<a https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=7467335'> Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

Should we segregate the underclass in Britain?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 40

Drunk Punx

Original post by Grand High Witch

Interesting definition. Is a duke without an actual job a part of the underclass? What about someone who has inherited millions and doesn't work?

Sure, why not? They're not earning any money, therefore they're outside of the class system (assuming that we are following on from basing the class system on the job that someone does).

Reply 41

Bang Outta Order

Original post by Drunk Punx

I had (and still do) have trouble working out what OP meant. S/he said "on alcohol/drugs". Well does that mean likes a few drinks and the occasional smoke, or full on 24/7 rat-arsed? I'd imagine the latter, but people (tee-totallers, etc) can be funny about these things and s/he worded it very vaguely.

Given that OP seems rather opinionated about this, it wouldn't surprise me at all if they thought that anyone who went anywhere near a pub was a terrible person who needed a short sharp shock.

Original post by Grand High Witch

Pubs should only be allowed to serve green tea.

Lmao troll spotted.

Reply 42

Powersymphonia

Original post by Grand High Witch

wilfully unemployed, on drugs/alcohol, cause anti-social behaviour and usually have criminal convictions)?

First of all someone may choose to become 'wilfully unemployed' for a variety of reasons such as ill health, workplace bullying, 0 hours contract and being regularly laid off as well as being too lazy to work.

Just because someone is addicted to drugs or alcohol, does not necessarily make them a bad person. Many people take drugs/alcohol because they are suffering mental health problems and drugs make them feel happier. Even if someone took drugs for recreational reasons, they then get addicted to that drug, which means they are then suffering from a medical condition. They need to go to rehab or hospital.

As for criminal convictions, there is such a thing as rehabilitation. If we label and treat former criminals, as criminals for the rest of their life, then this is going to decrease their chances of becoming productive members of society.

Reply 43

_icecream

If you look at any major city poorer people tend to live in the same areas, go to the same schools and socialise with each other. Whereas, the wealthier people tend to live in nicer areas, send their kids to good schools where they will be mixing with people of similar upbringing.

Reply 44

math42

[video="youtube;owI7DOeO_yg"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owI7DOeO_yg[/video]

Reply 45

HurtfulHarold

That'll probably just make things worse, it's like pretending the problem doesn't even exist.

Reply 46

Napp

firstly yes simply because i dislike the presence of the hoi polloi making it uncomfortable and downright dangerous for the regular people of society to go about their daily lives, by this i mean unemployed crack dealer sorts of people and general yobs.

secondly and this is for the OP, not everyone who has issues with substances is a member of the 'under class' someone who takes sleeping pills or rails a line on a night out at the shard is hardly the under class as is with 'criminals' i fail to see how someone caught DUI back from his job as a high powered lawyer is and so on so forth.

Reply 47

DrLovejoy

Original post by Grand High Witch

I am sort of playing devil's advocate here as it is a controversial suggestion, but I am interested in seeing what people's views are.

By 'underclass' I don't mean people who are just unemployed, but those who encompass all of the following: wilfully unemployed, on drugs/alcohol, cause anti-social behaviour and usually have criminal convictions, etc. The archetypal 'chav'. We see these people around most towns and cities in the UK.

Should they be segregated so law-abiding, polite, working people do not have to suffer them? Or is this too authoritarian and under libertarian principles they should be free to go wherever they like and act however they please (as long as it doesn't break the law)?

Yes we should segregate them, it would be a good first step to an illiberal society.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 48

#JOSH45#

Original post by Grand High Witch

We absolutely should. As a country we need to start cutting the fat and that means cutting the undesirables. If they refuse to be decent and self sufficient members of our society then they shouldn't be part of our society full stop. If they're reliant on tax payers hard earned money then no, they shouldn't be allowed to do what they want. Labour has allowed that to be the case for too long and I hope the conservatives can keep scaling back until the only benefits that exist are pensions and for severe disabilities (a mild jabbing pain in the leg doesn't count).

