£30m Bradford Council budget cuts detailed

Bradford Telegraph and Argus: Councillor David Green Councillor David Green

Details of how Bradford Council’s ruling Labour group intends to make a £30 million reduction in next year’s budget have been released, amid warnings that more tough decisions will need to be made in future years.

The funding gap for 2013/14 was initially expected to be about £13.4m, but due to “unexpected reductions” in Government grants and changes to the rules on council tax, plus other pressures, this has more than doubled.

It leaves Labour proposing the first council tax increase in three years – of two per cent – a drop from an earlier estimate of 2.5 per cent. In addition departmental savings of £16.9m are proposed, which is expected to lead to the loss of 136 jobs at the authority, along with cross-cutting savings of £4m.

Further measures to close the gap include plans to abolish council tax discounts on second homes, reduce the exemption period for empty homes and to pass on the full effect of the Government’s £4.5m reduction in support for council tax benefit payments.

Furthermore it is proposed that much of the reduction of £6.7m in the Early Intervention Grant used to fund children’s centres and early years be absorbed by making savings in other services. Pressures on the adult and community services department from demographic changes have resulted in a proposal of additional investment of £1,735,000.

It is also proposed that £9,293,000 of reserves be used to support investment through a £4.1m contribution to accelerate city region economic growth and job creation in the district; £300,000 to support the ongoing empty homes programme; the delivery of ultra-fast broadband and free Wi-fi; and extra resources to tackle stray and illegally-tethered horses.

Councillor David Green, leader of the Council, warned that the authority was facing the most difficult and challenging budget decisions in its history with a real prospect of a funding gap of £50m in the 2014/15 financial year.

He also criticised the last-minute nature of some of the Government announcements, which had left his group working to ever-changing budgetary figures.

“It’s been extremely difficult both in terms of the numbers and the time we were given to complete the budget proposals in,” he said.

“We could perhaps have come up with a different budget if we had the time to develop the strategy. We have had to work on making more fundamental decisions about what the Council wants to do and what it may no longer be able to do.”

Councillor Glen Miller, leader of the Conservative group, said that Labour was portraying “a picture of severe hardship in the funding of essential services”.

“While I recognise that funding is not at the possibly extravagant levels that it once was, when the former Government seemed determined to bankrupt the nation, the Council is still some distance away from delivering only essential services, with what I would call their ‘pet scheme’ expenditure seemingly immune from the financial meltdown which is being portrayed.”

Councillor Jeanette Sunderland, leader of the Liberal Democrat group, said: “There are some difficult decisions to be made. But what I am concerned about is that Labour will continue with pet projects and push costs on to the poorest in society, such as painting and redecorating Council offices, while expecting the poorest to pay more in council tax.”

The opposition has complained it had been difficult to get access to up-to-date financial information to enable the groups to put forward an alternative budget.

The initial budget proposals will be considered by the executive next Tuesday at 10.30am and will be published on the Council’s website for consultation. A final version will be unveiled in February before the budget is set on February 28.

Comments (79)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:39am Wed 28 Nov 12

spearmint wino says...

Anyone know how much is owed in non paid council tax and what is being done to collect it?
Oh and stray horses, just tagged on? Don't the owners have to pay up before they are released or I suppose the council just want them off their hands.
Anyone know how much is owed in non paid council tax and what is being done to collect it? Oh and stray horses, just tagged on? Don't the owners have to pay up before they are released or I suppose the council just want them off their hands. spearmint wino

8:18am Wed 28 Nov 12

JAtkinson says...

Bradford is failing to adequately educate its young people, is failing to attract businesses to the city centre, is failing to recover from successive administrations' mismanagement, and the Con-Dems are cutting budgets, cutting support, cutting money we so desperately need.

Con-Dem - an apt name when it comes to Bradford and the North.
Bradford is failing to adequately educate its young people, is failing to attract businesses to the city centre, is failing to recover from successive administrations' mismanagement, and the Con-Dems are cutting budgets, cutting support, cutting money we so desperately need. Con-Dem - an apt name when it comes to Bradford and the North. JAtkinson

8:36am Wed 28 Nov 12

angry bradfordian says...

Any cuts to the payment given to the unions?

No, thought not.....
Any cuts to the payment given to the unions? No, thought not..... angry bradfordian

9:00am Wed 28 Nov 12

angry bradfordian says...

Some of the details of the councils budget and investments plan make interesting reading:

Investment of £250,000 to undertake additional events based around the City Park; short of money, but we can afford a party now and again?

Investment of £65,000 through the reduced cost of grit due to negotiating prices; were they not trying to get the cheapest price before?

Investment of £50,000 to introduce additional refuse collections to address property growth; doesn't the additional Council Tax of the additional properties cover this?

Investment of £1,735,000 to meet increasing demands due to demographic pressure in Adult & Community Services. Again, if there are more people, where's the additional Council Tax revenue?


If you read the budget changes one by one there seem to be lot of efficiency savings that made myself ask why it's taken a recession to make them spend our money more efficiently.
Some of the details of the councils budget and investments plan make interesting reading: Investment of £250,000 to undertake additional events based around the City Park; short of money, but we can afford a party now and again? Investment of £65,000 through the reduced cost of grit due to negotiating prices; were they not trying to get the cheapest price before? Investment of £50,000 to introduce additional refuse collections to address property growth; doesn't the additional Council Tax of the additional properties cover this? Investment of £1,735,000 to meet increasing demands due to demographic pressure in Adult & Community Services. Again, if there are more people, where's the additional Council Tax revenue? If you read the budget changes one by one there seem to be lot of efficiency savings that made myself ask why it's taken a recession to make them spend our money more efficiently. angry bradfordian

9:15am Wed 28 Nov 12

webshow says...

