This is nature vs nuture debate
One side, Littlejohn, thinks it is nature that these people lead relatively squalid lives full of difficulties for themselves.
You lot are saying it's nurture - the environment they are in, societies responsibility to offer the chance.
It's not an homogenous group of chavs: Somepeople would fall into the Littlejohn category, some would fall into the !Littlejohn category.
Some people are scum.
Not everyone on benefits is scum, and the scum might be a minority at the end of the bell curve.
But they exist, and are annoying.
Littlejohn exaggerates the case to make a point, and he chooses his examples to back him up.
So do the !Littlejohnners.
The truth is I was iving in a beautiful large house, with a beautiful woman, and 4 great kids, in an idyllic rural setting 48 hours ago.
And now I'm in the cheapest inner city B&B I can find, and I signed on, and my life seems just over. My cash will run out at Xmas, and there is a real risk I shall be on the streets for Xmas.
I am not scum. But I am rubbing shoulders with people who clearly lack some motivation, or self-awareness, engaging voluntarily in behaviour which is self-destructive, self-harming, unproductive in a personal as well as a capitalist sense.
They are fellow humans, and deserve every possible chance and opportunity. If they don't take any of those opportunities, then fuck 'em. They are scum.
(, Fri 14 Nov 2008, 9:36, Reply)
"Some people are scum.Not everyone on benefits is scum, and the scum might be a minority at the end of the bell curve."
would that make them the bell ends?
(, Fri 14 Nov 2008, 11:17, Reply)