Reply 49

Drunk Punx

Original post by Grand High Witch

Interesting definition. Is a duke without an actual job a part of the underclass? What about someone who has inherited millions and doesn't work?

By the definition I've given, of course they are.

The Queen doesn't work (she has important people from other countries round for tea, that's more like formal socialising than working given that she has no actual power any more) and the taxpayer is funding her life.

At a base level, how is that any different from John down the street who's in the same situation (minus a funky hat)?

Edit: apparently I've already replied to this. Oops.

Reply 50

Grand High Witch

Original post by Drunk Punx

That's not all the Queen does and you know it. See the Royal Assent for an example of her paper-based duties. Whether you think her tasks are meaningful or not does not mean she does not 'work' - it may be the type of work you disagree with, but it is still work. By your logic, the German President, a ceremonial head of state like the Queen, does not 'work' either.

Reply 51

illegaltobepoor

Original post by Grand High Witch

Why don't you just keep things simple and honest. Its clear to anyone with any sense that your saying the poorest in society should be banished.

But here is some criticism on your archetype chav.

1. Wilfully unemployed.
This rings the bell where the Tories separate the disabled into the deserving and undeserving. But stroke that to a side for the moment. The term which you have chosen to use is around 5 years out of date I am afraid. Do you really think you can stroke people with that brush when there are dwindling numbers of genuine scroungers? I mean get real. Since the Tories introduced the 35 hour working week for Job Seeker claimants where are these hordes of Wilful unemployed?

Unless your going to make the mistake of persecuting the disabled. I really hope you don't make that mistake on this forum because if you do Christmas will come early for those who want to see you get rekt on your own thread.

2. Drugs & Alcohol?
I guess we can separate this subject into 2 groups. Homeless people and the Leisure time working people have. Since you aren't address working class workers you must just have issues with the homeless since they are the number one users of drugs such as mamba (legal high) and canned larger which they drink on the street side.

I'm not surprised that a elegant person would want to banish the homeless away from polite society. In the USA the Government is putting them in concentration camps. I guess you want the same here.

3. Anti-Social behavior?
I think your find that majority of chav's who are unemployed or homeless don't have the kind of money to go drinking in bars and clubs then cause anti social behaviour. No they spend their money at places like Lidil or the nearest off licence and then if they are lucky they can use the Bus service to keep warm during night service hours.

I think I have summed the OP up to the point where they know very little of the working class and they've never experienced what its like to live on £70 a week.

Reply 52

3121

Well isn't this why we elected the conservatives in 2015? I can't see any other reason except a weak opposition

Reply 53

Drunk Punx

Original post by Grand High Witch

She's a pseudo-political figurehead who travels about, meets people, replies to fan mail, and the public pays her for doing so. Any of the "powers" she has are mostly ceremonial. Oh, and she's above the law too. So unemployed Johnny down the street gets nicked for smoking a joint and faces a trial by media for wasting taxpayers money, but the Queen doesn't. Totes fair.
She also passively brings in tourist money via her very existence, which no, also doesn't count as work.

So I'll amend my previous statement by saying that she's a very privileged member of the underclass.

Reply 54

Grand High Witch

Original post by Drunk Punx

Even if I accepted that those things are all she does, that's still "work" so your definition of "underclass" is therefore logically flawed.

That name tho

Original post by Grand High Witch

Even if I accepted that those things are all she does, that's still "work" so your definition of "underclass" is therefore logically flawed.

Seeing as she's merely symbolic, a relic of days gone by, I'd argue that it's not work.

She goes around meeting people, engaging in baseless ceremonial formalities whose only point is to make both parties seem important. That's not worth a paying wage.

Answering fan mail? Bands and celebrities do that in their own time (which they've afforded themselves due to their jobs), that's not worth a paying wage.

Then again, I'm debating with someone who thinks pubs should only serve green tea. Maybe I should rethink my priorities.

Reply 57

Grand High Witch

Original post by Drunk Punx

By your logic then, the President of Germany and other ceremonial heads of state, like the Queen, are also part of the underclass because they do not 'work'.