News on BBC Leeds this morning reported Leeds council benefited by £1.2m within 3 months of installing Bus lane cameras. No doubt Bradford Council will also be participating in this daylight robbery to save the senior execs in the council from losing their jobs. Ever since the recession has started the Council have been busy installing so called safety speed cameras or legalised dick turpin highway robbery as some see it.
News on BBC Leeds this morning reported Leeds council benefited by £1.2m within 3 months of installing Bus lane cameras. No doubt Bradford Council will also be participating in this daylight robbery to save the senior execs in the council from losing their jobs. Ever since the recession has started the Council have been busy installing so called safety speed cameras or legalised dick turpin highway robbery as some see it. webshow

10:26am Wed 28 Nov 12

windymiller says...

Instant solution. Toll roads on Manningham Lane, Manchester Road, Wakefield Road and Canal Road. Just imagine the income by charging £1 per one way journey. Problem solved.
Instant solution. Toll roads on Manningham Lane, Manchester Road, Wakefield Road and Canal Road. Just imagine the income by charging £1 per one way journey. Problem solved. windymiller

10:59am Wed 28 Nov 12

Baildonboy says...

The Council still get involved in areas they don't need to - for example concerts in the park & similiar events.

They still need to focus on "core activities" which we expect from them.By doing that the cuts can be made.

I'd be interested to know of any cuts effecting the bloated regeneration team ?
The Council still get involved in areas they don't need to - for example concerts in the park & similiar events. They still need to focus on "core activities" which we expect from them.By doing that the cuts can be made. I'd be interested to know of any cuts effecting the bloated regeneration team ? Baildonboy

11:27am Wed 28 Nov 12

webess says...

webshow wrote:
News on BBC Leeds this morning reported Leeds council benefited by £1.2m within 3 months of installing Bus lane cameras. No doubt Bradford Council will also be participating in this daylight robbery to save the senior execs in the council from losing their jobs. Ever since the recession has started the Council have been busy installing so called safety speed cameras or legalised dick turpin highway robbery as some see it.
Bradford council already milking the bus lanes, making more profit than the bus operators in all probability.
[quote][p][bold]webshow[/bold] wrote: News on BBC Leeds this morning reported Leeds council benefited by £1.2m within 3 months of installing Bus lane cameras. No doubt Bradford Council will also be participating in this daylight robbery to save the senior execs in the council from losing their jobs. Ever since the recession has started the Council have been busy installing so called safety speed cameras or legalised dick turpin highway robbery as some see it.[/p][/quote]Bradford council already milking the bus lanes, making more profit than the bus operators in all probability. webess

11:27am Wed 28 Nov 12

Albion. says...

JAtkinson wrote:
Bradford is failing to adequately educate its young people, is failing to attract businesses to the city centre, is failing to recover from successive administrations' mismanagement, and the Con-Dems are cutting budgets, cutting support, cutting money we so desperately need.

Con-Dem - an apt name when it comes to Bradford and the North.
"cutting money we so desperately need"
For what? To throw at other things as a temporary (or failed) fix.
[quote][p][bold]JAtkinson[/bold] wrote: Bradford is failing to adequately educate its young people, is failing to attract businesses to the city centre, is failing to recover from successive administrations' mismanagement, and the Con-Dems are cutting budgets, cutting support, cutting money we so desperately need. Con-Dem - an apt name when it comes to Bradford and the North.[/p][/quote]"cutting money we so desperately need" For what? To throw at other things as a temporary (or failed) fix. Albion.

11:43am Wed 28 Nov 12

pellethead says...

angry bradfordian wrote:
Any cuts to the payment given to the unions?

No, thought not.....
?????
[quote][p][bold]angry bradfordian[/bold] wrote: Any cuts to the payment given to the unions? No, thought not.....[/p][/quote]????? pellethead

11:44am Wed 28 Nov 12

Thee Voice of Reason says...

I presume the executive salaries and payments to the unions are ringfenced.

It's much easier to charge more in council tax then even think of cutting these isn't it.

Whats happening to the £80m the park brings in year on year? or was that complete **** like everyone thought?
I presume the executive salaries and payments to the unions are ringfenced. It's much easier to charge more in council tax then even think of cutting these isn't it. Whats happening to the £80m the park brings in year on year? or was that complete **** like everyone thought? Thee Voice of Reason

11:46am Wed 28 Nov 12

Thee Voice of Reason says...

pellethead wrote:
angry bradfordian wrote: Any cuts to the payment given to the unions? No, thought not.....
?????
Between £250k and £500k of taxpayers monies is paid to union officials at the council, rather than the unions using their own subs to fund these positions.

The council appears to ringfence this expenditure and it never comes under consideration for cuts unlike so many other costs.
[quote][p][bold]pellethead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]angry bradfordian[/bold] wrote: Any cuts to the payment given to the unions? No, thought not.....[/p][/quote]?????[/p][/quote]Between £250k and £500k of taxpayers monies is paid to union officials at the council, rather than the unions using their own subs to fund these positions. The council appears to ringfence this expenditure and it never comes under consideration for cuts unlike so many other costs. Thee Voice of Reason

11:50am Wed 28 Nov 12

Another Landless Peasant says...

"Councillor Glen Miller, leader of the Conservative group, said that Labour was portraying “a picture of severe hardship in the funding of essential services”.

WHAT ELSE CAN THEY PORTRAY IT AS?


