Bradford Council leader says cuts hitting crime prevention budget (From Bradford Telegraph and Argus)
Get involved: send your pictures, video, news and views by texting TANEWS to 80360, or email
Bradford Council leader says cuts hitting crime prevention budget
9:00am Wednesday 31st October 2012 in News
By Anika Bourley
Councillor David Green
A £450,000 cut to Bradford’s crime prevention budget has “damaged” the ability of the authorities to protect residents from burglary and other crimes, the leader of Bradford Council has claimed.
Councillor Dave Green spoke out last night after figures showed big cuts to funding for prevention projects, which can include street lighting, youth activities, gang intervention programmes, police officers in schools, CCTV and community projects.
Labour, who unearthed the figures, said West Yorkshire’s new Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) would struggle to fight crime in the face of cuts to crime prevention budgets in the past two years.
They added that no allocations have yet been set by the Home Office for crime prevention budgets for the next financial year.
In Bradford, the budget was £764,090 in 2010/11 but had fallen by 59.6 per cent to £308,360 in 2012/13. The picture across West Yorkshire paints a similar picture with a budget of £1.27 million, down from £3.17 million.
The commissioner will take responsibility for the cash which, nationally, has seen a 60 per cent fall in funding from £57.8m in 2010/11 to £23.3m for 2012/13, Labour figures show.
Coun Green said: “The cuts over the last couple of years have damaged the ability of the authority and police to work in partnership in delivering crime reduction and safeguarding local citizens.
“Some initiatives and measures have gone, including free alarms that go on sliding patio doors to raise an alarm if they were opened.
“It then becomes a double cut – not only in crime but the fact there is an increase in police demand following break-ins.
“In terms of future funding, the way it is being handled is totally inefficient but not unexpected. We will have to sit down with the new PCC and see how we are going to support them in this vital area of work.”
Shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said: “The Government won’t even admit until after the Police and Crime Commissioner elections what next year’s funding will be for crime prevention in future.”
The Home Office confirmed future budgets will not be ringfenced meaning the commissioner can spend the cash as they believe best.
Office of National Statistics figures this month show overall crime was down five per cent in West Yorkshire, with a 22 per cent fall in house burglaries.
Comments(81)
windymiller
says...
9:33am Wed 31 Oct 12
If you have a crime budget every year over the past twenty years you would have thought that every house in the district would have its own CCTV by now. How was the previous years of money spent. Best way to stop crime is for magistrates to stop **** footing about and feeling sorry for the criminal. How many times do we see "the court will sentence on completion of reports". Never mind reports - they are caught convicted and sentenced, and I don't mean pointless community service orders which are a joke. And if you don't know what I mean look out for community service offenders supposedly working, more like larking about and the supervisor ignoring lack of action.
Another Landless Peasant
says...
10:19am Wed 31 Oct 12
Thee Voice of Reason wrote:Unions are essential, and in the face of the Class War now being waged against the people they are surely needed more now than ever before. Support your Union!
Isn't £450k paid to union staff?
Problem solved.
Another Landless Peasant
says...
10:22am Wed 31 Oct 12
Crime is set to see an unprecedented increase due to Tory/Lib Dem policies making people destitute whilst simultaneously cutting the Police budget. Result = crimewave. It's not rocket salad.
Baildonboy
says...
10:26am Wed 31 Oct 12
Am sure they could find £450k from another dept to meet this cut in spending.
How about the marketing & PR dept or the massive regeneration team who have let the Council taxpayers down so much.
As usual it's all about scaring the general public whilst not addressing the massive overspends in these organisations.
Pure politics at it's most basic - very sad !
How about the marketing & PR dept or the massive regeneration team who have let the Council taxpayers down so much.
As usual it's all about scaring the general public whilst not addressing the massive overspends in these organisations.
Pure politics at it's most basic - very sad !
Another Landless Peasant
says...
10:41am Wed 31 Oct 12
Stop wasting money on demonizing Cannabis and on persecuting those who grow/use it. Concentrate on real anti-social crimes that blight our communities on a daily basis, such as littering, fly tipping, illegal bonfires, illegal car parking.
Andy2010
says...
10:46am Wed 31 Oct 12
Another Landless Peasant wrote:Good to have you back A Reasonable Sort of Chap / A Casual Observer....why the need for multiple accounts though ?
Stop wasting money on demonizing Cannabis and on persecuting those who grow/use it. Concentrate on real anti-social crimes that blight our communities on a daily basis, such as littering, fly tipping, illegal bonfires, illegal car parking.
Anyway back on subject....how about the council leader take a 50% pay cut....Thats £100k saved right there and as posted above just cancel the union payments (as the members pay anyway) and shut down the subsidised union offices in the council buildings...Problem solved
Another Landless Peasant
says...
10:52am Wed 31 Oct 12
Andy2010 wrote:It is essential to fund Unions.
Another Landless Peasant wrote:Good to have you back A Reasonable Sort of Chap / A Casual Observer....why the need for multiple accounts though ?
Stop wasting money on demonizing Cannabis and on persecuting those who grow/use it. Concentrate on real anti-social crimes that blight our communities on a daily basis, such as littering, fly tipping, illegal bonfires, illegal car parking.
Anyway back on subject....how about the council leader take a 50% pay cut....Thats £100k saved right there and as posted above just cancel the union payments (as the members pay anyway) and shut down the subsidised union offices in the council buildings...Problem solved
Another Landless Peasant
says...
10:55am Wed 31 Oct 12
"Some initiatives and measures have gone, including free alarms that go on sliding patio doors to raise an alarm if they were opened."
When I rang the Police at 5.30 am on a Sunday morning to report a burglar alarm ringing across the road they refuse to attend and instead told me to ring the Council!
When I rang the Police at 5.30 am on a Sunday morning to report a burglar alarm ringing across the road they refuse to attend and instead told me to ring the Council!
angry bradfordian
says...
10:59am Wed 31 Oct 12
Another Landless Peasant wrote:The unions should be funded by their members and not by taxpayers. It's bizarre that the council fund and organisation that doesn't have the council's interests at heart.
Andy2010 wrote:It is essential to fund Unions.
Another Landless Peasant wrote:Good to have you back A Reasonable Sort of Chap / A Casual Observer....why the need for multiple accounts though ?
Stop wasting money on demonizing Cannabis and on persecuting those who grow/use it. Concentrate on real anti-social crimes that blight our communities on a daily basis, such as littering, fly tipping, illegal bonfires, illegal car parking.
Anyway back on subject....how about the council leader take a 50% pay cut....Thats £100k saved right there and as posted above just cancel the union payments (as the members pay anyway) and shut down the subsidised union offices in the council buildings...Problem solved
I don't understand why the council have a budget for crime prevention anyway. They can't manage to keep the roads clear in winter, fill potholes and keep leisure facilities open so why they're dabbling in burglary prevention is beyond me.
Farsley Bantam
says...
10:59am Wed 31 Oct 12
Another Landless Peasant wrote:Fair enough but the funding should come from the members only as it does everywhere else.
Andy2010 wrote:It is essential to fund Unions.Another Landless Peasant wrote: Stop wasting money on demonizing Cannabis and on persecuting those who grow/use it. Concentrate on real anti-social crimes that blight our communities on a daily basis, such as littering, fly tipping, illegal bonfires, illegal car parking.Good to have you back A Reasonable Sort of Chap / A Casual Observer....why the need for multiple accounts though ? Anyway back on subject....how about the council leader take a 50% pay cut....Thats £100k saved right there and as posted above just cancel the union payments (as the members pay anyway) and shut down the subsidised union offices in the council buildings...Problem solved
angry bradfordian
says...
11:01am Wed 31 Oct 12
“Some initiatives and measures have gone, including free alarms that go on sliding patio doors to raise an alarm if they were opened."
If this is the case then I'm glad the money's been withdrawn.
If I wanted an alarm for my patio doors I'd visit B&Q and wouldn't expect the council to be funding it!
If this is the case then I'm glad the money's been withdrawn.
If I wanted an alarm for my patio doors I'd visit B&Q and wouldn't expect the council to be funding it!
Andy2010
says...
11:08am Wed 31 Oct 12
Farsley Bantam wrote:Exactly
Another Landless Peasant wrote:Fair enough but the funding should come from the members only as it does everywhere else.Andy2010 wrote:It is essential to fund Unions.Another Landless Peasant wrote: Stop wasting money on demonizing Cannabis and on persecuting those who grow/use it. Concentrate on real anti-social crimes that blight our communities on a daily basis, such as littering, fly tipping, illegal bonfires, illegal car parking.Good to have you back A Reasonable Sort of Chap / A Casual Observer....why the need for multiple accounts though ? Anyway back on subject....how about the council leader take a 50% pay cut....Thats £100k saved right there and as posted above just cancel the union payments (as the members pay anyway) and shut down the subsidised union offices in the council buildings...Problem solved
My gym membership comes out of my wage directly....Shoudl I be expecting the taxpayers to pay for it
Andy2010
says...
11:09am Wed 31 Oct 12
angry bradfordian wrote:This ^^ Im afraid is just another example of the state of our culture when a certain amount of people expect everything doing for them....for free
“Some initiatives and measures have gone, including free alarms that go on sliding patio doors to raise an alarm if they were opened." If this is the case then I'm glad the money's been withdrawn. If I wanted an alarm for my patio doors I'd visit B&Q and wouldn't expect the council to be funding it!
Joedavid
says...
11:36am Wed 31 Oct 12
Another Landless Peasant wrote:Yes but it is a Labour lead Council so they will look after their workers so no £450k needed.
Thee Voice of Reason wrote:Unions are essential, and in the face of the Class War now being waged against the people they are surely needed more now than ever before. Support your Union!
Isn't £450k paid to union staff?
Problem solved.
BD16
says...
11:41am Wed 31 Oct 12
Thee Voice of Reason wrote:If they need to save some more money they could always pay the HMRC reccomended mileage allowance rather than the over generous one that has been reported on here more than once.
Isn't £450k paid to union staff? Problem solved.
Another Landless Peasant
says...
11:46am Wed 31 Oct 12
Andy2010 wrote:Who cares? Your gym membership doesn't benefit society, it benefits only yourself. Please stop being so selfish.
Farsley Bantam wrote:Exactly
Another Landless Peasant wrote:Fair enough but the funding should come from the members only as it does everywhere else.Andy2010 wrote:It is essential to fund Unions.Another Landless Peasant wrote: Stop wasting money on demonizing Cannabis and on persecuting those who grow/use it. Concentrate on real anti-social crimes that blight our communities on a daily basis, such as littering, fly tipping, illegal bonfires, illegal car parking.Good to have you back A Reasonable Sort of Chap / A Casual Observer....why the need for multiple accounts though ? Anyway back on subject....how about the council leader take a 50% pay cut....Thats £100k saved right there and as posted above just cancel the union payments (as the members pay anyway) and shut down the subsidised union offices in the council buildings...Problem solved
My gym membership comes out of my wage directly....Shoudl I be expecting the taxpayers to pay for it
Another Landless Peasant
says...
