Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
24 December 2010
10:0786321hello what you like lol
roger
you may have read why individuals dont clear fronts such as snow in this climate culture
and marek as usual marvelous posting
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
24 December 2010
10:1386322DT1 - You are indeed deliberately taking that out of context.
I provided the text in full not so long ago on the forum.
The speech was about caring for your own families and your neighbours... It chimes very well with 'The Big Society'.
Quite rightly she was saying that we should not be looking to government to do everything, that we should do more for ourselves, our own families and also for others, our neighbours as she put it.
The left love to distort and pervert what she said disgracefully and you should be ashamed of yourself for doing so DT.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
24 December 2010
10:1886323Here is the full text - it was in an interview rather than a speech and as you can see it is all about helping others.
"""""I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand"I have a problem, it is the Government's job to cope with it!" or"I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!" "I am homeless, the Government must house me!" and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour and life is a reciprocal business and people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation and it is, I think, one of the tragedies in which many of the benefits we give, which were meant to reassure people that if they were sick or ill there was a safety net and there was help, that many of the benefits which were meant to help people who were unfortunate—" It is all right. We joined together and we have these insurance schemes to look after it" . That was the objective, but somehow there are some people who have been manipulating the system and so some of those help and benefits that were meant to say to people:"All right, if you cannot get a job, you shall have a basic standard of living!" but when people come and say:"But what is the point of working? I can get as much on the dole!" You say:"Look" It is not from the dole. It is your neighbour who is supplying it and if you can earn your own living then really you have a duty to do it and you will feel very much better!"
There is also something else I should say to them:"If that does not give you a basic standard, you know, there are ways in which we top up the standard. You can get your housing benefit."
But it went too far. If children have a problem, it is society that is at fault. There is no such thing as society.[fo 2] There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate. And the worst things we have in life, in my view, are where children who are a great privilege and a trust—they are the fundamental great trust, but they do not ask to come into the world, we bring them into the world, they are a miracle, there is nothing like the miracle of life—we have these little innocents and the worst crime in life is when those children, who would naturally have the right to look to their parents for help, for comfort, not only just for the food and shelter but for the time, for the understanding, turn round and not only is that help not forthcoming, but they get either neglect or worse than that, cruelty.
How do you set about teaching a child religion at school, God is like a father, and she thinks"like someone who has been cruel to them?" It is those children you cannot ... you just have to try to say they can only learn from school or we as their neighbour have to try in some way to compensate. This is why my foremost charity has always been the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, because over a century ago when it was started, it was hoped that the need for it would dwindle to nothing and over a hundred years later the need for it is greater, because we now realise that the great problems in life are not those of housing and food and standard of living. When we have got all of those, when we have got reasonable housing when you compare us with other countries, when you have got a reasonable standard of living and you have got no-one who is hungry or need be hungry, when you have got an education system that teaches everyone—not as good as we would wish—you are left with what? You are left with the problems of human nature, and a child who has not had what we and many of your readers would regard as their birthright—a good home—it is those that we have to get out and help, and you know, it is not only a question of money as everyone will tell you; not your background in society. It is a question of human nature and for those children it is difficult to say:"You are responsible for your behaviour!" because they just have not had a chance and so I think that is one of the biggest problems and I think it is the greatest sin."""""
She was right then and is even more right now... a great lady.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
24 December 2010
13:4886348lots of probs with the speech
nowt about distorting it
its about disagreeing with her views
quite different
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
24 December 2010
17:0386362She was 100% right and is more so now....
Its all about taking personal responsibility for ourselves and helping others while not depending on 'The State' for everything. Nothing at all wrong with that and I challenge anyone to say different and to justify that.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
24 December 2010
18:4486381bit busy leading up to xmas
but will reply to a longer debate in new year
it can wait
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
24 December 2010
18:4486382bit busy leading up to xmas
but will reply to a longer debate in new year
it can wait
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
24 December 2010
19:5386398I can't see what is wrong with what she said; everyone used to think like that years ago - do what you can and help your neighbour and those less able.
Roger
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
24 December 2010
20:0686401doesn't work in practice though, there are people simply not bright enough to get through life with help from officials/councillors/social workere and the like..
what happens to them?
some years ago when she was still a councillor margaret sansum(keiths mum) had a call from a constituent wanting her urgent help. when she arrived at the house she was told by the lady there that her son had locked himself in his bedroom and would not come out for his tea.
councillor mrs s had to point out that she could do nothing, it was his choice what he did at the age of 42!!
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
25 December 2010
08:1386430It may not work in many instances Howard, but should we stop trying ?
Help where it's needed, but encourage people to help themselves and others and be less reliant on the State - small Government, Big Society.
I smiled at your Mrs. Sansum's story - in independantly minded lady.
Roger
