@ humanspirit

There was a young homeless man who I used to see around alot in Milton Keynes. He had schizophrenia and had fallen though the safety net and was begging on the streets and living at hostels etc. I used to chat to him sometimes, he was a nice bloke and generally quite a sweet person. One day I asked him why he was drinking special brew as it was satan in a can. His reply was "you'd understand why if you was a homeless schizophrenic person. What people overlook, is that a great deal of homeless people in the UK are severely mentally ill.

@Andy

I know what you mean. I can visit my family abroad at a good price aith Mr P and my son. I can also talk to the and see them over the internet.

This reminds me of the "What have the Romans ever do for us?" Monty Python sketch.

I need some business tips off you!

humanspirit wrote:
I got on my own bike because there was a need to, not because Norman said so, there is a diference, to see what we see and do what we have done takes many years to set in motion, the quick fix for anyone who by missfortune or bad management simply does'nt collate, unless they spend their last quid and choose the correct six numbers.
I can only stand on my own soap box and tell it as I have done it, the poorer ellements within society need to concentrate and act within their own immediate enviornments first, not worlds apart, sort out the home front and the rest normally falls into line without needing to be thought or worried about.

The term walking upon childerick comes to mind once again.

LesleyPumpshaft wrote:
You seem to have your head screwed on right, I doubt you need any tips off me at this stage

andyh wrote:
Shame my typing is a bit dody from the bailyes, but you seem to have got the jist.

The Apprentice wrote: This intrigues me no end.
You are the only person I have encountered who uses that phrase.

Childeric(k) was a Merovingian king (440- 480 ish)

Never have I seen it used as a substitute for 'children' other than by yourself.
Would you be so kind as to clarify your reference source please.
I would much appreciate it.

I've always wondered about childerick too. It sound like something Victorian, but I've only ever hearn Apprenitice say it.

feather wrote:
In all honesty, I have no source, it was a term often used by our family way back, it means basically if we turn the blind eye and use any childrens freedom as a form of anothers sustinance, one day it could likely be our own who will suffer, recent models of exponential growth around the world bring this term to the fore, they are no longer being born to be children but workers. With all the child protection laws that are in place throughout their situations are getting worse for all to see, not better.

Now we turn human against human for their potential labour gainings, like the European children, who will eventually come here and will be working as minimum pay slaves, to help pay for the other natives after they retire, we have to look at the wider issues in our immediate enviornment before heading overseas for the sollutions being stolen from another races childerick.

Its all in this film,

Heh this is the way it goes App, you'll probably have to explain it a few times yet

I just use the term 'burdening children with our debt'.

There should be a word for it in the dictionary at this stage perhaps
Childerrick is as good as any I suppose.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derrick

A tool used for lifting work, using children as leverage yeah makes sense

Yeah, I get the rest of the thing, it's the Childerick bit that gets me.

Why not just say children?

Mankind has never been too hesitant to capitalise on child labour.
We needn't go patting ourselves on the back or pretending to be aghast at others now.

Even our long summer breaks from school is a hangover from making sure kids were available to work the harvests.
We'll not even get into the mills, mines and worse eh?

kids are too fat to work now, its a counter conspiracy

Parents on benefits eh? Down 't' pit during weekends and holidays for you my lad. Make the lazy, scrouging oiks earn their child benefit and state education! FFS, it all becomes clear now.

to explain lets take a look at this-
IBRC license revoked

**NEW**
As a result of the liquidation of Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Limited (IBRC), formerly Anglo Irish Bank on Thursday 7 February 2013, they are no longer able to send or receive payments.

You will no longer be able to make Payments to the following Bank sortcodes

- 939080
- 939048
- 990220
- 990225

For all queries relating to the payment or collection of IBRC cheques and/or bank drafts, as well as any other queries which you may have regarding the liquidation of IBRC, a special telephone helpline has been opened by the liquidator. The helpline number is 1800 303 632 .

Thats the message I get when I log on to my banking system.

This is the news about the matter-

www.thejournal.ie/ibrc-liquidated-promis...deal-786031-Feb2013/


to cut a long story short, our kids will be paying this debt.

feather wrote:
I've heard this a couple of times, but from long, long ago. My great, great grandmother used to refer to children as "childers/icks" according to my great grandmother, though nobody ever really knew why. This would have been around 1900-30.

feather wrote:
Childerick sticks in the mind much better, that's why I have never forgotten it. Now here is where the story changes, every child that is born is then openly and willingly contracted away by one or both parents when they register them with the government, here is one of the keys towards freedom, simply don't do it, regain the common ground by reinstating the right and title of the female, problem solved in this arena, this would give both married and single mothers the power over their futures.

The Apprentice wrote:
I can't say I ever had difficulty remembering 'children'.

You will of course have committed an offence by not registering that childs birth within 42 days and be liable for fine of £200.
You will also have guaranteed that child a nightmare of a life attempting to secure driving licences, passports, possible enrolment in education and a multitude of other hassles which I'm sure they'll love you for.

However, there are other ways to deal with some of the concerns you raise above regarding females.

My own daughter is to marry in a few days.
We both agree strongly that I should not 'give her away' and both she and her guy are in full agreement that she not change her name to his.

Both these acts previously represent an exchange of ownership of the female from one male to another. (often with a dowry changing hands) No-one involved wants to comply with that nonsense, so we won't.
No-one has to dodge the law either.

feather wrote:
All who hear it as childerick are drawn to it as you were, but of course you could call them anything. In the current paradigm and its laws, they are only on paper, to cease contracting your loved ones away is not illegal, otherwise one is truly a slave, other than the paperwork nobody is any different, what I propose is not contracting away your blood and bone to others without a few pre-conditions, right and title of the female is paramount and must be final, it could end wars of all kinds, the choice must be ours alone, not governments.

Dodging laws is what someone does who wants to hide something, this is what governments do on a regular basis, by changing them before they leave office so as to remain immune to suit, this is a form of indirect violence towards those who they are deemed to protect.

I believe we must regain our own minds in order of evolving, it has to come to pass, it must happens without the similar violences of our ancestors, which our children will always pay for, if we remain as we are.

From the annals of the Dune and fitting for this thread and subject matter.

The convoluted wording of legalisms grew up around the necessity to hide from ourselves the violence we intend toward each other. Between depriving a man of one hour from his life and depriving him of his life there exists only a difference of degree. You have done violence to him, consumed his energy. Elaborate euphemisms may conceal your intent to kill, but behind any use of power over another, the ultimate assumption remains: "They will feed on your energy."

The Apprentice wrote:
Erm no.
In truth, I found it a ridiculous distraction of a term which attempted to bring some form of unrequired mysterious hint of 'wisdom' or gravitas to an otherwise simple concept.

It's morally indefensible to use child labour or burden future generations with our debt.
No requirement whatsoever to wander off into dubious abstracts about walking on children

As to the rest of your post, with all due respect and with no intention of being contentious, I'm not at all certain what you are trying to say as it bounced around, blood and bone, female rights and titles, ending wars etc, all in the one sentence.

Pardon?

All I can say now and Finally on this subject, is childerick are our future, not my meal ticket, nor are others my own well being, I still have a long way to go, to fulfill my many promises to them, we here no longer need to walk in shoes made in childrens eyes.

The Apprentice wrote:
Lol, you're just trolling me now.

I can handle it.

I bare my former answer back, adjusted.

All I can say now and Finally on this subject, is childerick are our future, not my meal ticket, nor are other childerick my own well being, I still have a long way to go, to fulfill my many promises to them, we here no longer need to walk in shoes made in childrens eyes.