11:49am Wed 31 Oct 12
Joedavid wrote:Thank God SOMEONE is looking after the workers!
Another Landless Peasant wrote:Yes but it is a Labour lead Council so they will look after their workers so no £450k needed.
Thee Voice of Reason wrote:Unions are essential, and in the face of the Class War now being waged against the people they are surely needed more now than ever before. Support your Union!
Isn't £450k paid to union staff?
Problem solved.
Albion.
says...
11:52am Wed 31 Oct 12
Another Landless Peasant wrote:If he keeps fit and healthy, it is likely to reduce the work and cost of the health authorities.
Andy2010 wrote:Who cares? Your gym membership doesn't benefit society, it benefits only yourself. Please stop being so selfish.
Farsley Bantam wrote:Exactly
Another Landless Peasant wrote:Fair enough but the funding should come from the members only as it does everywhere else.Andy2010 wrote:It is essential to fund Unions.Another Landless Peasant wrote: Stop wasting money on demonizing Cannabis and on persecuting those who grow/use it. Concentrate on real anti-social crimes that blight our communities on a daily basis, such as littering, fly tipping, illegal bonfires, illegal car parking.Good to have you back A Reasonable Sort of Chap / A Casual Observer....why the need for multiple accounts though ? Anyway back on subject....how about the council leader take a 50% pay cut....Thats £100k saved right there and as posted above just cancel the union payments (as the members pay anyway) and shut down the subsidised union offices in the council buildings...Problem solved
My gym membership comes out of my wage directly....Shoudl I be expecting the taxpayers to pay for it
Talking of "selfish", does Arthur Scargill still have his central London flat and cars paid for by the NUM? Wasn't he paid during the miners strike, while his members lived on handouts?
angry bradfordian
says...
11:58am Wed 31 Oct 12
Another Landless Peasant wrote:I think it's selfish that people expect to be supplied with patio door alarms funded by the taxpayer.
Andy2010 wrote:Who cares? Your gym membership doesn't benefit society, it benefits only yourself. Please stop being so selfish.
Farsley Bantam wrote:Exactly
Another Landless Peasant wrote:Fair enough but the funding should come from the members only as it does everywhere else.Andy2010 wrote:It is essential to fund Unions.Another Landless Peasant wrote: Stop wasting money on demonizing Cannabis and on persecuting those who grow/use it. Concentrate on real anti-social crimes that blight our communities on a daily basis, such as littering, fly tipping, illegal bonfires, illegal car parking.Good to have you back A Reasonable Sort of Chap / A Casual Observer....why the need for multiple accounts though ? Anyway back on subject....how about the council leader take a 50% pay cut....Thats £100k saved right there and as posted above just cancel the union payments (as the members pay anyway) and shut down the subsidised union offices in the council buildings...Problem solved
My gym membership comes out of my wage directly....Shoudl I be expecting the taxpayers to pay for it
I fail to understand why people couldn't afford an alarm, yet could afford the household goods that need protecting.
Farsley Bantam
says...
11:58am Wed 31 Oct 12
Another Landless Peasant wrote:It could be argued that getting plenty of excercise and living a healthy lifestyle means you are less likely to be a burden on the NHS. Still the council should not pay his gym membership though!
Andy2010 wrote:Who cares? Your gym membership doesn't benefit society, it benefits only yourself. Please stop being so selfish.Farsley Bantam wrote:Exactly My gym membership comes out of my wage directly....Shoudl I be expecting the taxpayers to pay for itAnother Landless Peasant wrote:Fair enough but the funding should come from the members only as it does everywhere else.Andy2010 wrote:It is essential to fund Unions.Another Landless Peasant wrote: Stop wasting money on demonizing Cannabis and on persecuting those who grow/use it. Concentrate on real anti-social crimes that blight our communities on a daily basis, such as littering, fly tipping, illegal bonfires, illegal car parking.Good to have you back A Reasonable Sort of Chap / A Casual Observer....why the need for multiple accounts though ? Anyway back on subject....how about the council leader take a 50% pay cut....Thats £100k saved right there and as posted above just cancel the union payments (as the members pay anyway) and shut down the subsidised union offices in the council buildings...Problem solved
Equally the benefit of union membership benefits only the union members not society as a whole. Its not unreasonable to get members to pay for this benefit themselves.
Another Landless Peasant
says...
12:02pm Wed 31 Oct 12
Farsley Bantam wrote:Unions benefit all the Working Class.
Another Landless Peasant wrote:It could be argued that getting plenty of excercise and living a healthy lifestyle means you are less likely to be a burden on the NHS. Still the council should not pay his gym membership though!
Andy2010 wrote:Who cares? Your gym membership doesn't benefit society, it benefits only yourself. Please stop being so selfish.Farsley Bantam wrote:Exactly My gym membership comes out of my wage directly....Shoudl I be expecting the taxpayers to pay for itAnother Landless Peasant wrote:Fair enough but the funding should come from the members only as it does everywhere else.Andy2010 wrote:It is essential to fund Unions.Another Landless Peasant wrote: Stop wasting money on demonizing Cannabis and on persecuting those who grow/use it. Concentrate on real anti-social crimes that blight our communities on a daily basis, such as littering, fly tipping, illegal bonfires, illegal car parking.Good to have you back A Reasonable Sort of Chap / A Casual Observer....why the need for multiple accounts though ? Anyway back on subject....how about the council leader take a 50% pay cut....Thats £100k saved right there and as posted above just cancel the union payments (as the members pay anyway) and shut down the subsidised union offices in the council buildings...Problem solved
Equally the benefit of union membership benefits only the union members not society as a whole. Its not unreasonable to get members to pay for this benefit themselves.
angry bradfordian
says...
12:02pm Wed 31 Oct 12
Albion. wrote:He still has, but he's currently in a court battle WITH HIS OWN UNION as they want to stop him having a lifelong entitlement.
Another Landless Peasant wrote:If he keeps fit and healthy, it is likely to reduce the work and cost of the health authorities.
Andy2010 wrote:Who cares? Your gym membership doesn't benefit society, it benefits only yourself. Please stop being so selfish.
Farsley Bantam wrote:Exactly
Another Landless Peasant wrote:Fair enough but the funding should come from the members only as it does everywhere else.Andy2010 wrote:It is essential to fund Unions.Another Landless Peasant wrote: Stop wasting money on demonizing Cannabis and on persecuting those who grow/use it. Concentrate on real anti-social crimes that blight our communities on a daily basis, such as littering, fly tipping, illegal bonfires, illegal car parking.Good to have you back A Reasonable Sort of Chap / A Casual Observer....why the need for multiple accounts though ? Anyway back on subject....how about the council leader take a 50% pay cut....Thats £100k saved right there and as posted above just cancel the union payments (as the members pay anyway) and shut down the subsidised union offices in the council buildings...Problem solved
My gym membership comes out of my wage directly....Shoudl I be expecting the taxpayers to pay for it
Talking of "selfish", does Arthur Scargill still have his central London flat and cars paid for by the NUM? Wasn't he paid during the miners strike, while his members lived on handouts?
I wonder which council is subsidising the solicitor's bills?
Another Landless Peasant
says...
12:03pm Wed 31 Oct 12
Albion. wrote:Please leave King Arthur out of this, you are not worthy to touch his shoes.
Another Landless Peasant wrote:If he keeps fit and healthy, it is likely to reduce the work and cost of the health authorities.
Andy2010 wrote:Who cares? Your gym membership doesn't benefit society, it benefits only yourself. Please stop being so selfish.
Farsley Bantam wrote:Exactly
Another Landless Peasant wrote:Fair enough but the funding should come from the members only as it does everywhere else.Andy2010 wrote:It is essential to fund Unions.Another Landless Peasant wrote: Stop wasting money on demonizing Cannabis and on persecuting those who grow/use it. Concentrate on real anti-social crimes that blight our communities on a daily basis, such as littering, fly tipping, illegal bonfires, illegal car parking.Good to have you back A Reasonable Sort of Chap / A Casual Observer....why the need for multiple accounts though ? Anyway back on subject....how about the council leader take a 50% pay cut....Thats £100k saved right there and as posted above just cancel the union payments (as the members pay anyway) and shut down the subsidised union offices in the council buildings...Problem solved
My gym membership comes out of my wage directly....Shoudl I be expecting the taxpayers to pay for it
Talking of "selfish", does Arthur Scargill still have his central London flat and cars paid for by the NUM? Wasn't he paid during the miners strike, while his members lived on handouts?
Farsley Bantam
says...
12:04pm Wed 31 Oct 12
Albion. wrote:Correct. He's recently took the NUM to court for refusing to pay for his London flat at a cost of £34k per year. This is the same NUM that is a tiny fraction of what it was at its peak and cannot afford it.
Another Landless Peasant wrote:If he keeps fit and healthy, it is likely to reduce the work and cost of the health authorities. Talking of "selfish", does Arthur Scargill still have his central London flat and cars paid for by the NUM? Wasn't he paid during the miners strike, while his members lived on handouts?Andy2010 wrote:Who cares? Your gym membership doesn't benefit society, it benefits only yourself. Please stop being so selfish.Farsley Bantam wrote:Exactly My gym membership comes out of my wage directly....Shoudl I be expecting the taxpayers to pay for itAnother Landless Peasant wrote:Fair enough but the funding should come from the members only as it does everywhere else.Andy2010 wrote:It is essential to fund Unions.Another Landless Peasant wrote: Stop wasting money on demonizing Cannabis and on persecuting those who grow/use it. Concentrate on real anti-social crimes that blight our communities on a daily basis, such as littering, fly tipping, illegal bonfires, illegal car parking.Good to have you back A Reasonable Sort of Chap / A Casual Observer....why the need for multiple accounts though ? Anyway back on subject....how about the council leader take a 50% pay cut....Thats £100k saved right there and as posted above just cancel the union payments (as the members pay anyway) and shut down the subsidised union offices in the council buildings...Problem solved
If a politician behaved like this you would quite rightly be up in arms.
Its ok for the trade union poster boy though.
room124
says...
12:05pm Wed 31 Oct 12
Yet another ill-informed, ill-researched T&A story. The “cut” in Bradford’s crime prevention budget is not a “cut” as such. Instead, the money will be transferred to the new West Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner (almost certain to be the 1st class train travelling Labour Wakefield Councillor, Mark Burns-Williamson). It will be interesting to see just how much crime prevention cash the new PCC will re-allocate back towards crime prevention in the Bradford District. The Keighley and Shipley Constituencies are likely to see a few quid poured back in before the next General Election (think about it!).
.
