London SE1 community website

The Siege of The Elephant: Convergence against gentrification of The Elephant Nov 17th 2012

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Current: 8 of 9
Monday 5 October 2015 3.07pm
Crickey, it seems to me this thread has gone way off message. Can someone please tell me what we're trying to prove here? That poncy shops selling cereal should only be allowed in Knightsbridge? ...help.
Monday 5 October 2015 3.43pm
eDWaRD WooDWaRD wrote:
I recently read jack London's "People of the Abyss".. a harsh, depressing account of life in East London in the early 1900's. To realise that little has changed since then...

Not sure how being smugly fatuous is better than being smugly complacent. Life expectancy for someone born in the East End has more than doubled since then. Do you believe the children of London 'die like flies..in a room where the children take turn about in sitting up to drive the rats away from the sleepers'.

Would you say that, in 2015, 'in London the slaughter of the innocents goes on on a scale more stupendous than any before in the history of the world'.

How do you think a child of East End London in 1900 would view sanitation in 2015? The NHS? Education? Welfare? If she were a girl, women's suffrage?
Monday 5 October 2015 3.49pm
not to mention the huge range of tasty and nutricuious breakfast cereals now on offer....where were they in 1900.
Tuesday 6 October 2015 11.42am
[quote turtmcfly][quote eDWaRD WooDWaRD]
How do you think a child of East End London in 1900 would view sanitation in 2015? The NHS? Education? Welfare? If she were a girl, women's suffrage?[/quote]
____

Living in an area where child poverty rose to 49% in 2014, I think their main concern is how selling bowls of cereal for 3 is effectively going to help bring down those 49%. Basically, what you're telling these children and their parents is that they've never had it so good, to stop moaning and to be grateful. Also, with regards to women's suffrage: the chasm between men's and women's wage is still abysmal in 2015, maybe a reason why some of these children live in poverty.
Tuesday 6 October 2015 1.11pm
We'r too polite in this country - this is how angry workers in France deal with adverse management decisions.
Tuesday 6 October 2015 1.17pm
jackie rokotnitz wrote:
Crickey, it seems to me this thread has gone way off message. Can someone please tell me what we're trying to prove here? That poncy shops selling cereal should only be allowed in Knightsbridge? ...help.

Why off message? The topic is gentrification. I highlighted what's happening in other (not too far away) parts of London with regards to gentrification.
Tuesday 6 October 2015 2.35pm
eDWaRD WooDWaRD wrote:
We'r too polite in this country - this is how angry workers in France deal with adverse management decisions.

The French: best National Anthem, and best militants.

Much to learn from our Gallic cousins...

Tuesday 6 October 2015 5.33pm
Jules62 wrote:
eDWaRD WooDWaRD wrote:
We'r too polite in this country - this is how angry workers in France deal with adverse management decisions.

The French: best National Anthem, and best militants.

Much to learn from our Gallic cousins...

The phrase ' bouche ouverte' mean anything?
Tuesday 6 October 2015 5.50pm
eDWaRD WooDWaRD wrote:
Living in an area where child poverty rose to 49% in 2014, I think their main concern is how selling bowls of cereal for 3 is effectively going to help bring down those 49%.

My post was solely aimed at your ridiculous comment that little has changed since 1900. I asked what a child living in 1900 would think of the life of a child now. The tense of your response above means you've obviously misunderstood the question.

Furthermore, you are (knowingly, I imagine) writing as though 'child poverty' now is measured absolutely - that the 'average child' in poverty today would be as destitute as the 'average child' in poverty in 1900. It isn't. They aren't. And before you bleat the tedious...

eDWaRD WooDWaRD wrote:
Basically, what you're telling these children and their parents is that they've never had it so good, to stop moaning and to be grateful.

No. I'm not saying that. In any way. There are no words in my post that come close to it. But I had two side bets with myself, one of which was that you'd come up with this logic-free guff by way of an 'argument'.


eDWaRD WooDWaRD wrote:
Also, with regards to women's suffrage: the chasm between men's and women's wage is still abysmal in 2015. Maybe a reason why some of these children live in poverty

Not sure how that regards women's suffrage, but anyway... For part time work, and for workers in the age range 22-39 there is apparently a 'negative gender pay gap' whereby women earn more than men. But I'm not as keen to jump to assumptions about people (heteronormative or otherwise) as you seem to be, so I'll just say it's a pointless rumination.


Back to the point. We don't have reliable data for how large the gender pay gap was a hundred and fifteen years ago. Am I to presume that in line with your comments it's roughly the same as now? Because I think the figure would be really sh*t.
Tuesday 6 October 2015 6.54pm
turtmcfly wrote:
eDWaRD WooDWaRD wrote:
Living in an area where child poverty rose to 49% in 2014, I think their main concern is how selling bowls of cereal for 3 is effectively going to help bring down those 49%.

My post was solely aimed at your ridiculous comment that little has changed since 1900. I asked what a child living in 1900 would think of the life of a child now. The tense of your response above means you've obviously misunderstood the question.

Furthermore, you are (knowingly, I imagine) writing as though 'child poverty' now is measured absolutely - that the 'average child' in poverty today would be as destitute as the 'average child' in poverty in 1900. It isn't. They aren't. And before you bleat the tedious...

eDWaRD WooDWaRD wrote:
Basically, what you're telling these children and their parents is that they've never had it so good, to stop moaning and to be grateful.

No. I'm not saying that. In any way. There are no words in my post that come close to it. But I had two side bets with myself, one of which was that you'd come up with this logic-free guff by way of an 'argument'.


eDWaRD WooDWaRD wrote:
Also, with regards to women's suffrage: the chasm between men's and women's wage is still abysmal in 2015. Maybe a reason why some of these children live in poverty

Not sure how that regards women's suffrage, but anyway... For part time work, and for workers in the age range 22-39 there is apparently a 'negative gender pay gap' whereby women earn more than men. But I'm not as keen to jump to assumptions about people (heteronormative or otherwise) as you seem to be, so I'll just say it's a pointless rumination.


Back to the point. We don't have reliable data for how large the gender pay gap was a hundred and fifteen years ago. Am I to presume that in line with your comments it's roughly the same as now? Because I think the figure would be really sh*t.

Getting a bit tetchy, are we. Your denial or failure to understand of the point i am making is typical symptom of the modern day, where people don't want to hear, see or speak about poverty. That's why I appreciate Class War's sentiment - they know that the time of politely trying to attract attention to some very real squalid circumstances is over.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Current: 8 of 9

To post a message, please log in or register..
We are part of
Independent Community News Network
Email newsletter

For the latest local news and events direct to your inbox every Monday, you need our weekly email newsletter SE1 Direct.

7,000+ locals read it every week. Can you afford to miss out?

Read the latest issue before signing up

Also on the forum
Views expressed in this discussion forum are those of the contributors and may not reflect the editorial policy of this website. Please read our terms and conditions