• Welcome to DOSBODS

    Please consider creating a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

One percent

Check your rich middle class privilege and stop buying pencil cases

Recommended Posts

It was lefties that decided years ago that uniforms were discriminatory.  the poor parents were put to considerable hardship to buy the overpriced, monopoly shop sold kit.

full circle has arrived.   no choice, then full choice, its all evil according to the left.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, ILikeCake said:

How much does a sodding pencil case cost? I'm guessing less than a packet of cigs or am I way out of touch like our MPs?

You've obviously never shopped in Smiggle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even there it’s about £15 for a top of the range pencil case.

I’m pretty sure kids judge relative affluence by the parent’s house and cars rather than pencil cases. My kids have never displayed any interest in pencil cases, let alone considered them status symbols.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

My mum used to make my pencil cases herself out of scrap material; I liked them and still have them.

We weren't poor, I liked that they were unique.  I don't recall anyone comparing pencil cases.

What a load of nonsense.

I had the fluffy ones from woollies . :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

My mum used to make my pencil cases herself out of scrap material; I liked them and still have them.

We weren't poor, I liked that they were unique.  I don't recall anyone comparing pencil cases.

What a load of nonsense.

Well, she had to do something with the waste asbestos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The teacher in the photo at the top of the article looks like a looney. First impression on my first comment.....she may be a great person!

Instead of whining about poverty, pencil cases etc IMO she’d be much better looking at the bigger picture and campaigning for a decent pay rate for a days work relative to current living expenses for all without reliance on benefits or a top up!

Edited by Economic Exile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Cunning Plan said:

Careful. I wouldn't want to have to start questioning your split infinitives.

xD  actually, a genuine question. I would always use which but I have noticed a trend for that to be used where I would have normally used which. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, One percent said:

xD  actually, a genuine question. I would always use which but I have noticed a trend for that to be used where I would have normally used which. 

Technically I believe 'which' to be correct, but in the above instance 'that' doesn't in any way change the meaning of the sentence so is acceptable.

Sometimes correct grammar doesn't always come across well.

When one of my clients signs off a proof, I normally reply saying that 'I shall get production underway'. Which is correct. But somehow saying 'I will get production underway' sounds less pompous.

 

Edited by Cunning Plan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Cunning Plan said:

Technically I believe 'which' to be correct, but in the above instance 'that' doesn't in any way change the meaning of the sentence so is acceptable.

Sometimes correct grammar doesn't always come across well.

When one of my clients signs off a proof, I normally reply saying that 'I shall get production underway'. Which is correct. But somehow saying 'I will get production underway' sounds less pompous.

 

Ta.  The which/that thing annoys me though as I remember the lessons where it was drummed into us. 

Never, ever pass up the opportunity to sound pompous. o.O

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, One percent said:

Ta.  The which/that thing annoys me though as I remember the lessons where it was drummed into us. 

Never, ever pass up the opportunity to sound pompous. o.O

Since the medication has started to work, I only really get wound up with hanged/hung and less/fewer but I am working on it.

Oh, and Union Jack, obviously, but that will never become acceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Cunning Plan said:

Since the medication has started to work, I only really get wound up with hanged/hung and less/fewer but I am working on it.

Oh, and Union Jack, obviously, but that will never become acceptable.

Less fewer still confuses me, I have to look it up every time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Cunning Plan said:

We all had pencil boxes that we made in woodwork.

I think it is called resistant materials now.

 

17 minutes ago, Cunning Plan said:

Technically I believe 'which' to be correct, but in the above instance 'that' doesn't in any way change the meaning of the sentence so is acceptable.

Sometimes correct grammar doesn't always come across well.

When one of my clients signs off a proof, I normally reply saying that 'I shall get production underway'. Which is correct. But somehow saying 'I will get production underway' sounds less pompous.

 

Isn't the salient factor whether the omission of a restrictive clause introduced by THAT would change the meaning of the sentence?

So, surely THAT is correct because removing the restrictive clause would change the information in the full sentence.

Interestingly - or maybe not - English as spoken in the UK is much less prescriptive about THAT and WHICH and it's unusual for anyone to get picked up on it. American English is, for once, much more traditional and unforgiving of restrictive clause transgressions.

10 minutes ago, Cunning Plan said:

Since the medication has started to work, I only really get wound up with hanged/hung and less/fewer but I am working on it.

Oh, and Union Jack, obviously, but that will never become acceptable.

Just get rid of those commas before co-ordinating conjunctions and you'll be good to go.  :Old:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Duck said:

 

Isn't the salient factor whether the omission of a restrictive clause introduced by THAT would change the meaning of the sentence?

So, surely THAT is correct because removing the restrictive clause would change the information in the full sentence.

Interestingly - or maybe not - English as spoken in the UK is much less prescriptive about THAT and WHICH and it's unusual for anyone to get picked up on it. American English is, for once, much more traditional and unforgiving of restrictive clause transgressions.

Just get rid of those commas before co-ordinating conjunctions and you'll be good to go.  :Old:

Bloody hell, don’t be frightened about wading into the pedant discussions. xDo.O

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Cunning Plan said:

Technically I believe 'which' to be correct, but in the above instance 'that' doesn't in any way change the meaning of the sentence so is acceptable.

Sometimes correct grammar doesn't always come across well.

When one of my clients signs off a proof, I normally reply saying that 'I shall get production underway'. Which is correct. But somehow saying 'I will get production underway' sounds less pompous.

 

I would say "I'll get production underway".  Quicker, more efficient and can mean either.

BTW I always wanted a pencil case, but we were too poor. Never had one.

I used to use "which" but the grammar checker in Word always highlights it and suggests changing to "that". Now you've explained that I was correct I shall revert to using "which",  Thnx

Edited by sleepwello'nights
added which that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, sleepwello'nights said:

I would say "I'll get production underway".  Quicker, more efficient and can mean either.

BTW I always wanted a pencil case, but we were too poor. Never had one.

How did you transport the lead in your pencils?  o.O

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was an even more sinister element to the article and it was this bit.

The charity also said conversations about "what we did at the weekend" can also penalise those from low-income backgrounds.

Now this is teaching young children self-censorship to avoid criticism, exactly the sort of thing that will be drilled into them all the way through their education experience to stifle free thought and discussion.

There were plenty of 'poor' kids when I was at the school as well as 'rich' ones when I did CofE primary, the kids just rubbed along fine it was the adults who had problems.

Kids are kids its the 'educated' adults that have the problem.

 

Edited by Chewing Grass
spooneerisjms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.