Labour added that: “no allocations have yet been set by the Home Office for crime prevention budgets for the next financial year”.
.
So, where’s the story?
.
The truth is that Bradford Council has over recent years chosen to use huge chunks of its crime prevention budget to subsidise West Yorkshire Police’s employment of utterly useless Police and Community Support Officers (PCSO’s).
.
Labour added that: “no allocations have yet been set by the Home Office for crime prevention budgets for the next financial year”.
.
So, where’s the story?
.
The truth is that Bradford Council has over recent years chosen to use huge chunks of its crime prevention budget to subsidise West Yorkshire Police’s employment of utterly useless Police and Community Support Officers (PCSO’s).
Another Landless Peasant
says...
12:08pm Wed 31 Oct 12
angry bradfordian wrote:What about smoke detector alarms? Shouldn't people have got them either?
Another Landless Peasant wrote:I think it's selfish that people expect to be supplied with patio door alarms funded by the taxpayer.
Andy2010 wrote:Who cares? Your gym membership doesn't benefit society, it benefits only yourself. Please stop being so selfish.
Farsley Bantam wrote:Exactly
Another Landless Peasant wrote:Fair enough but the funding should come from the members only as it does everywhere else.Andy2010 wrote:It is essential to fund Unions.Another Landless Peasant wrote: Stop wasting money on demonizing Cannabis and on persecuting those who grow/use it. Concentrate on real anti-social crimes that blight our communities on a daily basis, such as littering, fly tipping, illegal bonfires, illegal car parking.Good to have you back A Reasonable Sort of Chap / A Casual Observer....why the need for multiple accounts though ? Anyway back on subject....how about the council leader take a 50% pay cut....Thats £100k saved right there and as posted above just cancel the union payments (as the members pay anyway) and shut down the subsidised union offices in the council buildings...Problem solved
My gym membership comes out of my wage directly....Shoudl I be expecting the taxpayers to pay for it
I fail to understand why people couldn't afford an alarm, yet could afford the household goods that need protecting.
I suppose you are also against people in social housing having security shutters fitted on ground-floor dwellings?
Or how about charging people for making 999 calls? After all why should the tax payer foot the bill for Emergency phone calls?
If people like you had their way England would resemble Somalia.
Albion.
says...
12:09pm Wed 31 Oct 12
Another Landless Peasant wrote:Would they be the handmade brogues, wonder who pays for them?
Albion. wrote:Please leave King Arthur out of this, you are not worthy to touch his shoes.
Another Landless Peasant wrote:If he keeps fit and healthy, it is likely to reduce the work and cost of the health authorities.
Andy2010 wrote:Who cares? Your gym membership doesn't benefit society, it benefits only yourself. Please stop being so selfish.
Farsley Bantam wrote:Exactly
Another Landless Peasant wrote:Fair enough but the funding should come from the members only as it does everywhere else.Andy2010 wrote:It is essential to fund Unions.Another Landless Peasant wrote: Stop wasting money on demonizing Cannabis and on persecuting those who grow/use it. Concentrate on real anti-social crimes that blight our communities on a daily basis, such as littering, fly tipping, illegal bonfires, illegal car parking.Good to have you back A Reasonable Sort of Chap / A Casual Observer....why the need for multiple accounts though ? Anyway back on subject....how about the council leader take a 50% pay cut....Thats £100k saved right there and as posted above just cancel the union payments (as the members pay anyway) and shut down the subsidised union offices in the council buildings...Problem solved
My gym membership comes out of my wage directly....Shoudl I be expecting the taxpayers to pay for it
Talking of "selfish", does Arthur Scargill still have his central London flat and cars paid for by the NUM? Wasn't he paid during the miners strike, while his members lived on handouts?
Another Landless Peasant
says...
12:14pm Wed 31 Oct 12
The Tories won't provide any money for crime prevention, and don't even want to properly fund the Police. Instead they advise householders to arm themselves and tackle intruders with violent force. Basically they don't care so long as it doesn't cost them anything. They are effectively pulling up the drawbridge and leaving the rest of us to fight it out amongst ourselves.
Another Landless Peasant
says...
12:15pm Wed 31 Oct 12
Albion. wrote:Who cares who pays for them?
Another Landless Peasant wrote:Would they be the handmade brogues, wonder who pays for them?
Albion. wrote:Please leave King Arthur out of this, you are not worthy to touch his shoes.
Another Landless Peasant wrote:If he keeps fit and healthy, it is likely to reduce the work and cost of the health authorities.
Andy2010 wrote:Who cares? Your gym membership doesn't benefit society, it benefits only yourself. Please stop being so selfish.
Farsley Bantam wrote:Exactly
Another Landless Peasant wrote:Fair enough but the funding should come from the members only as it does everywhere else.Andy2010 wrote:It is essential to fund Unions.Another Landless Peasant wrote: Stop wasting money on demonizing Cannabis and on persecuting those who grow/use it. Concentrate on real anti-social crimes that blight our communities on a daily basis, such as littering, fly tipping, illegal bonfires, illegal car parking.Good to have you back A Reasonable Sort of Chap / A Casual Observer....why the need for multiple accounts though ? Anyway back on subject....how about the council leader take a 50% pay cut....Thats £100k saved right there and as posted above just cancel the union payments (as the members pay anyway) and shut down the subsidised union offices in the council buildings...Problem solved
My gym membership comes out of my wage directly....Shoudl I be expecting the taxpayers to pay for it
Talking of "selfish", does Arthur Scargill still have his central London flat and cars paid for by the NUM? Wasn't he paid during the miners strike, while his members lived on handouts?
BertSanders
says...
12:16pm Wed 31 Oct 12
I read "it is essental to fund Unions" - why the taxpayer and not the Union ?
How much does this idea cost the Council and therefore the Council Tax payer.?
How much does this idea cost the Council and therefore the Council Tax payer.?
Andy2010
says...
12:19pm Wed 31 Oct 12
Another Landless Peasant wrote:Well just a quick look at the B&Q website shows smoke alarms at £6...why should they be free ? I bought all mine for my house...why should anyone else be any different. It might mean you have to smoke one less joint one night but isnt being protected worth it?
angry bradfordian wrote:What about smoke detector alarms? Shouldn't people have got them either? I suppose you are also against people in social housing having security shutters fitted on ground-floor dwellings? Or how about charging people for making 999 calls? After all why should the tax payer foot the bill for Emergency phone calls? If people like you had their way England would resemble Somalia.Another Landless Peasant wrote:I think it's selfish that people expect to be supplied with patio door alarms funded by the taxpayer. I fail to understand why people couldn't afford an alarm, yet could afford the household goods that need protecting.Andy2010 wrote:Who cares? Your gym membership doesn't benefit society, it benefits only yourself. Please stop being so selfish.Farsley Bantam wrote:Exactly My gym membership comes out of my wage directly....Shoudl I be expecting the taxpayers to pay for itAnother Landless Peasant wrote:Fair enough but the funding should come from the members only as it does everywhere else.Andy2010 wrote:It is essential to fund Unions.Another Landless Peasant wrote: Stop wasting money on demonizing Cannabis and on persecuting those who grow/use it. Concentrate on real anti-social crimes that blight our communities on a daily basis, such as littering, fly tipping, illegal bonfires, illegal car parking.Good to have you back A Reasonable Sort of Chap / A Casual Observer....why the need for multiple accounts though ? Anyway back on subject....how about the council leader take a 50% pay cut....Thats £100k saved right there and as posted above just cancel the union payments (as the members pay anyway) and shut down the subsidised union offices in the council buildings...Problem solved
And what do security shutters have anything to do with anything ? If you move into a house and feel it requires extra security buy the products yourself and get them fit...whats the issue
Or once again is actually buying anything for yourself other than cannabis frowned up?
And you havent answered my earlier question...why all the user names for this site? Keep getting banned?
collos25
says...
12:28pm Wed 31 Oct 12
What a corrupt council we have.
Another Landless Peasant
says...
1:27pm Wed 31 Oct 12
Andy2010 wrote:This may come as a shock to you but not everyone has a spare £6.
Another Landless Peasant wrote:Well just a quick look at the B&Q website shows smoke alarms at £6...why should they be free ? I bought all mine for my house...why should anyone else be any different. It might mean you have to smoke one less joint one night but isnt being protected worth it?
angry bradfordian wrote:What about smoke detector alarms? Shouldn't people have got them either? I suppose you are also against people in social housing having security shutters fitted on ground-floor dwellings? Or how about charging people for making 999 calls? After all why should the tax payer foot the bill for Emergency phone calls? If people like you had their way England would resemble Somalia.Another Landless Peasant wrote:I think it's selfish that people expect to be supplied with patio door alarms funded by the taxpayer. I fail to understand why people couldn't afford an alarm, yet could afford the household goods that need protecting.Andy2010 wrote:Who cares? Your gym membership doesn't benefit society, it benefits only yourself. Please stop being so selfish.Farsley Bantam wrote:Exactly My gym membership comes out of my wage directly....Shoudl I be expecting the taxpayers to pay for itAnother Landless Peasant wrote:Fair enough but the funding should come from the members only as it does everywhere else.Andy2010 wrote:It is essential to fund Unions.Another Landless Peasant wrote: Stop wasting money on demonizing Cannabis and on persecuting those who grow/use it. Concentrate on real anti-social crimes that blight our communities on a daily basis, such as littering, fly tipping, illegal bonfires, illegal car parking.Good to have you back A Reasonable Sort of Chap / A Casual Observer....why the need for multiple accounts though ? Anyway back on subject....how about the council leader take a 50% pay cut....Thats £100k saved right there and as posted above just cancel the union payments (as the members pay anyway) and shut down the subsidised union offices in the council buildings...Problem solved
And what do security shutters have anything to do with anything ? If you move into a house and feel it requires extra security buy the products yourself and get them fit...whats the issue
Or once again is actually buying anything for yourself other than cannabis frowned up?
And you havent answered my earlier question...why all the user names for this site? Keep getting banned?
Andy2010
says...
1:30pm Wed 31 Oct 12
Another Landless Peasant wrote:Well I would class smoke alarms as an essential product and is maintained can last years so you are telling me you cannot afford £6 every 3 years? no?
