In message en.co.uk,
Roderick Stewart writes
In article , J G Miller wrote:
Inheritance is just something that is passed on to the next generation,
regardless of the method.

Like at school when the old teacher teaches the next generation how to
do something by example, the pupils inherit that behavior?

Cue quote from "Through the Looking Glass (And What Alice Found There)" ...

It's such a simple concept I'm surprised that anybody could be unable to
grasp it. As an intelligent lifeform that creates societies and
relationships, rather then simply reproducing mindlessly as most do, we are
not restricted to genetics for passing things on.

Rod.

The feelings of exclusion and hopelessness in the '80s have been passed
down.

Were seeing the 3rd generation.

It's that simple.
--
Ian

Rick wrote:

Isn't the clue in the words National 'Insurance', paid for by both
employer and employee, the major weakness being that free Healthcare is
dished out to dysfunctional people and recent arrivals who haven't (or
never will) contribute a penny piece, something that I doubt very much
was envisaged in its original implementation.


It was part of the original NHS mandate to treat everyone in the UK,
even recent immigrants.

Bill

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
Rick wrote:

Isn't the clue in the words National 'Insurance', paid for by both
employer and employee, the major weakness being that free Healthcare is
dished out to dysfunctional people and recent arrivals who haven't (or
never will) contribute a penny piece, something that I doubt very much
was envisaged in its original implementation.


It was part of the original NHS mandate to treat everyone in the UK, even
recent immigrants.

But that was in an era of (expected) zero unemployment and all new
immigrants were expected to be contributing over their lifetime.

This is not the case now, a sizable percentage of economic migrants who
mkanage to play the system can expect a life of never working.

tim

In article , J G Miller wrote:
Passing things on through teaching is not inheritance,
whether or not that teaching is within the family or not.

Inheritance has a distinct and clear meaning, especially in the
sociological context under distinction.

Definition of INHERIT
transitive verb

[...]

4: to have in turn or receive as if from an ancestor
inherited the problem from his predecessor

I'm not sure how you are objecting to this, as it seems to say that you
inherit something if you receive it from an ancestor, which is more or
less my point. You may like to nitpick about exactly what you can
receive in this way, or how you receive it, but I think if I used the
term "cultural inheritance" as distinct from "genetic inheritance", most
people would understand what I meant by it. At any rate, it's such a
useful concept that if there isn't already a recognised term for it, we
need one.

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

On 21/01/2012 10:22, brightside S9 wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 09:58:43 +0000, Bill
wrote:

On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 02:12:06 +0000, David Kennedy
wrote:

Andy Champ wrote:

News to me. In fact my company still contributes. Do you have a source
for that assertion?


It was quite well known at the time. They weren't stopped from
contributing rather the rules were relaxed to allow then to take
contribution "holidays" as they decided that _all_ pension funds were in
surplus and would _never_ need all the money being paid in...

I don't think it was that simple, or the fault of Thatcher or Major on
this occasion.

The tax rules at the time limited the total value of the fund that a
pension could build up. The high inflation rates of the 70s meant that
pension funds were getting close to the maximum value that they were
allowed to have, so contributions had to be reduced and most employers
did this by reducing their payments into the scheme. In general they
didn't raise them when the funds started stopped having a surplusl.


It was done by Nigel Lawson in 1988, see
http://www.opalliance.org.uk/decline.htm


OK thanks everyone, I really have learned something. (Well two things,
but I was already pretty convinced about the character of politicians).
It so happens at the time all those holidays were going on my employer
was taken over twice, and each time there was a restructuring of the
pensions between each part of the company, changing accrual rates and
various other smoke and mirrors. I had assumed that the holiday they
took was a purely local phenomenon.

Andy

On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 10:22:21 +0000, brightside S9
wrote:

On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 09:58:43 +0000, Bill Taylor
wrote:

On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 02:12:06 +0000, David Kennedy
wrote:

Andy Champ wrote:
On 20/01/2012 09:47, Mark wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 20:08:41 +0000, Andy
wrote:

On 19/01/2012 08:36, Bob Latham wrote:
In the UK, the state had to bail out the greedy, irresponsible banks
and
pay for it with jobs, pensions, and pay of the public sector
workers, most
of whom are/where poorly paid.