"when the former Government seemed determined to bankrupt the nation"

IF THAT'S TRUE WHY HAS BORROWING INCREASED UNDER THE TORIES THEN?

LABOUR DID NOT "BANKRUPT THE NATION" YOU LYING TORY SACK OF SH1T, THE RECESSION WAS CAUSED BY THE AMERICAN HOUSING AND STOCK MARKETS AND UNREGULATED GREED OF VULTURE CAPITALISTS. ALL GOVERNMENTS BORROW. LABOUR GOVERNMENTS SPEND THE MONEY ON THE PEOPLE. TORY GOVERNMENTS SPEND MONEY ON THE RICH.
"Councillor Glen Miller, leader of the Conservative group, said that Labour was portraying “a picture of severe hardship in the funding of essential services”. WHAT ELSE CAN THEY PORTRAY IT AS? "when the former Government seemed determined to bankrupt the nation" IF THAT'S TRUE WHY HAS BORROWING INCREASED UNDER THE TORIES THEN? LABOUR DID NOT "BANKRUPT THE NATION" YOU LYING TORY SACK OF SH1T, THE RECESSION WAS CAUSED BY THE AMERICAN HOUSING AND STOCK MARKETS AND UNREGULATED GREED OF VULTURE CAPITALISTS. ALL GOVERNMENTS BORROW. LABOUR GOVERNMENTS SPEND THE MONEY ON THE PEOPLE. TORY GOVERNMENTS SPEND MONEY ON THE RICH. Another Landless Peasant

11:55am Wed 28 Nov 12

Albion. says...

Another Landless Peasant wrote:
"Councillor Glen Miller, leader of the Conservative group, said that Labour was portraying “a picture of severe hardship in the funding of essential services”.

WHAT ELSE CAN THEY PORTRAY IT AS?


"when the former Government seemed determined to bankrupt the nation"

IF THAT'S TRUE WHY HAS BORROWING INCREASED UNDER THE TORIES THEN?

LABOUR DID NOT "BANKRUPT THE NATION" YOU LYING TORY SACK OF SH1T, THE RECESSION WAS CAUSED BY THE AMERICAN HOUSING AND STOCK MARKETS AND UNREGULATED GREED OF VULTURE CAPITALISTS. ALL GOVERNMENTS BORROW. LABOUR GOVERNMENTS SPEND THE MONEY ON THE PEOPLE. TORY GOVERNMENTS SPEND MONEY ON THE RICH.
Gordon's "prudence" was anything but.
[quote][p][bold]Another Landless Peasant[/bold] wrote: "Councillor Glen Miller, leader of the Conservative group, said that Labour was portraying “a picture of severe hardship in the funding of essential services”. WHAT ELSE CAN THEY PORTRAY IT AS? "when the former Government seemed determined to bankrupt the nation" IF THAT'S TRUE WHY HAS BORROWING INCREASED UNDER THE TORIES THEN? LABOUR DID NOT "BANKRUPT THE NATION" YOU LYING TORY SACK OF SH1T, THE RECESSION WAS CAUSED BY THE AMERICAN HOUSING AND STOCK MARKETS AND UNREGULATED GREED OF VULTURE CAPITALISTS. ALL GOVERNMENTS BORROW. LABOUR GOVERNMENTS SPEND THE MONEY ON THE PEOPLE. TORY GOVERNMENTS SPEND MONEY ON THE RICH.[/p][/quote]Gordon's "prudence" was anything but. Albion.

11:56am Wed 28 Nov 12

Thee Voice of Reason says...

Another Landless Peasant wrote:
"Councillor Glen Miller, leader of the Conservative group, said that Labour was portraying “a picture of severe hardship in the funding of essential services”. WHAT ELSE CAN THEY PORTRAY IT AS? "when the former Government seemed determined to bankrupt the nation" IF THAT'S TRUE WHY HAS BORROWING INCREASED UNDER THE TORIES THEN? LABOUR DID NOT "BANKRUPT THE NATION" YOU LYING TORY SACK OF SH1T, THE RECESSION WAS CAUSED BY THE AMERICAN HOUSING AND STOCK MARKETS AND UNREGULATED GREED OF VULTURE CAPITALISTS. ALL GOVERNMENTS BORROW. LABOUR GOVERNMENTS SPEND THE MONEY ON THE PEOPLE. TORY GOVERNMENTS SPEND MONEY ON THE RICH.
Your boring everyone, can you tell us why your beloved Labour took children off a couple because they are members of UKIP?

Are labour wanting to follow in Nazi Germany's footsteps and remove the rights of those who have different political views?
[quote][p][bold]Another Landless Peasant[/bold] wrote: "Councillor Glen Miller, leader of the Conservative group, said that Labour was portraying “a picture of severe hardship in the funding of essential services”. WHAT ELSE CAN THEY PORTRAY IT AS? "when the former Government seemed determined to bankrupt the nation" IF THAT'S TRUE WHY HAS BORROWING INCREASED UNDER THE TORIES THEN? LABOUR DID NOT "BANKRUPT THE NATION" YOU LYING TORY SACK OF SH1T, THE RECESSION WAS CAUSED BY THE AMERICAN HOUSING AND STOCK MARKETS AND UNREGULATED GREED OF VULTURE CAPITALISTS. ALL GOVERNMENTS BORROW. LABOUR GOVERNMENTS SPEND THE MONEY ON THE PEOPLE. TORY GOVERNMENTS SPEND MONEY ON THE RICH.[/p][/quote]Your boring everyone, can you tell us why your beloved Labour took children off a couple because they are members of UKIP? Are labour wanting to follow in Nazi Germany's footsteps and remove the rights of those who have different political views? Thee Voice of Reason

11:58am Wed 28 Nov 12

Another Landless Peasant says...