Andy2010 wrote:This may come as a shock to you but not everyone has a spare £6.Another Landless Peasant wrote:Well just a quick look at the B&Q website shows smoke alarms at £6...why should they be free ? I bought all mine for my house...why should anyone else be any different. It might mean you have to smoke one less joint one night but isnt being protected worth it? And what do security shutters have anything to do with anything ? If you move into a house and feel it requires extra security buy the products yourself and get them fit...whats the issue Or once again is actually buying anything for yourself other than cannabis frowned up? And you havent answered my earlier question...why all the user names for this site? Keep getting banned?angry bradfordian wrote:What about smoke detector alarms? Shouldn't people have got them either? I suppose you are also against people in social housing having security shutters fitted on ground-floor dwellings? Or how about charging people for making 999 calls? After all why should the tax payer foot the bill for Emergency phone calls? If people like you had their way England would resemble Somalia.Another Landless Peasant wrote:I think it's selfish that people expect to be supplied with patio door alarms funded by the taxpayer. I fail to understand why people couldn't afford an alarm, yet could afford the household goods that need protecting.Andy2010 wrote:Who cares? Your gym membership doesn't benefit society, it benefits only yourself. Please stop being so selfish.Farsley Bantam wrote:Exactly My gym membership comes out of my wage directly....Shoudl I be expecting the taxpayers to pay for itAnother Landless Peasant wrote:Fair enough but the funding should come from the members only as it does everywhere else.Andy2010 wrote:It is essential to fund Unions.Another Landless Peasant wrote: Stop wasting money on demonizing Cannabis and on persecuting those who grow/use it. Concentrate on real anti-social crimes that blight our communities on a daily basis, such as littering, fly tipping, illegal bonfires, illegal car parking.Good to have you back A Reasonable Sort of Chap / A Casual Observer....why the need for multiple accounts though ? Anyway back on subject....how about the council leader take a 50% pay cut....Thats £100k saved right there and as posted above just cancel the union payments (as the members pay anyway) and shut down the subsidised union offices in the council buildings...Problem solved
Do you smoke?
Do you drink?
Sky tv?
Surely this would take priority over any of the above
Farsley Bantam
says...
1:31pm Wed 31 Oct 12
Another Landless Peasant wrote:You seem to have ignored my earlier comment about St Arthur 'may his name be praised' Scargill so I'll post it again so you can reply to it here;
Andy2010 wrote:This may come as a shock to you but not everyone has a spare £6.Another Landless Peasant wrote:Well just a quick look at the B&Q website shows smoke alarms at £6...why should they be free ? I bought all mine for my house...why should anyone else be any different. It might mean you have to smoke one less joint one night but isnt being protected worth it? And what do security shutters have anything to do with anything ? If you move into a house and feel it requires extra security buy the products yourself and get them fit...whats the issue Or once again is actually buying anything for yourself other than cannabis frowned up? And you havent answered my earlier question...why all the user names for this site? Keep getting banned?angry bradfordian wrote:What about smoke detector alarms? Shouldn't people have got them either? I suppose you are also against people in social housing having security shutters fitted on ground-floor dwellings? Or how about charging people for making 999 calls? After all why should the tax payer foot the bill for Emergency phone calls? If people like you had their way England would resemble Somalia.Another Landless Peasant wrote:I think it's selfish that people expect to be supplied with patio door alarms funded by the taxpayer. I fail to understand why people couldn't afford an alarm, yet could afford the household goods that need protecting.Andy2010 wrote:Who cares? Your gym membership doesn't benefit society, it benefits only yourself. Please stop being so selfish.Farsley Bantam wrote:Exactly My gym membership comes out of my wage directly....Shoudl I be expecting the taxpayers to pay for itAnother Landless Peasant wrote:Fair enough but the funding should come from the members only as it does everywhere else.Andy2010 wrote:It is essential to fund Unions.Another Landless Peasant wrote: Stop wasting money on demonizing Cannabis and on persecuting those who grow/use it. Concentrate on real anti-social crimes that blight our communities on a daily basis, such as littering, fly tipping, illegal bonfires, illegal car parking.Good to have you back A Reasonable Sort of Chap / A Casual Observer....why the need for multiple accounts though ? Anyway back on subject....how about the council leader take a 50% pay cut....Thats £100k saved right there and as posted above just cancel the union payments (as the members pay anyway) and shut down the subsidised union offices in the council buildings...Problem solved
Correct. He recently took the NUM to court for refusing to pay for his London flat at a cost of £34k per year. This is the same NUM that is a tiny fraction of what it was at its peak and cannot afford it.
If a politician behaved like this you would quite rightly be up in arms.
Its ok for the trade union poster boy though
Albion.
says...
1:33pm Wed 31 Oct 12
Andy2010 wrote:Does he smoke? Hahaha!
Another Landless Peasant wrote:Well I would class smoke alarms as an essential product and is maintained can last years so you are telling me you cannot afford £6 every 3 years? no?
Andy2010 wrote:This may come as a shock to you but not everyone has a spare £6.Another Landless Peasant wrote:Well just a quick look at the B&Q website shows smoke alarms at £6...why should they be free ? I bought all mine for my house...why should anyone else be any different. It might mean you have to smoke one less joint one night but isnt being protected worth it? And what do security shutters have anything to do with anything ? If you move into a house and feel it requires extra security buy the products yourself and get them fit...whats the issue Or once again is actually buying anything for yourself other than cannabis frowned up? And you havent answered my earlier question...why all the user names for this site? Keep getting banned?angry bradfordian wrote:What about smoke detector alarms? Shouldn't people have got them either? I suppose you are also against people in social housing having security shutters fitted on ground-floor dwellings? Or how about charging people for making 999 calls? After all why should the tax payer foot the bill for Emergency phone calls? If people like you had their way England would resemble Somalia.Another Landless Peasant wrote:I think it's selfish that people expect to be supplied with patio door alarms funded by the taxpayer. I fail to understand why people couldn't afford an alarm, yet could afford the household goods that need protecting.Andy2010 wrote:Who cares? Your gym membership doesn't benefit society, it benefits only yourself. Please stop being so selfish.Farsley Bantam wrote:Exactly My gym membership comes out of my wage directly....Shoudl I be expecting the taxpayers to pay for itAnother Landless Peasant wrote:Fair enough but the funding should come from the members only as it does everywhere else.Andy2010 wrote:It is essential to fund Unions.Another Landless Peasant wrote: Stop wasting money on demonizing Cannabis and on persecuting those who grow/use it. Concentrate on real anti-social crimes that blight our communities on a daily basis, such as littering, fly tipping, illegal bonfires, illegal car parking.Good to have you back A Reasonable Sort of Chap / A Casual Observer....why the need for multiple accounts though ? Anyway back on subject....how about the council leader take a 50% pay cut....Thats £100k saved right there and as posted above just cancel the union payments (as the members pay anyway) and shut down the subsidised union offices in the council buildings...Problem solved
Do you smoke?
Do you drink?
Sky tv?
Surely this would take priority over any of the above
theoutsider
says...
1:37pm Wed 31 Oct 12
Green is carping on about money ? got these words for him
WATTER PARK £30MILLION WASTE OF MONEY.
Send me an increased council tax bill mate if you dare.
WATTER PARK £30MILLION WASTE OF MONEY.
Send me an increased council tax bill mate if you dare.
johnhem
says...
1:38pm Wed 31 Oct 12
they would have if it was'nt for paying taxes for union wages. if you want to be a dinosaur in outdated unions thats your choice, but i will and always have driven through picket lines i don't agree with if they interfere with MY job, earning MY wage to feed MY family. i will work or not at MY choice, not because some union dogsbody says i have to strike as 20% of the workforce voted in a ballot and 51% of them that did vote for it.
Another Landless Peasant
says...
2:01pm Wed 31 Oct 12
johnhem wrote:"MY job, earning MY wage to feed MY family. i will work or not at MY choice"
they would have if it was'nt for paying taxes for union wages. if you want to be a dinosaur in outdated unions thats your choice, but i will and always have driven through picket lines i don't agree with if they interfere with MY job, earning MY wage to feed MY family. i will work or not at MY choice, not because some union dogsbody says i have to strike as 20% of the workforce voted in a ballot and 51% of them that did vote for it.
It's all "me, me, me" isn't it?
Driving through Picket lines? You disgust me, you are a class traitor and a SCAB.
Another Landless Peasant
says...
2:05pm Wed 31 Oct 12
Andy2010 wrote:Sky TV? What planet are you living on?
Another Landless Peasant wrote:Well I would class smoke alarms as an essential product and is maintained can last years so you are telling me you cannot afford £6 every 3 years? no?
Andy2010 wrote:This may come as a shock to you but not everyone has a spare £6.Another Landless Peasant wrote:Well just a quick look at the B&Q website shows smoke alarms at £6...why should they be free ? I bought all mine for my house...why should anyone else be any different. It might mean you have to smoke one less joint one night but isnt being protected worth it? And what do security shutters have anything to do with anything ? If you move into a house and feel it requires extra security buy the products yourself and get them fit...whats the issue Or once again is actually buying anything for yourself other than cannabis frowned up? And you havent answered my earlier question...why all the user names for this site? Keep getting banned?angry bradfordian wrote:What about smoke detector alarms? Shouldn't people have got them either? I suppose you are also against people in social housing having security shutters fitted on ground-floor dwellings? Or how about charging people for making 999 calls? After all why should the tax payer foot the bill for Emergency phone calls? If people like you had their way England would resemble Somalia.Another Landless Peasant wrote:I think it's selfish that people expect to be supplied with patio door alarms funded by the taxpayer. I fail to understand why people couldn't afford an alarm, yet could afford the household goods that need protecting.Andy2010 wrote:Who cares? Your gym membership doesn't benefit society, it benefits only yourself. Please stop being so selfish.Farsley Bantam wrote:Exactly My gym membership comes out of my wage directly....Shoudl I be expecting the taxpayers to pay for itAnother Landless Peasant wrote:Fair enough but the funding should come from the members only as it does everywhere else.Andy2010 wrote:It is essential to fund Unions.Another Landless Peasant wrote: Stop wasting money on demonizing Cannabis and on persecuting those who grow/use it. Concentrate on real anti-social crimes that blight our communities on a daily basis, such as littering, fly tipping, illegal bonfires, illegal car parking.Good to have you back A Reasonable Sort of Chap / A Casual Observer....why the need for multiple accounts though ? Anyway back on subject....how about the council leader take a 50% pay cut....Thats £100k saved right there and as posted above just cancel the union payments (as the members pay anyway) and shut down the subsidised union offices in the council buildings...Problem solved
Do you smoke?
Do you drink?
Sky tv?
Surely this would take priority over any of the above
I know many people who do not have any spare cash whatsoever, not even £6 to spare. There have been many times myself when I literally do not have a single penny. People are going without food, and cannot even afford to switch the heating on. You and your Tory ilk do not have the slightest clue how poor people live, and that's a fact.
BertSanders
says...
2:09pm Wed 31 Oct 12
BertSanders wrote:No answers - why is it necessary to fund Unions.?
I read "it is essental to fund Unions" - why the taxpayer and not the Union ?
How much does this idea cost the Council and therefore the Council Tax payer.?
Outraged English Subject
says...
2:09pm Wed 31 Oct 12
Unions are a waste of time, have been since Thatcher broke them in the 80’s. Unions should be funded from the members and not the public purse. I’m curious thou, why so many user names?
angry bradfordian
says...
