This discussion is closed.
Sarah
Badges:
#21
Report 17 years ago
#21
[q1]>If you have other commitments, then why burden yourself with another you[/q1]
can
[q1]>scarcely afford?[/q1]

What is your problem? Don't judge people without knowing anything about them. God forbid a narrow
minded bigot like you may actually be responsible for educating children in some form.

My children are not burdens. Would you rather we claimed social security whilst I stayed at
home? I suppose you have a problem with that as well ... working mums, single mums.... what
century are you from?
--
Sarah
0
Sarah
Badges:
#22
Report 17 years ago
#22
I feel you are the one that is misinformed. Let me just clarify a few points.

I would love to stay at home with my kids. However, Joint salaries combined in out house do not
meet South East England mortgages. I earn more than my partner, therefore it is necessary that I
work as well.

Joint salaries combined does mean that I can afford my mortgage quite comfortably. With work -OK,
without work - not. Quite simple.

I would never dream of asking somebody i.e. the state to pay me to stay at home with my kids. Or you
either for that matter, that was irony, obviously not very good irony. If I expected that, I
wouldn't work every day out in the classroom would I?

The point I was trying to make was that in an ideal world, I would like have been at home with my
children during the last few years. However, that was not the case, so I work. I knew this when I
had them, I never expected or asked for any financial recompense for doing so.

And I know I'm lucky, don't need you to tell me that.

Sarah

Tameside Emerald CSC <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> "Sarah" <[email protected] o.uk> wrote in message[/q1]
[q1]> news:[email protected]...[/q1]
[q1]> | >If you have other commitments, then why burden yourself with another[/q1]
you
[q1]> | can[/q1]
[q1]> | >scarcely afford?[/q1]
[q1]> |[/q1]
[q1]> | What is your problem? Don't judge people without knowing anything about them. God forbid a[/q1]
[q1]> | narrow minded bigot like you may actually be[/q1]
[q1]> responsible[/q1]
[q1]> | for educating children in some form.[/q1]
[q1]> |[/q1]
[q1]> | My children are not burdens. Would you rather we claimed social security whilst I stayed at[/q1]
[q1]> | home? I suppose you have a problem with that as well[/q1]
[q1]> ...[/q1]
[q1]> | working mums, single mums.... what century are you from?[/q1]
[q1]> | --[/q1]
[q1]> |[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Erm... I think you're the one who mentioned 'me' paying for your mortgage. Am I not to assume from[/q1]
[q1]> that that you cannot, yourself afford the[/q1]
payments.
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> For Christ's sake. Here we go again with the old " I've got kids, and they're the best things in[/q1]
[q1]> the world, but I think the state should pay me for enjoying them" argument.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> You are very lucky to have kids... perhaps therein lies my attitude, but[/q1]
get
[q1]> real, Sarah, don't come on here with the silly 'bigot' card. It's very misinformed.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Willie.[/q1]
0
Clark
Badges:
#23
Report 17 years ago
#23
Tameside Emerald CSC wrote:
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> "Sarah" <[email protected] o.uk> wrote in message[/q1]
[q1]> news:[email protected]...[/q1]
[q1]> | I feel you are the one that is misinformed. Let me just clarify a few points.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> | The point I was trying to make was that in an ideal world, I would like[/q1]
[q1]> have[/q1]
[q1]> | been at home with my children during the last few years. However, that was not the case, so I[/q1]
[q1]> | work. I knew this when I had them, I never expected or asked for any financial recompense for[/q1]
[q1]> | doing so.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> But you will term someone a 'bigot' for not condoning paid leave for having a baby... interesting.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]

You may not think of yourself as a bigot, Willie. But have you any idea how stupid you make yourself
appear by these outbursts, even on usenet?

What do you think about universal suffrage, I wonder? Child labour? Slavery? Burning witches? Living
in caves? ... Do you *really* think maternity leave a bad thing, now in the year 2002? Seriously?

As regards the original post, it seems a peculiarly mean-spirited thing to do if an employer
(supposing she has the right) insists on maternity leave beginning at a specified time when a mother
wants it to begin at a time more convenient to her. Is that likely to be the case?

Bob
0
Stjohn
Badges:
#24
Report 17 years ago
#24
Clark wrote in message <[email protected]>.. .
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>As regards the original post, it seems a peculiarly mean-spirited thing to do if an employer[/q1]
[q1]>(supposing she has the right) insists on maternity leave beginning at a specified time when a[/q1]
[q1]>mother wants it to begin at a time more convenient to her. Is that likely to be the case?[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]

I'm glad to say that my wife has now plucked up the courage to ask her SMT who were more than
generous in allowing her to start her *official* maternity leave on September 1st, whenever the
baby is born.

This only applies, though, if she manages to work until the end of the Summer term, by when she will
be 38 weeks and quite possibly struggling!

Cheers now,

Singe
0
*Ace*
Badges:
#25
Report 17 years ago
#25
Hi Clark,

On Sat, 25 May 2002 18:15:09 +0200, in uk.education.teachers Clark put fingers to keyboard and
tapped away writing...