I might point out that the _first_ bit of pension raiding was done by
Blair/Brown when a small adjustment turned out to be £5bn a year out of
the private sector pension scheme. Then there was the change in state
pension age. Of course this lot aren't going to reverse that...

Don't forget Thatcher or Major stopped companies from contributing to
their pension schemes.

News to me. In fact my company still contributes. Do you have a source
for that assertion?


It was quite well known at the time. They weren't stopped from
contributing rather the rules were relaxed to allow then to take
contribution "holidays" as they decided that _all_ pension funds were in
surplus and would _never_ need all the money being paid in...

I don't think it was that simple, or the fault of Thatcher or Major on
this occasion.

The tax rules at the time limited the total value of the fund that a
pension could build up. The high inflation rates of the 70s meant that
pension funds were getting close to the maximum value that they were
allowed to have, so contributions had to be reduced and most employers
did this by reducing their payments into the scheme. In general they
didn't raise them when the funds started stopped having a surplusl.


It was done by Nigel Lawson in 1988, see
http://www.opalliance.org.uk/decline.htm

Thanks. I couldn't recall exactly when this was done.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 14:33:41 +0000, Peter Duncanson
wrote:

On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 13:38:51 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller
wrote:

On Saturday, January 21st, 2012, at 12:07:12h +0000,
Roderick Stewart wrote:

In article , J G Miller wrote:
Unintelligent and with a criminal disposition.

I never knew that criminality was an inherited disposition.

There are more types of inheritance than genetic inheritance. The way
children grow up will depend on everything in their immediate
environment, the attitudes of those around them, and the opportunities,
educational and otherwise, that their parents provide for them.

But what you describe is learned behavior from the environment,
not inheritance.

Now think about it some more.

Yes, what you say is about the influence of the home is very true
and will indeed greatly influence the future behavior of the child.

This is why defense of, and promotion of, the family as the basic
building block of society is a fundamental issue.

It is a fundamental issue. However, me must not get the romantic notion
the the family is always a force for good: the good of individuals and
social good. From the point of view of the desirable development of a
child there are good families and bad families.

Quite true. However this is often not sufficient when deciding the
fate of children from "bad" families. Children often do worse when
taken into care than if they were left in a dysfunctional family. I'm
very glad I don't have to play god and make such a decision.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 23:14:51 +0000, Bill Wright
wrote:

Andy Champ wrote:
On 20/01/2012 12:36, J G Miller wrote:
If these girls were not having babies, who would be contributing to
maintaining the population, except immigrant families?

The population in Britain doesn't need maintaining. In fact it's
probably risen by 10% in the last 10 years (no official figures I can
find)

The population is rising alarmingly. Immigrants have more kids per
fertile woman.

The population is rising because people are living far longer even
though the birthrate is low. Immigration is irrelevant as there are
more British ex-pats abroad than immigrants living here.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 20:01:40 +0000, Bill Wright
wrote:

My animosity and contempt is for those who deliberately play the system
in order to avoid work. A minority yes, but there are enough of them
that it is thought worthwhile to put adverts on the telly asking people
to shop them. And the fact is, I do meet these people. They do exist.
They do laugh at the rest of society. It is a lifestyle choice. They do
boast about never having had a job.

Are you talking about fraudulent benefits claimers here? If so, I
would totally agree with you. These people could be "shopped".

However people who you claim are doing it as a "lifestyle choice"
would probably be operating totally legally and therefore the
authorities would not be able to take any action.

And I've never met anyone who has boasted they've never had a job.
However I have met people who are seriously depressed and worried
because they can't get a decent job.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 23:14:51 +0000, Bill Wright
wrote:

Andy Champ wrote:
On 20/01/2012 12:36, J G Miller wrote:
If these girls were not having babies, who would be contributing to
maintaining the population, except immigrant families?

The population in Britain doesn't need maintaining. In fact it's
probably risen by 10% in the last 10 years (no official figures I can
find)

The population is rising alarmingly. Immigrants have more kids per
fertile woman.

The population is rising because people are living far longer even
though the birthrate is low. Immigration is irrelevant as there are
more British ex-pats abroad than immigrants living here.
--


Absolute made up bollox!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15461579

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15868793

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1359336/3million-migrants-came-UK-Labour-biggest-population-growth-1-000-years.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10607480