I cannot believe the crass stupidity of the morons commenting on here - *SHAKES HEAD IN DISBELIEF* -

Compalining about speed cameras that are very much needed to catch the lunatics on our roads???

Complaining about the funding of our ESSENTIAL Unions who are needed more now than ever before????

WAKE UP. GET THESE TORY CLOWNS OUT OF GOVERNMENT BEFORE THEY ARE THE RUIN OF THIS COUNTRY !!!!
I cannot believe the crass stupidity of the morons commenting on here - *SHAKES HEAD IN DISBELIEF* - Compalining about speed cameras that are very much needed to catch the lunatics on our roads??? Complaining about the funding of our ESSENTIAL Unions who are needed more now than ever before???? WAKE UP. GET THESE TORY CLOWNS OUT OF GOVERNMENT BEFORE THEY ARE THE RUIN OF THIS COUNTRY !!!! Another Landless Peasant

12:00pm Wed 28 Nov 12

Another Landless Peasant says...

People who are members of UKIP are OBVIOUSLY unsuitable parents for European foster children, ****. They did right to take the kids off them. They are unfit to be parents.
People who are members of UKIP are OBVIOUSLY unsuitable parents for European foster children, ****. They did right to take the kids off them. They are unfit to be parents. Another Landless Peasant

12:03pm Wed 28 Nov 12

Another Landless Peasant says...

I'd rather have Gordon Brown than David Cameron any day! Why can't you see what is happening before your very eyes? You people deserve all you get, if you are really that stupid. Unbelievable.
I'd rather have Gordon Brown than David Cameron any day! Why can't you see what is happening before your very eyes? You people deserve all you get, if you are really that stupid. Unbelievable. Another Landless Peasant

12:09pm Wed 28 Nov 12

Another Landless Peasant says...

THE TORIES ARE PUBLIC ENEMY NUMBER ONE. IT IS THEIR MISSION TO KEEP YOU FACE DOWN IN THE DIRT WITH THEIR JACKBOOT ON YOUR HEAD. THEY ARE SCUM AND THEY ARE WILLFULLY OUT TO DESTROY EVERYTHING WE HAVE ACHIEVED OVER THE LAST CENTURY OR MORE. NEVER MIND THE 'BIG SOCIETY' THIS IS ALL-UT CLASS WAR !!!!! TAKE TO THE STREETS, GET OUT ON STRIKE, MAKE A STAND, PROTEST, DO NOT COMPLY, BRING THESE B'STRDS DOWN BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE!!! OFF WITH THEIR HEADS !!!!!!!
THE TORIES ARE PUBLIC ENEMY NUMBER ONE. IT IS THEIR MISSION TO KEEP YOU FACE DOWN IN THE DIRT WITH THEIR JACKBOOT ON YOUR HEAD. THEY ARE SCUM AND THEY ARE WILLFULLY OUT TO DESTROY EVERYTHING WE HAVE ACHIEVED OVER THE LAST CENTURY OR MORE. NEVER MIND THE 'BIG SOCIETY' THIS IS ALL-UT CLASS WAR !!!!! TAKE TO THE STREETS, GET OUT ON STRIKE, MAKE A STAND, PROTEST, DO NOT COMPLY, BRING THESE B'STRDS DOWN BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE!!! OFF WITH THEIR HEADS !!!!!!! Another Landless Peasant

12:11pm Wed 28 Nov 12

Another Landless Peasant says...

Cameron, Osborne, Gove, Pickles, Grayling, Duncan-Smith = THE FOURTH REICH
Cameron, Osborne, Gove, Pickles, Grayling, Duncan-Smith = THE FOURTH REICH Another Landless Peasant

12:16pm Wed 28 Nov 12

webess says...

Another Landless Peasant wrote:
I'd rather have Gordon Brown than David Cameron any day! Why can't you see what is happening before your very eyes? You people deserve all you get, if you are really that stupid. Unbelievable.
As a tory supporter I love your posts..

Keep the good work.
[quote][p][bold]Another Landless Peasant[/bold] wrote: I'd rather have Gordon Brown than David Cameron any day! Why can't you see what is happening before your very eyes? You people deserve all you get, if you are really that stupid. Unbelievable.[/p][/quote]As a tory supporter I love your posts.. Keep the good work. webess

12:17pm Wed 28 Nov 12

Albion. says...

Another Landless Peasant wrote:
THE TORIES ARE PUBLIC ENEMY NUMBER ONE. IT IS THEIR MISSION TO KEEP YOU FACE DOWN IN THE DIRT WITH THEIR JACKBOOT ON YOUR HEAD. THEY ARE SCUM AND THEY ARE WILLFULLY OUT TO DESTROY EVERYTHING WE HAVE ACHIEVED OVER THE LAST CENTURY OR MORE. NEVER MIND THE 'BIG SOCIETY' THIS IS ALL-UT CLASS WAR !!!!! TAKE TO THE STREETS, GET OUT ON STRIKE, MAKE A STAND, PROTEST, DO NOT COMPLY, BRING THESE B'STRDS DOWN BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE!!! OFF WITH THEIR HEADS !!!!!!!
"EVERYTHING WE HAVE ACHIEVED "
Erm, We?
[quote][p][bold]Another Landless Peasant[/bold] wrote: THE TORIES ARE PUBLIC ENEMY NUMBER ONE. IT IS THEIR MISSION TO KEEP YOU FACE DOWN IN THE DIRT WITH THEIR JACKBOOT ON YOUR HEAD. THEY ARE SCUM AND THEY ARE WILLFULLY OUT TO DESTROY EVERYTHING WE HAVE ACHIEVED OVER THE LAST CENTURY OR MORE. NEVER MIND THE 'BIG SOCIETY' THIS IS ALL-UT CLASS WAR !!!!! TAKE TO THE STREETS, GET OUT ON STRIKE, MAKE A STAND, PROTEST, DO NOT COMPLY, BRING THESE B'STRDS DOWN BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE!!! OFF WITH THEIR HEADS !!!!!!![/p][/quote]"EVERYTHING WE HAVE ACHIEVED " Erm, We? Albion.