2:33pm Wed 31 Oct 12
Another Landless Peasant wrote:But you can afford the internet?
Andy2010 wrote:Sky TV? What planet are you living on?
Another Landless Peasant wrote:Well I would class smoke alarms as an essential product and is maintained can last years so you are telling me you cannot afford £6 every 3 years? no?
Andy2010 wrote:This may come as a shock to you but not everyone has a spare £6.Another Landless Peasant wrote:Well just a quick look at the B&Q website shows smoke alarms at £6...why should they be free ? I bought all mine for my house...why should anyone else be any different. It might mean you have to smoke one less joint one night but isnt being protected worth it? And what do security shutters have anything to do with anything ? If you move into a house and feel it requires extra security buy the products yourself and get them fit...whats the issue Or once again is actually buying anything for yourself other than cannabis frowned up? And you havent answered my earlier question...why all the user names for this site? Keep getting banned?angry bradfordian wrote:What about smoke detector alarms? Shouldn't people have got them either? I suppose you are also against people in social housing having security shutters fitted on ground-floor dwellings? Or how about charging people for making 999 calls? After all why should the tax payer foot the bill for Emergency phone calls? If people like you had their way England would resemble Somalia.Another Landless Peasant wrote:I think it's selfish that people expect to be supplied with patio door alarms funded by the taxpayer. I fail to understand why people couldn't afford an alarm, yet could afford the household goods that need protecting.Andy2010 wrote:Who cares? Your gym membership doesn't benefit society, it benefits only yourself. Please stop being so selfish.Farsley Bantam wrote:Exactly My gym membership comes out of my wage directly....Shoudl I be expecting the taxpayers to pay for itAnother Landless Peasant wrote:Fair enough but the funding should come from the members only as it does everywhere else.Andy2010 wrote:It is essential to fund Unions.Another Landless Peasant wrote: Stop wasting money on demonizing Cannabis and on persecuting those who grow/use it. Concentrate on real anti-social crimes that blight our communities on a daily basis, such as littering, fly tipping, illegal bonfires, illegal car parking.Good to have you back A Reasonable Sort of Chap / A Casual Observer....why the need for multiple accounts though ? Anyway back on subject....how about the council leader take a 50% pay cut....Thats £100k saved right there and as posted above just cancel the union payments (as the members pay anyway) and shut down the subsidised union offices in the council buildings...Problem solved
Do you smoke?
Do you drink?
Sky tv?
Surely this would take priority over any of the above
I know many people who do not have any spare cash whatsoever, not even £6 to spare. There have been many times myself when I literally do not have a single penny. People are going without food, and cannot even afford to switch the heating on. You and your Tory ilk do not have the slightest clue how poor people live, and that's a fact.
BD16
says...
2:44pm Wed 31 Oct 12
Another Landless Peasant wrote:How much money a week do you spend on cat food? You've mentioned your cat before as well as tobacco, you said it was "duty free" which I take to mean it's smuggled. You can afford an internet connection as well as "vegan shoes" whatever they may be.
Andy2010 wrote:Sky TV? What planet are you living on? I know many people who do not have any spare cash whatsoever, not even £6 to spare. There have been many times myself when I literally do not have a single penny. People are going without food, and cannot even afford to switch the heating on. You and your Tory ilk do not have the slightest clue how poor people live, and that's a fact.Another Landless Peasant wrote:Well I would class smoke alarms as an essential product and is maintained can last years so you are telling me you cannot afford £6 every 3 years? no? Do you smoke? Do you drink? Sky tv? Surely this would take priority over any of the aboveAndy2010 wrote:This may come as a shock to you but not everyone has a spare £6.Another Landless Peasant wrote:Well just a quick look at the B&Q website shows smoke alarms at £6...why should they be free ? I bought all mine for my house...why should anyone else be any different. It might mean you have to smoke one less joint one night but isnt being protected worth it? And what do security shutters have anything to do with anything ? If you move into a house and feel it requires extra security buy the products yourself and get them fit...whats the issue Or once again is actually buying anything for yourself other than cannabis frowned up? And you havent answered my earlier question...why all the user names for this site? Keep getting banned?angry bradfordian wrote:What about smoke detector alarms? Shouldn't people have got them either? I suppose you are also against people in social housing having security shutters fitted on ground-floor dwellings? Or how about charging people for making 999 calls? After all why should the tax payer foot the bill for Emergency phone calls? If people like you had their way England would resemble Somalia.Another Landless Peasant wrote:I think it's selfish that people expect to be supplied with patio door alarms funded by the taxpayer. I fail to understand why people couldn't afford an alarm, yet could afford the household goods that need protecting.Andy2010 wrote:Who cares? Your gym membership doesn't benefit society, it benefits only yourself. Please stop being so selfish.Farsley Bantam wrote:Exactly My gym membership comes out of my wage directly....Shoudl I be expecting the taxpayers to pay for itAnother Landless Peasant wrote:Fair enough but the funding should come from the members only as it does everywhere else.Andy2010 wrote:It is essential to fund Unions.Another Landless Peasant wrote: Stop wasting money on demonizing Cannabis and on persecuting those who grow/use it. Concentrate on real anti-social crimes that blight our communities on a daily basis, such as littering, fly tipping, illegal bonfires, illegal car parking.Good to have you back A Reasonable Sort of Chap / A Casual Observer....why the need for multiple accounts though ? Anyway back on subject....how about the council leader take a 50% pay cut....Thats £100k saved right there and as posted above just cancel the union payments (as the members pay anyway) and shut down the subsidised union offices in the council buildings...Problem solved
For somebody who contributes nothing, except spite and bile, to society you seem to do ok.
Andy2010
says...
3:02pm Wed 31 Oct 12
BD16 wrote:He wont respond to that. He likes spouting things but when someone comes back with an answer or a question he resorts to posting anti tory rubbish he finds on the internet.
Another Landless Peasant wrote:How much money a week do you spend on cat food? You've mentioned your cat before as well as tobacco, you said it was "duty free" which I take to mean it's smuggled. You can afford an internet connection as well as "vegan shoes" whatever they may be. For somebody who contributes nothing, except spite and bile, to society you seem to do ok.Andy2010 wrote:Sky TV? What planet are you living on? I know many people who do not have any spare cash whatsoever, not even £6 to spare. There have been many times myself when I literally do not have a single penny. People are going without food, and cannot even afford to switch the heating on. You and your Tory ilk do not have the slightest clue how poor people live, and that's a fact.Another Landless Peasant wrote:Well I would class smoke alarms as an essential product and is maintained can last years so you are telling me you cannot afford £6 every 3 years? no? Do you smoke? Do you drink? Sky tv? Surely this would take priority over any of the aboveAndy2010 wrote:This may come as a shock to you but not everyone has a spare £6.Another Landless Peasant wrote:Well just a quick look at the B&Q website shows smoke alarms at £6...why should they be free ? I bought all mine for my house...why should anyone else be any different. It might mean you have to smoke one less joint one night but isnt being protected worth it? And what do security shutters have anything to do with anything ? If you move into a house and feel it requires extra security buy the products yourself and get them fit...whats the issue Or once again is actually buying anything for yourself other than cannabis frowned up? And you havent answered my earlier question...why all the user names for this site? Keep getting banned?angry bradfordian wrote:What about smoke detector alarms? Shouldn't people have got them either? I suppose you are also against people in social housing having security shutters fitted on ground-floor dwellings? Or how about charging people for making 999 calls? After all why should the tax payer foot the bill for Emergency phone calls? If people like you had their way England would resemble Somalia.Another Landless Peasant wrote:I think it's selfish that people expect to be supplied with patio door alarms funded by the taxpayer. I fail to understand why people couldn't afford an alarm, yet could afford the household goods that need protecting.Andy2010 wrote:Who cares? Your gym membership doesn't benefit society, it benefits only yourself. Please stop being so selfish.Farsley Bantam wrote:Exactly My gym membership comes out of my wage directly....Shoudl I be expecting the taxpayers to pay for itAnother Landless Peasant wrote:Fair enough but the funding should come from the members only as it does everywhere else.Andy2010 wrote:It is essential to fund Unions.Another Landless Peasant wrote: Stop wasting money on demonizing Cannabis and on persecuting those who grow/use it. Concentrate on real anti-social crimes that blight our communities on a daily basis, such as littering, fly tipping, illegal bonfires, illegal car parking.Good to have you back A Reasonable Sort of Chap / A Casual Observer....why the need for multiple accounts though ? Anyway back on subject....how about the council leader take a 50% pay cut....Thats £100k saved right there and as posted above just cancel the union payments (as the members pay anyway) and shut down the subsidised union offices in the council buildings...Problem solved
Just ignore
BD16
says...
3:16pm Wed 31 Oct 12
Outraged English Subject wrote:Unions are essential in my opinion. Ancestors of mine spent time in workhouses and having read up on them I wouldn't want anybody to suffer that fate again. It's the balance of power that is the problem. I don't want people living in Victorian conditions when a few have vast fortunes they could never spend, but, I wouldn't want to see a return to the 70's when the unions held the country to ransom and contributed significantly to the demise of the British economy.
Unions are a waste of time, have been since Thatcher broke them in the 80’s. Unions should be funded from the members and not the public purse. I’m curious thou, why so many user names?
They should be funded by member contributions though.
Andy2010
says...
3:18pm Wed 31 Oct 12
BD16 wrote:I agree. Although I'm not particulary fond of unions its each to their own but I do object to taxpayers money being used to pay for them.
Outraged English Subject wrote: Unions are a waste of time, have been since Thatcher broke them in the 80’s. Unions should be funded from the members and not the public purse. I’m curious thou, why so many user names?Unions are essential in my opinion. Ancestors of mine spent time in workhouses and having read up on them I wouldn't want anybody to suffer that fate again. It's the balance of power that is the problem. I don't want people living in Victorian conditions when a few have vast fortunes they could never spend, but, I wouldn't want to see a return to the 70's when the unions held the country to ransom and contributed significantly to the demise of the British economy. They should be funded by member contributions though.
Outraged English Subject
says...
3:32pm Wed 31 Oct 12
BD16 wrote:"Ancestors of mine spent time in workhouses" So did mine! "I don't want people living in Victorian conditions" Nor do I, "when a few have vast fortunes they could never spend" You mean like the rich in the world today.
Outraged English Subject wrote:Unions are essential in my opinion. Ancestors of mine spent time in workhouses and having read up on them I wouldn't want anybody to suffer that fate again. It's the balance of power that is the problem. I don't want people living in Victorian conditions when a few have vast fortunes they could never spend, but, I wouldn't want to see a return to the 70's when the unions held the country to ransom and contributed significantly to the demise of the British economy.
Unions are a waste of time, have been since Thatcher broke them in the 80’s. Unions should be funded from the members and not the public purse. I’m curious thou, why so many user names?
They should be funded by member contributions though.
