include a "family newsletter" that's our main way of
keeping in touch. It's also a common way for them to tell me about a
change of address.

If you need to impress visitors with how popular you
are, buy some cards yourself to hang up, or use last years' cards.

This Xmas I didn't hang any up.

How many of your "hundred or so" people and organisations that you
claim communicate with you by snailmail (seems extrordinarily high) do
you actually *want* to receive mail from?

Pretty much all of them. I can think of one catalogue company that won't
take "no" for an answer, but the rest are quite welcome, albeit often
only an annual statement of some kind.

To reach that figure, I assume you are including all the junk mail you
receive. Do you *really* want the post office to redirect offers from
double glazing companies and book-of-the-month clubs?

I get almost no addressed junk mail. Perhaps that's because I opt out of
the electoral roll public list and never fill in questionnaires (not
that I get many).

But address these days isn't so much to mail you things, but part of
your online "identity". eg The address you quote has to match the one
they, or Experian or whatever, have for you.

You will no doubt have informed your bank, utility companies and every
other organisation that you have current financial dealings with.

Yep, that's where a lot of the 100 people come from. It's amazing how
they mount up (I just signed up for four different railway ticket
smartcards, so that's another four to keep updated).

--
Roland Perry

On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 17:53:40 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

If you are not going to communicate with a person before next
Christmas, I really don't see why you would want to receive their
Christmas card.

Because they often include a "family newsletter" that's our main way of
keeping in touch. It's also a common way for them to tell me about a
change of address.

How many of your "hundred or so" people and organisations that you
claim communicate with you by snailmail (seems extrordinarily high) do
you actually *want* to receive mail from?

Pretty much all of them. I can think of one catalogue company that won't
take "no" for an answer, but the rest are quite welcome, albeit often
only an annual statement of some kind.

Mail redirect only operates for a couple of months or so, so you still
have to actually inform all those people of your change of address.
Seeing that you have to inform them anyway, it is just as much effort
to inform them *before* you move as afterwards.

I've substituted email for snailmail whenever possible, and find it a
heck of a lot better. Albeit I was pretty much forced to do so
because I was living on a boat (not having a letterbox). Most bills
and statements can be switched to email these days. Consequently I
don't get any more than 1 personally addressed letter every two weeks
or so. It helps save trees as well (not that I care).

--
Cynic

On 23/02/2012 15:04, Cynic wrote:
On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 17:53:40 +0000, Roland
wrote:

If you are not going to communicate with a person before next
Christmas, I really don't see why you would want to receive their
Christmas card.

Because they often include a "family newsletter" that's our main way of
keeping in touch. It's also a common way for them to tell me about a
change of address.

How many of your "hundred or so" people and organisations that you
claim communicate with you by snailmail (seems extrordinarily high) do
you actually *want* to receive mail from?

Pretty much all of them. I can think of one catalogue company that won't
take "no" for an answer, but the rest are quite welcome, albeit often
only an annual statement of some kind.

Mail redirect only operates for a couple of months or so,

Rubbish!

You can do to for twelve months and then renew it. However, given the
gross incompetence of Royal Mail, they may not bother to redirect your
post even when you've paid for the service!

so you still
have to actually inform all those people of your change of address.
Seeing that you have to inform them anyway, it is just as much effort
to inform them *before* you move as afterwards.

I've substituted email for snailmail whenever possible, and find it a
heck of a lot better. Albeit I was pretty much forced to do so
because I was living on a boat (not having a letterbox). Most bills
and statements can be switched to email these days. Consequently I
don't get any more than 1 personally addressed letter every two weeks
or so. It helps save trees as well (not that I care).



--
Moving things in still pictures

FastStone - Infinitely Flexible Photographic Fixing - For Free!

www.FastStone.org

In message 4f465398.188383281@localhost, at 15:04:50 on Thu, 23 Feb
2012, Cynic remarked:

Mail redirect only operates for a couple of months or so,

You can start off with a year, and extend it for a second year. Once
upon a time you extend it further, but they don't allow that any more.

so you still
have to actually inform all those people of your change of address.
Seeing that you have to inform them anyway, it is just as much effort
to inform them *before* you move as afterwards.

I think you might be saying "why don't you inform them before you move".
That's easy - yes you can tell the more prolific ones but they won't
necessarily action it immediately. And then others crawl out of the
woodwork.

I've substituted email for snailmail whenever possible, and find it a
heck of a lot better.

I've swung the other way. Too many online accounts are very difficult to
manage, and far too often they delete old statements too quickly.

--
Roland Perry