1:03pm Wed 28 Nov 12

RollandSmoke says...

As I've mentioned before the left right paradigm is a smokescreen. All parties have adopted Common Purpose and that purpose isn't to serve us. Governments don't run countries Goldman Sachs does as will no doubt become more apparent as their man takes his place at the head of the Bank of England. I'd be careful of calling for strikes as the more right wing, who got bored whilst waiting in the queue for empathy and compassion, went home and began twitching their curtains, will no doubt have Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged on their bedside table like some form of bible.
As I've mentioned before the left right paradigm is a smokescreen. All parties have adopted Common Purpose and that purpose isn't to serve us. Governments don't run countries Goldman Sachs does as will no doubt become more apparent as their man takes his place at the head of the Bank of England. I'd be careful of calling for strikes as the more right wing, who got bored whilst waiting in the queue for empathy and compassion, went home and began twitching their curtains, will no doubt have Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged on their bedside table like some form of bible. RollandSmoke

2:01pm Wed 28 Nov 12

Yorkshire Lass says...

Albion. wrote:
Another Landless Peasant wrote:
"Councillor Glen Miller, leader of the Conservative group, said that Labour was portraying “a picture of severe hardship in the funding of essential services”.

WHAT ELSE CAN THEY PORTRAY IT AS?


"when the former Government seemed determined to bankrupt the nation"

IF THAT'S TRUE WHY HAS BORROWING INCREASED UNDER THE TORIES THEN?

LABOUR DID NOT "BANKRUPT THE NATION" YOU LYING TORY SACK OF SH1T, THE RECESSION WAS CAUSED BY THE AMERICAN HOUSING AND STOCK MARKETS AND UNREGULATED GREED OF VULTURE CAPITALISTS. ALL GOVERNMENTS BORROW. LABOUR GOVERNMENTS SPEND THE MONEY ON THE PEOPLE. TORY GOVERNMENTS SPEND MONEY ON THE RICH.
Gordon's "prudence" was anything but.
Quite right and what about all of the reserves of gold being sold at low, low prices. If we still had that today and sold now at the high price it is going for, we wouldn't need to borrow every month
[quote][p][bold]Albion.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Another Landless Peasant[/bold] wrote: "Councillor Glen Miller, leader of the Conservative group, said that Labour was portraying “a picture of severe hardship in the funding of essential services”. WHAT ELSE CAN THEY PORTRAY IT AS? "when the former Government seemed determined to bankrupt the nation" IF THAT'S TRUE WHY HAS BORROWING INCREASED UNDER THE TORIES THEN? LABOUR DID NOT "BANKRUPT THE NATION" YOU LYING TORY SACK OF SH1T, THE RECESSION WAS CAUSED BY THE AMERICAN HOUSING AND STOCK MARKETS AND UNREGULATED GREED OF VULTURE CAPITALISTS. ALL GOVERNMENTS BORROW. LABOUR GOVERNMENTS SPEND THE MONEY ON THE PEOPLE. TORY GOVERNMENTS SPEND MONEY ON THE RICH.[/p][/quote]Gordon's "prudence" was anything but.[/p][/quote]Quite right and what about all of the reserves of gold being sold at low, low prices. If we still had that today and sold now at the high price it is going for, we wouldn't need to borrow every month Yorkshire Lass

2:03pm Wed 28 Nov 12

WayneRouke says...

A LOT of revenue could be generated by Bradford council by simply installing a camera on the 2+ Lane on Tong Street.

Whilst waiting in the queue in the right hand lane recently, I counted the number of cars using the lane with 1 person in it, and those with more than 1.

Every four out of five cars had just one occupant, and they were queue jumping.

Whether the 2+ lane is right or wrong, helps or impedes traffic flow is not up for argument, it is here and anyone abusing it is breaking the law and risking a £60.00 fine.

Most people would not dream of blatantly pushing their shopping trolley in front of someone in a queue for a till in ASDA, why do it when behind the wheel of a car??

What makes people so pig headed they think they have a right to use and abuse that lane, when law abiding citizens are politely waiting. These selfish oafs deserve the fine, in my view. But the road is not policed enough.

Imagine about £3000 per HOUR revenue, 5 days a week. For a cost of about £300.00..£780,000 a year.

That would pay a few peoples wages

Fair return and only taking money from people who deserve to have it taken from them.
A LOT of revenue could be generated by Bradford council by simply installing a camera on the 2+ Lane on Tong Street. Whilst waiting in the queue in the right hand lane recently, I counted the number of cars using the lane with 1 person in it, and those with more than 1. Every four out of five cars had just one occupant, and they were queue jumping. Whether the 2+ lane is right or wrong, helps or impedes traffic flow is not up for argument, it is here and anyone abusing it is breaking the law and risking a £60.00 fine. Most people would not dream of blatantly pushing their shopping trolley in front of someone in a queue for a till in ASDA, why do it when behind the wheel of a car?? What makes people so pig headed they think they have a right to use and abuse that lane, when law abiding citizens are politely waiting. These selfish oafs deserve the fine, in my view. But the road is not policed enough. Imagine about £3000 per HOUR revenue, 5 days a week. For a cost of about £300.00..£780,000 a year. That would pay a few peoples wages Fair return and only taking money from people who deserve to have it taken from them. WayneRouke

2:04pm Wed 28 Nov 12

WayneRouke says...

