Re: Dominic Lawson on Question Time (BBC Radio 4) now
Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2019 6:36 pm
Bravo, Gerard! Good find
The independent home for discussions on the English Chess scene.
https://www.ecforum.org.uk/
I consider the post unsuited to a professional politician of any stripe. They only lead to trouble.Andrew Zigmond wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 6:58 pmIf given a direct choice I would almost certainly vote for somebody on the political left
I cannot speak to the last point - it is nowadays standard procedure to dismiss any views which which one disagrees as "outdated", thus obviating the need to describe why they are actually wrong. On the first two, I have never observed either sexism ( unless you count targeted attempts to encourage women and girls to play ) or homophobia in chess. Is this perhaps an element of the North / South divide?Which takes me on to my next point. I agree that chess in this country suffers from being riddled with sexist, homophobic and generally outdated views.
Well, everyone's entitled to their opinion, including 'people like Gerard' who apparently would encourage the poor to gamble, smoke and drink.Gerard Killoran wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 5:33 pmI've now listened to Lawson's reply and he spends little or no time on the the real causes of poverty, but spends his most of his answer criticising the poor for gambling, smoking and drinking. We've had to listen to this nonsense ever since the nineteenth century. Some people might like chess to be represented by this privileged patrician snob but I'll leave it to Siegfried Sassoon to sum up my feelings about people like Lawson.
Did Gerard say that? No - he didn't say anything of the sort. Yes, in some cases families are impoverished because the member who should be the breadwinner ends up spending what little money they have satisfying various addictions (and yes, Lawson is right to say that this needs tackling). However those of us who live in the real world know that wages have not kept pace with the cost of living and that a full time job with a living wage is hard to come by, even if you do have the qualifications (which the children of gamblers and alcoholics are unlikely to have, through no fault of their own). There are many working people who are struggling to put food on their table, meet transport costs to get to work and afford other necessities like the equipment their children need for school. Dominic Lawson (the son of a prominent MP who has probably never wanted for anything) ignored that and simply implied that ALL poor people are responsible for their own misfortunes.Roger Lancaster wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 9:40 pmWell, everyone's entitled to their opinion, including 'people like Gerard' who apparently would encourage the poor to gamble, smoke and drink.Gerard Killoran wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 5:33 pmI've now listened to Lawson's reply and he spends little or no time on the the real causes of poverty, but spends his most of his answer criticising the poor for gambling, smoking and drinking. We've had to listen to this nonsense ever since the nineteenth century. Some people might like chess to be represented by this privileged patrician snob but I'll leave it to Siegfried Sassoon to sum up my feelings about people like Lawson.
Now that is a foolish comment, not least by your normal standards. Nowhere in his criticism of Lawson does Gerard Killoran advocate the wasting of the poor's money by the poor. If gambling, smoking, and drinking are normal social activities in our society - just as watching TV, buying a newspaper, catching a bus are - why are the poor denied normal social engagement? Dickens understood the problem. Welfare legislators this past century have too. Only in the past decade have the lessons of a century or more been ignored; and the questions they addressed, forgotten.Roger Lancaster wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 9:40 pmWell, everyone's entitled to their opinion, including 'people like Gerard' who apparently would encourage the poor to gamble, smoke and drink
David, my reading is that Gerard categorised Lawson's views as "nonsense". There have been times in my life when I've been short of money and, in extreme circumstances, a lot of what you (reasonably) term 'normal social engagement' has to be sacrificed to pay for essentials such as food and housing costs.David Robertson wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 10:01 pmNow that is a foolish comment, not least by your normal standards. Nowhere in his criticism of Lawson does Gerard Killoran advocate the wasting of the poor's money by the poor. If gambling, smoking, and drinking are normal social activities in our society - just as watching TV, buying a newspaper, catching a bus are - why are the poor denied normal social engagement? Dickens understood the problem. Welfare legislators this past century have too. Only in the past decade have the lessons of a century or more been ignored; and the questions they addressed, forgotten.
Again that is to completely and utterly miss the point. We all know full well that there are times when the belt has to be tightened and luxuries have to be sacrificed. The point is that there are plenty of people who do not smoke, drink or gamble and yet can't afford the cost of living, no matter how many hours they work - and it may be that they cannot work due to physical disability or mental illness; the Cameron and May governments have treated such people as fodder for budgetary cuts. Lawson simply refused to acknowledge that such issues exist.Roger Lancaster wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 10:09 pmDavid, my reading is that Gerard categorised Lawson's views as "nonsense". There have been times in my life when I've been short of money and, in extreme circumstances, a lot of what you (reasonably) term 'normal social engagement' has to be sacrificed to pay for essentials such as food and housing costs.David Robertson wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 10:01 pmNow that is a foolish comment, not least by your normal standards. Nowhere in his criticism of Lawson does Gerard Killoran advocate the wasting of the poor's money by the poor. If gambling, smoking, and drinking are normal social activities in our society - just as watching TV, buying a newspaper, catching a bus are - why are the poor denied normal social engagement? Dickens understood the problem. Welfare legislators this past century have too. Only in the past decade have the lessons of a century or more been ignored; and the questions they addressed, forgotten.
Sorry but again missing the point. If gambling, smoking and drinking are not the most important factors causing poverty why did Lawson, when asked about poverty, immediately divert the subject on to a secondary cause?Roger Lancaster wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 10:40 pmI'm not seriously suggesting that gambling, smoking and drinking are the most important factors causing poverty (and I don't recall Lawson saying this either) but they are factors over which, notwithstanding the point about addiction, individuals have some control. And I'm somewhat intolerant of people who describe as "nonsense" the views of "people like (insert name here)" simply because they disagree with them. As I suggested earlier, I'm less than enthused by the views of Diane Abbott but I hope I managed to refer to her in respectful terms.
People 'like me' might do such a thing, but I wouldn't. As I lost my mother to lung cancer caused by smoking - despite my many appeals for her to quit - I find your assumption particularly offensive.Roger Lancaster wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 9:40 pmWell, everyone's entitled to their opinion, including 'people like Gerard' who apparently would encourage the poor to gamble, smoke and drink.Gerard Killoran wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 5:33 pmI've now listened to Lawson's reply and he spends little or no time on the the real causes of poverty, but spends his most of his answer criticising the poor for gambling, smoking and drinking. We've had to listen to this nonsense ever since the nineteenth century. Some people might like chess to be represented by this privileged patrician snob but I'll leave it to Siegfried Sassoon to sum up my feelings about people like Lawson.
I would guess George Osborne, married to Frances, daughter of David Howell. George Osborne is, of course, a highly intelligent man, but he has never seemed to show any empathy for the poor in this country, or indeed in any country.Gerard Killoran wrote: ↑Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:37 amQuiz question. Which very rich man, married to the daughter of a Viscount, wrote the following disgusting sentences?
This may be true up to a point, and I don't really want to enter into a political argument that I would normally avoid on here because I avoid the Not Chess forum: also, my objection to Lawson holding the post he does lies largely in his attitude to women, rather than his wider political views, which, however much I dislike them, would I suspect find a great following than mine among the English chess community.Roger Lancaster wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 10:40 pmI'm not seriously suggesting that gambling, smoking and drinking are the most important factors causing poverty (and I don't recall Lawson saying this either) but they are factors over which, notwithstanding the point about addiction, individuals have some control.