Fiery Jack
says...
3:40pm Wed 31 Oct 12
How things have changed...I'd love to join a union, one that had some genuine power.
As it is, I work for one of those multi-national US corporations which ban all union membership.
Half the staff are on precarious short-term contracts, the other half are agency temps - everyone subject to dismissal without appeal.
The majority on Minimum Wage, which means that the shareholders and senior partners of this company are raking in millions of dollars profit, much of it at the expense of UK taxpayers who have to top up the miserable wages they pay with tax credits.
These companies should be banned from banning unions and they should be forced to pay a Living Wage.
They would, of course, under these circumstances, decamp from the UK altogether, greedy snouters that they are.
As it is, I work for one of those multi-national US corporations which ban all union membership.
Half the staff are on precarious short-term contracts, the other half are agency temps - everyone subject to dismissal without appeal.
The majority on Minimum Wage, which means that the shareholders and senior partners of this company are raking in millions of dollars profit, much of it at the expense of UK taxpayers who have to top up the miserable wages they pay with tax credits.
These companies should be banned from banning unions and they should be forced to pay a Living Wage.
They would, of course, under these circumstances, decamp from the UK altogether, greedy snouters that they are.
Andy2010
says...
4:04pm Wed 31 Oct 12
Fiery Jack wrote:On the flipside if they didnt pay the wages they pay they wouldnt make million $ profits therefore wouldnt be able to employ the workforce they do
How things have changed...I'd love to join a union, one that had some genuine power. As it is, I work for one of those multi-national US corporations which ban all union membership. Half the staff are on precarious short-term contracts, the other half are agency temps - everyone subject to dismissal without appeal. The majority on Minimum Wage, which means that the shareholders and senior partners of this company are raking in millions of dollars profit, much of it at the expense of UK taxpayers who have to top up the miserable wages they pay with tax credits. These companies should be banned from banning unions and they should be forced to pay a Living Wage. They would, of course, under these circumstances, decamp from the UK altogether, greedy snouters that they are.
Swings and roundabouts Im afraid
Fiery Jack
says...
4:17pm Wed 31 Oct 12
Andy2010 wrote:I see your point, but if they had any regard for their workforce, or any sort of conscience, they could surely forego a small portion of their profits.
Fiery Jack wrote:On the flipside if they didnt pay the wages they pay they wouldnt make million $ profits therefore wouldnt be able to employ the workforce they do
How things have changed...I'd love to join a union, one that had some genuine power. As it is, I work for one of those multi-national US corporations which ban all union membership. Half the staff are on precarious short-term contracts, the other half are agency temps - everyone subject to dismissal without appeal. The majority on Minimum Wage, which means that the shareholders and senior partners of this company are raking in millions of dollars profit, much of it at the expense of UK taxpayers who have to top up the miserable wages they pay with tax credits. These companies should be banned from banning unions and they should be forced to pay a Living Wage. They would, of course, under these circumstances, decamp from the UK altogether, greedy snouters that they are.
Swings and roundabouts Im afraid
If they paid say a quid an hour more to everyone they'd have a happier, more motivated and productive workforce - and if they happen to be Christian fundamentalists, they might even have a chance of getting into heaven when they expire.
Andy2010
says...
4:37pm Wed 31 Oct 12
Fiery Jack wrote:I see what your saying but it doesnt work like that unfortunately. I dont know which US company you work for but lets just take for example Walmart. They employ approx 50,000 people in the UK. If they gave each an extra £1 per hour that equates to a cost to them of £99 million a year ! Not to mention increases in taxation etc.
Andy2010 wrote:I see your point, but if they had any regard for their workforce, or any sort of conscience, they could surely forego a small portion of their profits. If they paid say a quid an hour more to everyone they'd have a happier, more motivated and productive workforce - and if they happen to be Christian fundamentalists, they might even have a chance of getting into heaven when they expire.Fiery Jack wrote: How things have changed...I'd love to join a union, one that had some genuine power. As it is, I work for one of those multi-national US corporations which ban all union membership. Half the staff are on precarious short-term contracts, the other half are agency temps - everyone subject to dismissal without appeal. The majority on Minimum Wage, which means that the shareholders and senior partners of this company are raking in millions of dollars profit, much of it at the expense of UK taxpayers who have to top up the miserable wages they pay with tax credits. These companies should be banned from banning unions and they should be forced to pay a Living Wage. They would, of course, under these circumstances, decamp from the UK altogether, greedy snouters that they are.On the flipside if they didnt pay the wages they pay they wouldnt make million $ profits therefore wouldnt be able to employ the workforce they do Swings and roundabouts Im afraid
With less profit in turn comes less buying power which in turn leads to higher prices of goods which in turn means that extra pound you have in your pocket each hour is out stripped by the cost of things you buy.
Albion.
says...
4:38pm Wed 31 Oct 12
Fiery Jack wrote:There are major companies closing down or going bust all the time.
Andy2010 wrote:I see your point, but if they had any regard for their workforce, or any sort of conscience, they could surely forego a small portion of their profits.
Fiery Jack wrote:On the flipside if they didnt pay the wages they pay they wouldnt make million $ profits therefore wouldnt be able to employ the workforce they do
How things have changed...I'd love to join a union, one that had some genuine power. As it is, I work for one of those multi-national US corporations which ban all union membership. Half the staff are on precarious short-term contracts, the other half are agency temps - everyone subject to dismissal without appeal. The majority on Minimum Wage, which means that the shareholders and senior partners of this company are raking in millions of dollars profit, much of it at the expense of UK taxpayers who have to top up the miserable wages they pay with tax credits. These companies should be banned from banning unions and they should be forced to pay a Living Wage. They would, of course, under these circumstances, decamp from the UK altogether, greedy snouters that they are.
Swings and roundabouts Im afraid
If they paid say a quid an hour more to everyone they'd have a happier, more motivated and productive workforce - and if they happen to be Christian fundamentalists, they might even have a chance of getting into heaven when they expire.
People know what they are going into when they get a job, the majority are still in employment and the national average wage is pretty good, I reckon.
Where exactly will the majority of people (not Christian Fundamentalists) go on expiration?
Shouldn't that be Fiery Trev. by the way?
RollandSmoke
says...
6:21pm Wed 31 Oct 12
Approx 80% of all crime is Drug related although as the mere possession of a drug is a crime these figures are misleading. However it must be argued that prohibition itself is the cause of much of this crime.The motto on Bradford's coat of arms is "Progress, industry, humanity". Come on people of Bradford, lets work together to force our MPs to give those words meaning. The status quo will continue to be a failure. This is not progress. While employment becomes a luxury for the few we have a lucrative industry in the hands of organized crime. When sick people have their doors kicked down and their medication confiscated where's the humanity? You don't need to use cannabis to recognize the folly of current drugs policy. The scientific evidence shows that the laws are not justified. If the law is not justified then how can anyone claim that this is justice? Heroin is a serious health problem and must be treated as such. Prohibition simply drives up prices enormously and further fuel the need for addicts to commit crimes. The Police have been spying on the public for decades now, If they haven't worked out who the criminals are, and furthermore why these individuals are turning to crime, they never will.
Fiery Jack
says...
6:59pm Wed 31 Oct 12
Albion - What do you mean by "Fiery Trev"?
Can only assume that you think I am a regular poster on here who has changed his user name from Trev.
But no - I am an irregular poster. Not enough time for me to be owt else.
And Jack it is (as in Swansea Jack and also in the lyrics of the song "Fiery Jack")
Can only assume that you think I am a regular poster on here who has changed his user name from Trev.
But no - I am an irregular poster. Not enough time for me to be owt else.
And Jack it is (as in Swansea Jack and also in the lyrics of the song "Fiery Jack")
collos25
says...
7:13pm Wed 31 Oct 12
Isn't Fiery Jack embrocation.
450k is a mere trifling sum compared with the money wasted by this inept corrupt council.
450k is a mere trifling sum compared with the money wasted by this inept corrupt council.
Fiery Jack
says...
8:24pm Wed 31 Oct 12
collos25 wrote:Cheers collos - that's a new one on me. Just googled it and indeed it is an ointment of some sort.
Isn't Fiery Jack embrocation.
450k is a mere trifling sum compared with the money wasted by this inept corrupt council.
"Embrocation" - nice word, that.
Apparently, and sadly, it's no longer produced.
Another Landless Peasant
says...
10:33pm Wed 31 Oct 12
Meanwhile, back on topic....
The ConDem(ned) spending cuts are going to exacerbate crime, as a direct result of their policies, and that is a fact.
The whole of Bradford will soon become a no-go area. There will be nothing safe from thieves, no one safe from robbers, and no way an undercut Police force can cope. Welcome to the Big Society.
The ConDem(ned) spending cuts are going to exacerbate crime, as a direct result of their policies, and that is a fact.
The whole of Bradford will soon become a no-go area. There will be nothing safe from thieves, no one safe from robbers, and no way an undercut Police force can cope. Welcome to the Big Society.
Marty12
says...
11:38pm Wed 31 Oct 12
Another Landless Peasant wrote:"The whole of Bradford will soon become a no-go area".
Meanwhile, back on topic.... The ConDem(ned) spending cuts are going to exacerbate crime, as a direct result of their policies, and that is a fact. The whole of Bradford will soon become a no-go area. There will be nothing safe from thieves, no one safe from robbers, and no way an undercut Police force can cope. Welcome to the Big Society.
What?
Where have you been living this past decade?
It's already a no-go area for whites.
Don't dream of letting your teenage white daughter out on the town.
Andy2010
says...
9:28am Thu 1 Nov 12
Another Landless Peasant wrote:We have already arrived there....about 10 years ago
Meanwhile, back on topic.... The ConDem(ned) spending cuts are going to exacerbate crime, as a direct result of their policies, and that is a fact. The whole of Bradford will soon become a no-go area. There will be nothing safe from thieves, no one safe from robbers, and no way an undercut Police force can cope. Welcome to the Big Society.
Welcome to the Labour Government mess they left behind
BD16
says...
10:25am Thu 1 Nov 12
Another Landless Peasant wrote:How very convenient for you........
Meanwhile, back on topic.... The ConDem(ned) spending cuts are going to exacerbate crime, as a direct result of their policies, and that is a fact. The whole of Bradford will soon become a no-go area. There will be nothing safe from thieves, no one safe from robbers, and no way an undercut Police force can cope. Welcome to the Big Society.
Another Landless Peasant
says...
11:33am Thu 1 Nov 12
BD16 wrote:Convenient in what way?
Another Landless Peasant wrote:How very convenient for you........
Meanwhile, back on topic.... The ConDem(ned) spending cuts are going to exacerbate crime, as a direct result of their policies, and that is a fact. The whole of Bradford will soon become a no-go area. There will be nothing safe from thieves, no one safe from robbers, and no way an undercut Police force can cope. Welcome to the Big Society.