A LOT of revenue could be generated by Bradford council by simply installing a camera on the 2+ Lane on Tong Street.

Whilst waiting in the queue in the right hand lane recently, I counted the number of cars using the lane with 1 person in it, and those with more than 1.

Every four out of five cars had just one occupant, and they were queue jumping.

Whether the 2+ lane is right or wrong, helps or impedes traffic flow is not up for argument, it is here and anyone abusing it is breaking the law and risking a £60.00 fine.

Most people would not dream of blatantly pushing their shopping trolley in front of someone in a queue for a till in ASDA, why do it when behind the wheel of a car??

What makes people so pig headed they think they have a right to use and abuse that lane, when law abiding citizens are politely waiting. These selfish oafs deserve the fine, in my view. But the road is not policed enough.

Imagine about £3000 per HOUR revenue, 5 days a week. For a cost of about £300.00..£780,000 a year.

That would pay a few peoples wages

Fair return and only taking money from people who deserve to have it taken from them.
A LOT of revenue could be generated by Bradford council by simply installing a camera on the 2+ Lane on Tong Street. Whilst waiting in the queue in the right hand lane recently, I counted the number of cars using the lane with 1 person in it, and those with more than 1. Every four out of five cars had just one occupant, and they were queue jumping. Whether the 2+ lane is right or wrong, helps or impedes traffic flow is not up for argument, it is here and anyone abusing it is breaking the law and risking a £60.00 fine. Most people would not dream of blatantly pushing their shopping trolley in front of someone in a queue for a till in ASDA, why do it when behind the wheel of a car?? What makes people so pig headed they think they have a right to use and abuse that lane, when law abiding citizens are politely waiting. These selfish oafs deserve the fine, in my view. But the road is not policed enough. Imagine about £3000 per HOUR revenue, 5 days a week. For a cost of about £300.00..£780,000 a year. That would pay a few peoples wages Fair return and only taking money from people who deserve to have it taken from them. WayneRouke

2:04pm Wed 28 Nov 12

WayneRouke says...

A LOT of revenue could be generated by Bradford council by simply installing a camera on the 2+ Lane on Tong Street.

Whilst waiting in the queue in the right hand lane recently, I counted the number of cars using the lane with 1 person in it, and those with more than 1.

Every four out of five cars had just one occupant, and they were queue jumping.

Whether the 2+ lane is right or wrong, helps or impedes traffic flow is not up for argument, it is here and anyone abusing it is breaking the law and risking a £60.00 fine.

Most people would not dream of blatantly pushing their shopping trolley in front of someone in a queue for a till in ASDA, why do it when behind the wheel of a car??

What makes people so pig headed they think they have a right to use and abuse that lane, when law abiding citizens are politely waiting. These selfish oafs deserve the fine, in my view. But the road is not policed enough.

Imagine about £3000 per HOUR revenue, 5 days a week. For a cost of about £300.00..£780,000 a year.

That would pay a few peoples wages

Fair return and only taking money from people who deserve to have it taken from them.
A LOT of revenue could be generated by Bradford council by simply installing a camera on the 2+ Lane on Tong Street. Whilst waiting in the queue in the right hand lane recently, I counted the number of cars using the lane with 1 person in it, and those with more than 1. Every four out of five cars had just one occupant, and they were queue jumping. Whether the 2+ lane is right or wrong, helps or impedes traffic flow is not up for argument, it is here and anyone abusing it is breaking the law and risking a £60.00 fine. Most people would not dream of blatantly pushing their shopping trolley in front of someone in a queue for a till in ASDA, why do it when behind the wheel of a car?? What makes people so pig headed they think they have a right to use and abuse that lane, when law abiding citizens are politely waiting. These selfish oafs deserve the fine, in my view. But the road is not policed enough. Imagine about £3000 per HOUR revenue, 5 days a week. For a cost of about £300.00..£780,000 a year. That would pay a few peoples wages Fair return and only taking money from people who deserve to have it taken from them. WayneRouke

2:16pm Wed 28 Nov 12

thingybob68 says...

Bradford has a large problem with worklessness, alcohol abuse and poor educational and professional achievement, meaning many are in low skilled jobs paying low wages.

The result, a pretty much broke and inept council, a reflection of Bradford itself.

We only have ourselves to blame.
Bradford has a large problem with worklessness, alcohol abuse and poor educational and professional achievement, meaning many are in low skilled jobs paying low wages. The result, a pretty much broke and inept council, a reflection of Bradford itself. We only have ourselves to blame. thingybob68

2:38pm Wed 28 Nov 12

vax2002 says...

WayneRouke wrote:
A LOT of revenue could be generated by Bradford council by simply installing a camera on the 2+ Lane on Tong Street.

Whilst waiting in the queue in the right hand lane recently, I counted the number of cars using the lane with 1 person in it, and those with more than 1.

Every four out of five cars had just one occupant, and they were queue jumping.

Whether the 2+ lane is right or wrong, helps or impedes traffic flow is not up for argument, it is here and anyone abusing it is breaking the law and risking a £60.00 fine.