Message ID:- <[email protected]>

[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Tameside Emerald CSC wrote:[/q1]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> > "Sarah" <[email protected] o.uk> wrote in message[/q2]
[q2]> > news:[email protected]...[/q2]
[q2]> > | I feel you are the one that is misinformed. Let me just clarify a few points.[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> > | The point I was trying to make was that in an ideal world, I would like[/q2]
[q2]> > have[/q2]
[q2]> > | been at home with my children during the last few years. However, that was not the case, so I[/q2]
[q2]> > | work. I knew this when I had them, I never expected or asked for any financial recompense for[/q2]
[q2]> > | doing so.[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> > But you will term someone a 'bigot' for not condoning paid leave for having a baby...[/q2]
[q2]> > interesting.[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> You may not think of yourself as a bigot, Willie. But have you any idea how stupid you make[/q1]
[q1]> yourself appear by these outbursts, even on usenet?[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> What do you think about universal suffrage, I wonder? Child labour? Slavery? Burning witches?[/q1]
[q1]> Living in caves? ... Do you *really* think maternity leave a bad thing, now in the year 2002?[/q1]
[q1]> Seriously?[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> As regards the original post, it seems a peculiarly mean-spirited thing to do if an employer[/q1]
[q1]> (supposing she has the right) insists on maternity leave beginning at a specified time when a[/q1]
[q1]> mother wants it to begin at a time more convenient to her. Is that likely to be the case?[/q1]

The wife of a member of the SMT is having a baby due at the end of July. The member of SMT is taking
up a deputy head post at another school in September. The head of our school is "annoyed" that he's
chosen to take his paternity leave on the last two weeks of term.

I think it's funny.

[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Bob[/q1]

Best wishes, Ace

==============================

Now set the teeth and stretch the nostril wide, Hold hard the breath and bend up every spirit To his
full height. On, on, you noblest English.
0
Sarah
Badges:
#26
Report 17 years ago
#26
hEAR HEAR.

--
Sarah Clark <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Robert wrote:[/q1]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> > On Thu, 23 May 2002 22:23:08 +0100, *Ace* <[email protected]'t.btinterne t.com> wrote:[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q3]> > >If men had babies, we'd probably take the afternoon off to give birth, but we'd certainly be[/q3]
[q3]> > >back at work the next morning.[/q3]
[q3]> > >[/q3]
[q3]> > >You women - several months off just to pop a sprog![/q3]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> > Absolutely. Everything else in life you can't have unless you can afford it. Unless you are a[/q2]
[q2]> > woman wanting kids, then taxpayers have to fund it, what a jioke.[/q2]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> The joke is rather that there are still neanderthals like you who - in spite of years of universal[/q1]
[q1]> education - can't get their heads round the obvious notion that maternity benefits are an aspect[/q1]
[q1]> of the way civilised societies respect children, parenthood and equality.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Or rather it would be a joke if it weren't so pathetic. And sad.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Bob[/q1]
0
Clark
Badges:
#27
Report 17 years ago
#27
Robert wrote:
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> On Sat, 25 May 2002 00:27:11 +0100, "PJ" <[email protected]> wrote:[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q2]> >No you have been paying the pensions of retired staff.[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> >Who will pay your pension when you retire?[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> >PJ[/q2]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> I have heard this before and I simply quote from the guidebook to the teachers pension scheme[/q1]
[q1]> which is in front of me.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> "You pay 6% of salary towards your pension" (note the word your) "In certain circumstance you may[/q1]
[q1]> also elect to pay additional contributions towards your pension" (note again the word your)[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> I can keep on with similar quotes but we would all get bored and I don't need to unless you can[/q1]
[q1]> prove otherwise.[/q1]

A few moments thought should be enough to convince you that these quotes don't entail what you seem
to think, that your pension comes directly from what you pay. What your payments do is create an
*entitlement* that a future population use its wealth to pay you a pension. This is especially true
of the teachers' pension scheme, where there isn't even any question of funding via investment. A
little further thought might be enough to convince you that the same goes for investments, though,
whether in tax-free wrappers or not. Pensions, clearly, are paid from current wealth at the time
they're paid. You can't escape that - even by keeping your savings in a box under your bed and
taking them out when you're old.

The so-called 'demographic time bomb' is a tad misleading given these faily obvious facts. The
problem, if there is one, is of distribution of wealth and income at any particular time ... it
can't be anything else, can it?

[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Furthermore you are incorrect about the money I save for my pension in PEPs and ISAs, I can assure[/q1]
[q1]> you it is not paying anyones pension at the moment.[/q1]

That's not quite true either. By saving/investing rather than consuming, you are (indirectly)
contributing to those who *are* consuming ... among whom, pensioners. Current pensioners benefit
from the wealth that's around *now*, just as (almost) everyone else does. How to distribute it all
is the question ... generally there's an implicit (or, given a pension scheme, explicit) contract
that we'll support those who don't produce now so that we'll be supported in our turn.

[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> So far as my state pension is concerned, if what you are suggesting is true that means that the[/q1]
[q1]> politicians have been telling lies, surely not.[/q1]

Indeed, that would be a big surprise to us all ...

Bob
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Regarding Ofqual's most recent update, do you think you will be given a fair grade this summer?

Yes (298)
34.14%
No (575)
65.86%

Watched Threads

View All