Another Landless Peasant
says...
11:35am Thu 1 Nov 12
Andy2010 wrote:It's nothing to do with Labour.
Another Landless Peasant wrote:We have already arrived there....about 10 years ago
Meanwhile, back on topic.... The ConDem(ned) spending cuts are going to exacerbate crime, as a direct result of their policies, and that is a fact. The whole of Bradford will soon become a no-go area. There will be nothing safe from thieves, no one safe from robbers, and no way an undercut Police force can cope. Welcome to the Big Society.
Welcome to the Labour Government mess they left behind
Another Landless Peasant
says...
11:40am Thu 1 Nov 12
Albion. wrote:"Where exactly will the majority of people (not Christian Fundamentalists) go on expiration? "
Fiery Jack wrote:There are major companies closing down or going bust all the time.
Andy2010 wrote:I see your point, but if they had any regard for their workforce, or any sort of conscience, they could surely forego a small portion of their profits.
Fiery Jack wrote:On the flipside if they didnt pay the wages they pay they wouldnt make million $ profits therefore wouldnt be able to employ the workforce they do
How things have changed...I'd love to join a union, one that had some genuine power. As it is, I work for one of those multi-national US corporations which ban all union membership. Half the staff are on precarious short-term contracts, the other half are agency temps - everyone subject to dismissal without appeal. The majority on Minimum Wage, which means that the shareholders and senior partners of this company are raking in millions of dollars profit, much of it at the expense of UK taxpayers who have to top up the miserable wages they pay with tax credits. These companies should be banned from banning unions and they should be forced to pay a Living Wage. They would, of course, under these circumstances, decamp from the UK altogether, greedy snouters that they are.
Swings and roundabouts Im afraid
If they paid say a quid an hour more to everyone they'd have a happier, more motivated and productive workforce - and if they happen to be Christian fundamentalists, they might even have a chance of getting into heaven when they expire.
People know what they are going into when they get a job, the majority are still in employment and the national average wage is pretty good, I reckon.
Where exactly will the majority of people (not Christian Fundamentalists) go on expiration?
Shouldn't that be Fiery Trev. by the way?
They get reborn on earth again, having failed to escape the cycle of death and re-birth.
Albion.
says...
11:52am Thu 1 Nov 12
Another Landless Peasant wrote:No wonder you keep getting committed.
Albion. wrote:"Where exactly will the majority of people (not Christian Fundamentalists) go on expiration? "
Fiery Jack wrote:There are major companies closing down or going bust all the time.
Andy2010 wrote:I see your point, but if they had any regard for their workforce, or any sort of conscience, they could surely forego a small portion of their profits.
Fiery Jack wrote:On the flipside if they didnt pay the wages they pay they wouldnt make million $ profits therefore wouldnt be able to employ the workforce they do
How things have changed...I'd love to join a union, one that had some genuine power. As it is, I work for one of those multi-national US corporations which ban all union membership. Half the staff are on precarious short-term contracts, the other half are agency temps - everyone subject to dismissal without appeal. The majority on Minimum Wage, which means that the shareholders and senior partners of this company are raking in millions of dollars profit, much of it at the expense of UK taxpayers who have to top up the miserable wages they pay with tax credits. These companies should be banned from banning unions and they should be forced to pay a Living Wage. They would, of course, under these circumstances, decamp from the UK altogether, greedy snouters that they are.
Swings and roundabouts Im afraid
If they paid say a quid an hour more to everyone they'd have a happier, more motivated and productive workforce - and if they happen to be Christian fundamentalists, they might even have a chance of getting into heaven when they expire.
People know what they are going into when they get a job, the majority are still in employment and the national average wage is pretty good, I reckon.
Where exactly will the majority of people (not Christian Fundamentalists) go on expiration?
Shouldn't that be Fiery Trev. by the way?
They get reborn on earth again, having failed to escape the cycle of death and re-birth.
Another Landless Peasant
says...
12:34pm Thu 1 Nov 12
Here's a crime that I do approve of! Give that man a medal !
http://www.thetelegr
aphandargus.co.uk/ne
ws/10019004._Lazy__S
wain_House_postman_d
umped_7_000_letters/
WE ALL HATE JUNK MAIL !!!
http://www.thetelegr
aphandargus.co.uk/ne
ws/10019004._Lazy__S
wain_House_postman_d
umped_7_000_letters/
WE ALL HATE JUNK MAIL !!!
Another Landless Peasant
says...
1:35pm Thu 1 Nov 12
Albion. wrote:You may not return immediately, however, and probably will dwell in the 4th Dimension for a period prior to your reincarnation on the earth plane.
Another Landless Peasant wrote:No wonder you keep getting committed.
Albion. wrote:"Where exactly will the majority of people (not Christian Fundamentalists) go on expiration? "
Fiery Jack wrote:There are major companies closing down or going bust all the time.
Andy2010 wrote:I see your point, but if they had any regard for their workforce, or any sort of conscience, they could surely forego a small portion of their profits.
Fiery Jack wrote:On the flipside if they didnt pay the wages they pay they wouldnt make million $ profits therefore wouldnt be able to employ the workforce they do
How things have changed...I'd love to join a union, one that had some genuine power. As it is, I work for one of those multi-national US corporations which ban all union membership. Half the staff are on precarious short-term contracts, the other half are agency temps - everyone subject to dismissal without appeal. The majority on Minimum Wage, which means that the shareholders and senior partners of this company are raking in millions of dollars profit, much of it at the expense of UK taxpayers who have to top up the miserable wages they pay with tax credits. These companies should be banned from banning unions and they should be forced to pay a Living Wage. They would, of course, under these circumstances, decamp from the UK altogether, greedy snouters that they are.
Swings and roundabouts Im afraid
If they paid say a quid an hour more to everyone they'd have a happier, more motivated and productive workforce - and if they happen to be Christian fundamentalists, they might even have a chance of getting into heaven when they expire.
People know what they are going into when they get a job, the majority are still in employment and the national average wage is pretty good, I reckon.
Where exactly will the majority of people (not Christian Fundamentalists) go on expiration?
Shouldn't that be Fiery Trev. by the way?
They get reborn on earth again, having failed to escape the cycle of death and re-birth.
Those who successfully pass the test of Transfiguration proceed to live on Venus in the 6th Density of the 4th Dimension.
Andy2010
says...
1:40pm Thu 1 Nov 12
Another Landless Peasant wrote:No thats right
Andy2010 wrote:It's nothing to do with Labour.Another Landless Peasant wrote: Meanwhile, back on topic.... The ConDem(ned) spending cuts are going to exacerbate crime, as a direct result of their policies, and that is a fact. The whole of Bradford will soon become a no-go area. There will be nothing safe from thieves, no one safe from robbers, and no way an undercut Police force can cope. Welcome to the Big Society.We have already arrived there....about 10 years ago Welcome to the Labour Government mess they left behind
Immigration / EU / Pensions / Government Overspend / Two Illegal Wars...to name a few
Nothing to do with Labour eh?
Its ok the Tories are mopping up the mess left behind
Another Landless Peasant
says...
2:21pm Thu 1 Nov 12
Andy2010 wrote:"Its ok the Tories are mopping up the mess left behind"
Another Landless Peasant wrote:No thats right
Andy2010 wrote:It's nothing to do with Labour.Another Landless Peasant wrote: Meanwhile, back on topic.... The ConDem(ned) spending cuts are going to exacerbate crime, as a direct result of their policies, and that is a fact. The whole of Bradford will soon become a no-go area. There will be nothing safe from thieves, no one safe from robbers, and no way an undercut Police force can cope. Welcome to the Big Society.We have already arrived there....about 10 years ago Welcome to the Labour Government mess they left behind
Immigration / EU / Pensions / Government Overspend / Two Illegal Wars...to name a few
Nothing to do with Labour eh?
Its ok the Tories are mopping up the mess left behind
Really? And how are they doing that then? By making everyone poorer so that businesses go bust? By borrowing more? By sacrificing economic growth at the expense of deficit reduction? By diverting Millions £££ into the pockets of the rich instead of spending on those who need it? By dismantling the State and throwing Civil Servants on to the dole? By cutting the Police so that crime will increase? Oh yeah, their sorting it out alright......*rolls eyes*
BD16
says...
2:36pm Thu 1 Nov 12
Another Landless Peasant wrote:I don't agree with all of the cuts being made but after letting Viv Nicholson be chancellor for 10 years, and some of the other things that Andy 2010 mentioned in the Labour government, we certainly need to get spending and budgets back under control. Labour have many admirable intentions but they are absolutely hopeless when it comes to money and the economy.
Andy2010 wrote:"Its ok the Tories are mopping up the mess left behind" Really? And how are they doing that then? By making everyone poorer so that businesses go bust? By borrowing more? By sacrificing economic growth at the expense of deficit reduction? By diverting Millions £££ into the pockets of the rich instead of spending on those who need it? By dismantling the State and throwing Civil Servants on to the dole? By cutting the Police so that crime will increase? Oh yeah, their sorting it out alright......*rolls eyes*Another Landless Peasant wrote:No thats right Immigration / EU / Pensions / Government Overspend / Two Illegal Wars...to name a few Nothing to do with Labour eh? Its ok the Tories are mopping up the mess left behindAndy2010 wrote:It's nothing to do with Labour.Another Landless Peasant wrote: Meanwhile, back on topic.... The ConDem(ned) spending cuts are going to exacerbate crime, as a direct result of their policies, and that is a fact. The whole of Bradford will soon become a no-go area. There will be nothing safe from thieves, no one safe from robbers, and no way an undercut Police force can cope. Welcome to the Big Society.We have already arrived there....about 10 years ago Welcome to the Labour Government mess they left behind
Andy2010
says...
2:41pm Thu 1 Nov 12
Another Landless Peasant wrote:When you start with nothing you have to cut to break even...surely even you would understand that
Andy2010 wrote:"Its ok the Tories are mopping up the mess left behind" Really? And how are they doing that then? By making everyone poorer so that businesses go bust? By borrowing more? By sacrificing economic growth at the expense of deficit reduction? By diverting Millions £££ into the pockets of the rich instead of spending on those who need it? By dismantling the State and throwing Civil Servants on to the dole? By cutting the Police so that crime will increase? Oh yeah, their sorting it out alright......*rolls eyes*Another Landless Peasant wrote:No thats right Immigration / EU / Pensions / Government Overspend / Two Illegal Wars...to name a few Nothing to do with Labour eh? Its ok the Tories are mopping up the mess left behindAndy2010 wrote:It's nothing to do with Labour.Another Landless Peasant wrote: Meanwhile, back on topic.... The ConDem(ned) spending cuts are going to exacerbate crime, as a direct result of their policies, and that is a fact. The whole of Bradford will soon become a no-go area. There will be nothing safe from thieves, no one safe from robbers, and no way an undercut Police force can cope. Welcome to the Big Society.We have already arrived there....about 10 years ago Welcome to the Labour Government mess they left behind
Lets look at your claims
Businesses Going bust - Inherited from Labours spending plans by lending and borrowing money that didnt exist thus meaning banks etc had to tighten belts...Nothing to Tories but everything to do with the false picture Labour painted of the Economy
Sacrificing Economic Growth...really? What Government sacrifices Growth?