Most people would not dream of blatantly pushing their shopping trolley in front of someone in a queue for a till in ASDA, why do it when behind the wheel of a car??

What makes people so pig headed they think they have a right to use and abuse that lane, when law abiding citizens are politely waiting. These selfish oafs deserve the fine, in my view. But the road is not policed enough.

Imagine about £3000 per HOUR revenue, 5 days a week. For a cost of about £300.00..£780,000 a year.

That would pay a few peoples wages

Fair return and only taking money from people who deserve to have it taken from them.
The pig headed ones are those who think that a 2+ lane is a good idea.
Cameras are in development to police these lanes, by a company owned by Chris Hume, the same bloke who campaigned to introduced them, what a coincidence.
The same bloke who has had his trial for fiddling a speed camera kicked in to the long grass.
What is good for the goose is never good for the gander.
[quote][p][bold]WayneRouke[/bold] wrote: A LOT of revenue could be generated by Bradford council by simply installing a camera on the 2+ Lane on Tong Street. Whilst waiting in the queue in the right hand lane recently, I counted the number of cars using the lane with 1 person in it, and those with more than 1. Every four out of five cars had just one occupant, and they were queue jumping. Whether the 2+ lane is right or wrong, helps or impedes traffic flow is not up for argument, it is here and anyone abusing it is breaking the law and risking a £60.00 fine. Most people would not dream of blatantly pushing their shopping trolley in front of someone in a queue for a till in ASDA, why do it when behind the wheel of a car?? What makes people so pig headed they think they have a right to use and abuse that lane, when law abiding citizens are politely waiting. These selfish oafs deserve the fine, in my view. But the road is not policed enough. Imagine about £3000 per HOUR revenue, 5 days a week. For a cost of about £300.00..£780,000 a year. That would pay a few peoples wages Fair return and only taking money from people who deserve to have it taken from them.[/p][/quote]The pig headed ones are those who think that a 2+ lane is a good idea. Cameras are in development to police these lanes, by a company owned by Chris Hume, the same bloke who campaigned to introduced them, what a coincidence. The same bloke who has had his trial for fiddling a speed camera kicked in to the long grass. What is good for the goose is never good for the gander. vax2002

2:46pm Wed 28 Nov 12

webess says...

vax2002 wrote:
WayneRouke wrote:
A LOT of revenue could be generated by Bradford council by simply installing a camera on the 2+ Lane on Tong Street.

Whilst waiting in the queue in the right hand lane recently, I counted the number of cars using the lane with 1 person in it, and those with more than 1.

Every four out of five cars had just one occupant, and they were queue jumping.

Whether the 2+ lane is right or wrong, helps or impedes traffic flow is not up for argument, it is here and anyone abusing it is breaking the law and risking a £60.00 fine.

Most people would not dream of blatantly pushing their shopping trolley in front of someone in a queue for a till in ASDA, why do it when behind the wheel of a car??

What makes people so pig headed they think they have a right to use and abuse that lane, when law abiding citizens are politely waiting. These selfish oafs deserve the fine, in my view. But the road is not policed enough.

Imagine about £3000 per HOUR revenue, 5 days a week. For a cost of about £300.00..£780,000 a year.

That would pay a few peoples wages

Fair return and only taking money from people who deserve to have it taken from them.
The pig headed ones are those who think that a 2+ lane is a good idea.
Cameras are in development to police these lanes, by a company owned by Chris Hume, the same bloke who campaigned to introduced them, what a coincidence.
The same bloke who has had his trial for fiddling a speed camera kicked in to the long grass.
What is good for the goose is never good for the gander.
There was an article in T&A where council admitted the 2+ lane hasn't worked. In fact it's made the situation worse.
The sensible course of action would be to scrap it. The fact they're keeping it looks like they are in fact going to use it as a cash cow
[quote][p][bold]vax2002[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WayneRouke[/bold] wrote: A LOT of revenue could be generated by Bradford council by simply installing a camera on the 2+ Lane on Tong Street. Whilst waiting in the queue in the right hand lane recently, I counted the number of cars using the lane with 1 person in it, and those with more than 1. Every four out of five cars had just one occupant, and they were queue jumping. Whether the 2+ lane is right or wrong, helps or impedes traffic flow is not up for argument, it is here and anyone abusing it is breaking the law and risking a £60.00 fine. Most people would not dream of blatantly pushing their shopping trolley in front of someone in a queue for a till in ASDA, why do it when behind the wheel of a car?? What makes people so pig headed they think they have a right to use and abuse that lane, when law abiding citizens are politely waiting. These selfish oafs deserve the fine, in my view. But the road is not policed enough. Imagine about £3000 per HOUR revenue, 5 days a week. For a cost of about £300.00..£780,000 a year. That would pay a few peoples wages Fair return and only taking money from people who deserve to have it taken from them.[/p][/quote]The pig headed ones are those who think that a 2+ lane is a good idea. Cameras are in development to police these lanes, by a company owned by Chris Hume, the same bloke who campaigned to introduced them, what a coincidence. The same bloke who has had his trial for fiddling a speed camera kicked in to the long grass. What is good for the goose is never good for the gander.[/p][/quote]There was an article in T&A where council admitted the 2+ lane hasn't worked. In fact it's made the situation worse. The sensible course of action would be to scrap it. The fact they're keeping it looks like they are in fact going to use it as a cash cow webess

2:47pm Wed 28 Nov 12

WayneRouke says...

vax2002 wrote:
WayneRouke wrote:
A LOT of revenue could be generated by Bradford council by simply installing a camera on the 2+ Lane on Tong Street.

