[pointyhats]

And by making the distinction of working class are you not contributing to that bias? I treat all people as classless.

The people described by myself are not bound by class, but by attitude and morals. There is no class distinction involved.

The problem is not specific to one traditional "class".

The whole "tabloid smearing lies" drivel is another form of enforced division by promoting classes of reading.

This sort of stuff annoys me.

(for reference I have never purchased a newspaper and rarely even bother to look at the news unless it's technology related)

[vidarh]

> I treat all people as classless.

What a convenient fantasy.

> The problem is not specific to one traditional "class".

Except it is, because it is only a problem by the implication that signs of wealth means that insufficient money must have been used on what is needed for the infant

[pointyhats]

Firstly it's not a fantasy unless you make it one. As someone brought up on a shoestring budget in one of the worst bits of London, I can assure you that in the real world, class is entirely irrelevant and ethics and morals are. There are people earning a quarter of what I do and three times what I do living either side of me and we're all on the same page, have the same ideals, hopes and goals.

There are no classes other than in the media.

Secondly, health is more important than purchasing branded and luxury goods. That is universally accepted as to shortcut ones health is to cause harm and the "golden rule" backs that up. To observe both signs of wealth and signs of poverty at the same time has certain obvious implications.

It's all logic.

[arethuza]

"I treat all people as classless."

Interesting then that you made that comment about Asda and not Waitrose.