Diverting millions to the Rich? hhhhmmm wasnt it Gordon Brown that lowered the tax bracket on top earners to 40% also....Wasnt it Gordon Brown and the Labour Government that deregulated the City Traders against the advice of the Bank of England...hhhmmm
Dismantling the state....again really? This is open to opinion. After working in local civil service for a couple of years all I saw was too many people doing two few jobs...my Job there was as a cost reduction consultant so yes I can speak from experience.
Cutting Police ? Actually under this Government the actual serving police officers have increased. Although the numbers employed by the service has decreased this is solely down by the force reducing back office roles and not frontline officers. Also the police budgets are higher than they have ever been.
So your point again?
Another Landless Peasant
says...
3:49pm Thu 1 Nov 12
Andy2010 wrote:You're in complete denial and talking out of your ar$e.
Another Landless Peasant wrote:When you start with nothing you have to cut to break even...surely even you would understand that
Andy2010 wrote:"Its ok the Tories are mopping up the mess left behind" Really? And how are they doing that then? By making everyone poorer so that businesses go bust? By borrowing more? By sacrificing economic growth at the expense of deficit reduction? By diverting Millions £££ into the pockets of the rich instead of spending on those who need it? By dismantling the State and throwing Civil Servants on to the dole? By cutting the Police so that crime will increase? Oh yeah, their sorting it out alright......*rolls eyes*Another Landless Peasant wrote:No thats right Immigration / EU / Pensions / Government Overspend / Two Illegal Wars...to name a few Nothing to do with Labour eh? Its ok the Tories are mopping up the mess left behindAndy2010 wrote:It's nothing to do with Labour.Another Landless Peasant wrote: Meanwhile, back on topic.... The ConDem(ned) spending cuts are going to exacerbate crime, as a direct result of their policies, and that is a fact. The whole of Bradford will soon become a no-go area. There will be nothing safe from thieves, no one safe from robbers, and no way an undercut Police force can cope. Welcome to the Big Society.We have already arrived there....about 10 years ago Welcome to the Labour Government mess they left behind
Lets look at your claims
Businesses Going bust - Inherited from Labours spending plans by lending and borrowing money that didnt exist thus meaning banks etc had to tighten belts...Nothing to Tories but everything to do with the false picture Labour painted of the Economy
Sacrificing Economic Growth...really? What Government sacrifices Growth?
Diverting millions to the Rich? hhhhmmm wasnt it Gordon Brown that lowered the tax bracket on top earners to 40% also....Wasnt it Gordon Brown and the Labour Government that deregulated the City Traders against the advice of the Bank of England...hhhmmm
Dismantling the state....again really? This is open to opinion. After working in local civil service for a couple of years all I saw was too many people doing two few jobs...my Job there was as a cost reduction consultant so yes I can speak from experience.
Cutting Police ? Actually under this Government the actual serving police officers have increased. Although the numbers employed by the service has decreased this is solely down by the force reducing back office roles and not frontline officers. Also the police budgets are higher than they have ever been.
So your point again?
Another Landless Peasant
says...
3:53pm Thu 1 Nov 12
BD16 wrote:The Tories don't actually save you any money, that is a myth. They borrow the same (or more) and divert it into private hands instead of public hands. That is the difference. Labour spend it on YOU, the Tories give it to their rich chums in business. And everything that the Tories dismantle will end up costing more in the longrun.
Another Landless Peasant wrote:I don't agree with all of the cuts being made but after letting Viv Nicholson be chancellor for 10 years, and some of the other things that Andy 2010 mentioned in the Labour government, we certainly need to get spending and budgets back under control. Labour have many admirable intentions but they are absolutely hopeless when it comes to money and the economy.
Andy2010 wrote:"Its ok the Tories are mopping up the mess left behind" Really? And how are they doing that then? By making everyone poorer so that businesses go bust? By borrowing more? By sacrificing economic growth at the expense of deficit reduction? By diverting Millions £££ into the pockets of the rich instead of spending on those who need it? By dismantling the State and throwing Civil Servants on to the dole? By cutting the Police so that crime will increase? Oh yeah, their sorting it out alright......*rolls eyes*Another Landless Peasant wrote:No thats right Immigration / EU / Pensions / Government Overspend / Two Illegal Wars...to name a few Nothing to do with Labour eh? Its ok the Tories are mopping up the mess left behindAndy2010 wrote:It's nothing to do with Labour.Another Landless Peasant wrote: Meanwhile, back on topic.... The ConDem(ned) spending cuts are going to exacerbate crime, as a direct result of their policies, and that is a fact. The whole of Bradford will soon become a no-go area. There will be nothing safe from thieves, no one safe from robbers, and no way an undercut Police force can cope. Welcome to the Big Society.We have already arrived there....about 10 years ago Welcome to the Labour Government mess they left behind
Andy2010
says...
4:27pm Thu 1 Nov 12
Another Landless Peasant wrote:Labour spend it on us do they...just lol
BD16 wrote:The Tories don't actually save you any money, that is a myth. They borrow the same (or more) and divert it into private hands instead of public hands. That is the difference. Labour spend it on YOU, the Tories give it to their rich chums in business. And everything that the Tories dismantle will end up costing more in the longrun.Another Landless Peasant wrote:I don't agree with all of the cuts being made but after letting Viv Nicholson be chancellor for 10 years, and some of the other things that Andy 2010 mentioned in the Labour government, we certainly need to get spending and budgets back under control. Labour have many admirable intentions but they are absolutely hopeless when it comes to money and the economy.Andy2010 wrote:"Its ok the Tories are mopping up the mess left behind" Really? And how are they doing that then? By making everyone poorer so that businesses go bust? By borrowing more? By sacrificing economic growth at the expense of deficit reduction? By diverting Millions £££ into the pockets of the rich instead of spending on those who need it? By dismantling the State and throwing Civil Servants on to the dole? By cutting the Police so that crime will increase? Oh yeah, their sorting it out alright......*rolls eyes*Another Landless Peasant wrote:No thats right Immigration / EU / Pensions / Government Overspend / Two Illegal Wars...to name a few Nothing to do with Labour eh? Its ok the Tories are mopping up the mess left behindAndy2010 wrote:It's nothing to do with Labour.Another Landless Peasant wrote: Meanwhile, back on topic.... The ConDem(ned) spending cuts are going to exacerbate crime, as a direct result of their policies, and that is a fact. The whole of Bradford will soon become a no-go area. There will be nothing safe from thieves, no one safe from robbers, and no way an undercut Police force can cope. Welcome to the Big Society.We have already arrived there....about 10 years ago Welcome to the Labour Government mess they left behind
Oh course the Labour government wasnt supported by any rich contributors were they ? and in turn followed amazing tax cuts and freedoms removed under the guise of "terrorism" which aided their "rich" backers businesses to prosper
Top and bottom of this is they are all as bad as each other but at least this current government are addressing things which I think need addressing like cutting benefit and the civil service.
Its all down to perception of the individual. You clearly would rather get paid for doing nothing .
Another Landless Peasant
says...
5:25pm Thu 1 Nov 12
Whaaaat???? You think that cutting benefits and the civil service is a good thing? You are beyond all hope.
The Tories only look after themselves. They've been in power for 2 years and still haven't lifted the economy out of Reccession/Depressio
n, because they are ideologically fixated on reducing the deficit by reducing the State, and that is at the cost of economic growth (don't you watch Newsnight or what?). Tory policies are closing down businesses. Their obssesion with kicking the poor will be their downfall. Make everyone poorer and watch firms go bust.
The Tories only look after themselves. They've been in power for 2 years and still haven't lifted the economy out of Reccession/Depressio
n, because they are ideologically fixated on reducing the deficit by reducing the State, and that is at the cost of economic growth (don't you watch Newsnight or what?). Tory policies are closing down businesses. Their obssesion with kicking the poor will be their downfall. Make everyone poorer and watch firms go bust.
Another Landless Peasant
says...
5:27pm Thu 1 Nov 12
GET THOSE OLD ETONIAN NOT-NICE-BUT-CERTAIN
LY-DIM SCUMBAGS OUT BEFORE THE BRAINLESS IDIOTS RUIN THE COUNTRY FOR EVER.
LY-DIM SCUMBAGS OUT BEFORE THE BRAINLESS IDIOTS RUIN THE COUNTRY FOR EVER.
tinytoonster
says...
5:46pm Thu 1 Nov 12
landless peasant, newsnight on bbc.
totally biased and brainwashing programme.
unions died in the 80's, thatcher destroyed em!!
civil service, overpaid waste of space.
totally biased and brainwashing programme.
unions died in the 80's, thatcher destroyed em!!
civil service, overpaid waste of space.
Andy2010
says...
9:01am Fri 2 Nov 12
Another Landless Peasant wrote:Reducing the civil service yes an excellent idea as like I said I have actually prepared reports for the council about the excess in certain departments so yes it shoudl be cut and not before time.
Whaaaat???? You think that cutting benefits and the civil service is a good thing? You are beyond all hope. The Tories only look after themselves. They've been in power for 2 years and still haven't lifted the economy out of Reccession/Depressio n, because they are ideologically fixated on reducing the deficit by reducing the State, and that is at the cost of economic growth (don't you watch Newsnight or what?). Tory policies are closing down businesses. Their obssesion with kicking the poor will be their downfall. Make everyone poorer and watch firms go bust.
Benefit cuts yes. Obviously the benefit system should be in place to help the most vunerable in soceity and people in hardship on s short term basis only. For too many years Labour threw money they didnt have at the benefit culture in hope it would buy them more votes. It failed and let the country in a mess.
Tory policies are closing down businesses.....the ecomony and businesses themselves close down businesses. Take Comet for example...please explain how Tory policies added to their demise. Im afraid if you base your knowledge on the BBC biased rubbish that is Newsnight then you really then your views are to be expected
Andy2010
says...
9:02am Fri 2 Nov 12
tinytoonster wrote:well played Maggie....pity she didnt finish them off for good
landless peasant, newsnight on bbc. totally biased and brainwashing programme. unions died in the 80's, thatcher destroyed em!! civil service, overpaid waste of space.
JessWilson
says...
10:01am Fri 2 Nov 12
Government could ensure all the legal tax loops are closed and the tax revenue from starbucks, amazon, apple & co could pay for this 100s of times over nationwide.
Thee Voice of Reason says...
9:13am Wed 31 Oct 12
Problem solved.