I'm sure that you've seen the VT of kids having to huddle around mobile phones to have any internet access.
You are falling into the trap of believing everyone is as privileged as you and no, not everyone spends their income on fag, booze and loose women either - thought I'd get that one in before you replied.

People have to live their lives as they feel fit - personally my kids where the most important element and they got first dibs on the money - the fact others choose to do differently is their choice - as the saying goes "walk a mile in someone else's shoes". You can get the internet for £15/month? if your child's education would benefit from that spend is that too expensive for 99% of most households?

I can't tell if you're being serious or just on a wind-up. I honestly can't.

£15 a month for internet sounds great, but you also need a phone line and a device to access the internet. And considering £15 in some households will be more than the weekly food budget...!

Maybe it's you who needs to walk a mile in someone else's shoes. In fact, I'd suggest a lot more than a mile.

Bloody well said KSC

They could always try to use the food bank twice a week and lets not forget that during this time 1000's of people that were laid off had no money coming in whatsoever, apart from maybe child benefit.
Sal doesn't know or want to know about those less well off than him, mind you he probably thinks it's "their" own fault

Maybe Corbyn's plan for free internet for everyone wasn't such a bad idea after all ?
Do you think that he knew something

Interesting - I seldom see any kid who doesn't have a mobile phone so your £15/month for food is b0ll0cks. So I suggest there are very few people if they really wanted to couldn't afford both a computer or a broadband connection - they will definitely be some but they are a very small minority. It is possible to have broadband without a land line also.

Someone mentioned so many people losing jobs is the suggestion that these people simply cancelled their broadband - something that would be vital in locating work - really?

Don't forget all those widescreen TVs, Nike trainers, and cigs.

You're right, you can have broadband without a phone line, but there isn't much of a cost saving.

Sounds like Sal has never lived anywhere other than in the comfortable middle classes. As the baseball saying goes, born on third base and thought he hit a triple.

He reminds me of Alan Partridge, notably the scene about the Irish potato famine...

[i"I mean, if it was just the potatoes that were affected, at the end of the day, you will pay the price if you're a fussy eater. If they could afford to emigrate then they could afford to eat in a modest restaurant."[/i

Surprised you brought that up - kids have got have something on their feet and some branded trainers are pretty cheap - seems like a sensible option

I came from a house with an outside toilet in Listerhills in Bradford - both my parents were nurses in the 60s they weren't earning much - I was very lucky to get a scholarship to Bradford Grammer School parental encouragement helped - the rest as they say is down to myself, hardwork and a great deal of luck.

Unlike Ghost who did grow up middle class suburbia - went to uni, has a nice cushy job in the public sector never taken a risk or employed anybody using his own money - I know what its like for many people to rely on the decisions I make for the money to feed their family. Unlike you who simply talks the talk and has never walked the walk - complete empty jacket

LOL, poor Sal.

I've never worked in the public sector, the remuneration tends not to be as good as private.
But unlike you I am not a crazed ideologue who can't empathise with people who have different experiences to me, I don't presume that people with different jobs to me are inferior, I don't assume everyone else is lazy and I don't look at my own life and fail to recognise that fortune and circumstance has helped me along the way.

How compelling do y’all find these data? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3092984/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5793824/

How compelling do y’all find these data? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3092984/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5793824/

Local test and trace teams reaching 97.7% of contacts in England
the data shows local health protection teams are reaching far more close contacts of people who tested positive for coronavirus than those handled online or by call centres.
For cases handled by local health protection teams, 97.7% of contacts were reached and asked to self-isolate. For cases handled either online or by call centres, 57.6% of close contacts were reached.
Overall in the week ending October 7, a total of 216,627 people were identified as having come into contact with someone who tested positive and some 62.6% of contacts were reached.
This is the lowest weekly percentage since test and trace began, and is down from 69.5% in the previous week.

Just imagine how much local track and trace could have achieved given half of the money SERCO were given. Just imagine how much better the rate of Covid with and the economy might have been if we had used the last 6 months to develop a system to prevent the spread of Covid.

Manchester have asked for £20 million pounds for them to set up a local track and trace system.

Where will that sort of money come from ?


Maybe from the 1000 advisors being paid by SERCO £1950 per day . In 10,days with that money they could fund Manchester’s track and trace.