Whilst waiting in the queue in the right hand lane recently, I counted the number of cars using the lane with 1 person in it, and those with more than 1.

Every four out of five cars had just one occupant, and they were queue jumping.

Whether the 2+ lane is right or wrong, helps or impedes traffic flow is not up for argument, it is here and anyone abusing it is breaking the law and risking a £60.00 fine.

Most people would not dream of blatantly pushing their shopping trolley in front of someone in a queue for a till in ASDA, why do it when behind the wheel of a car??

What makes people so pig headed they think they have a right to use and abuse that lane, when law abiding citizens are politely waiting. These selfish oafs deserve the fine, in my view. But the road is not policed enough.

Imagine about £3000 per HOUR revenue, 5 days a week. For a cost of about £300.00..£780,000 a year.

That would pay a few peoples wages

Fair return and only taking money from people who deserve to have it taken from them.
The pig headed ones are those who think that a 2+ lane is a good idea.
Cameras are in development to police these lanes, by a company owned by Chris Hume, the same bloke who campaigned to introduced them, what a coincidence.
The same bloke who has had his trial for fiddling a speed camera kicked in to the long grass.
What is good for the goose is never good for the gander.
I did not say the 2+ lane was good or bad, I said it is here, and abusing it will incur a fine. I abide by the law, even if my journey is delayed by three minutes, and as such will not incur a fine.

If what you say is true (I cant find any evidence) then I do not see those who see it as a good thing as being pigheaded, more greedy and possibly abusing their position.

Its all about perspective. For example, when I am on my own and waiting in the right hand lane, I do not see it as a good thing, but when I have someone with me and I am moving (legally) in it, I do see it as a good thing. I may be jumping the queue, but I am doing so legally. Those oafs who do so illegally deserve my contempt and the fine.

If four out of five abuse the system, then perhaps the system is wrong.. But for the time being, it is here.
[quote][p][bold]vax2002[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WayneRouke[/bold] wrote: A LOT of revenue could be generated by Bradford council by simply installing a camera on the 2+ Lane on Tong Street. Whilst waiting in the queue in the right hand lane recently, I counted the number of cars using the lane with 1 person in it, and those with more than 1. Every four out of five cars had just one occupant, and they were queue jumping. Whether the 2+ lane is right or wrong, helps or impedes traffic flow is not up for argument, it is here and anyone abusing it is breaking the law and risking a £60.00 fine. Most people would not dream of blatantly pushing their shopping trolley in front of someone in a queue for a till in ASDA, why do it when behind the wheel of a car?? What makes people so pig headed they think they have a right to use and abuse that lane, when law abiding citizens are politely waiting. These selfish oafs deserve the fine, in my view. But the road is not policed enough. Imagine about £3000 per HOUR revenue, 5 days a week. For a cost of about £300.00..£780,000 a year. That would pay a few peoples wages Fair return and only taking money from people who deserve to have it taken from them.[/p][/quote]The pig headed ones are those who think that a 2+ lane is a good idea. Cameras are in development to police these lanes, by a company owned by Chris Hume, the same bloke who campaigned to introduced them, what a coincidence. The same bloke who has had his trial for fiddling a speed camera kicked in to the long grass. What is good for the goose is never good for the gander.[/p][/quote]I did not say the 2+ lane was good or bad, I said it is here, and abusing it will incur a fine. I abide by the law, even if my journey is delayed by three minutes, and as such will not incur a fine. If what you say is true (I cant find any evidence) then I do not see those who see it as a good thing as being pigheaded, more greedy and possibly abusing their position. Its all about perspective. For example, when I am on my own and waiting in the right hand lane, I do not see it as a good thing, but when I have someone with me and I am moving (legally) in it, I do see it as a good thing. I may be jumping the queue, but I am doing so legally. Those oafs who do so illegally deserve my contempt and the fine. If four out of five abuse the system, then perhaps the system is wrong.. But for the time being, it is here. WayneRouke

3:00pm Wed 28 Nov 12

RuggerTyke says...

Barra Mac Ruairi evading the cull, then ?.
Barra Mac Ruairi evading the cull, then ?. RuggerTyke

3:36pm Wed 28 Nov 12

Idlelord says...

Cant we jolly this up by having a caption contest for the picture of Cllr Hopeless? How about "Who's desk is this?
Cant we jolly this up by having a caption contest for the picture of Cllr Hopeless? How about "Who's desk is this? Idlelord

3:37pm Wed 28 Nov 12

Shelfrhino says...

The cuts should be aimed at those in society who contribute nothing, ie, the work shy, the substance dependant and all other scroungers. First thing I would slash is housing benefit, this is so open to abuse it's unreal. If you can't afford to house your family then you shouldn't have one. Why should hard working people pay for the idle and the useless to breed, we do not need another generation of leeches and tramps.
The cuts should be aimed at those in society who contribute nothing, ie, the work shy, the substance dependant and all other scroungers. First thing I would slash is housing benefit, this is so open to abuse it's unreal. If you can't afford to house your family then you shouldn't have one. Why should hard working people pay for the idle and the useless to breed, we do not need another generation of leeches and tramps. Shelfrhino

3:40pm Wed 28 Nov 12

thingybob68 says...

Shelfrhino wrote:
The cuts should be aimed at those in society who contribute nothing, ie, the work shy, the substance dependant and all other scroungers. First thing I would slash is housing benefit, this is so open to abuse it's unreal. If you can't afford to house your family then you shouldn't have one. Why should hard working people pay for the idle and the useless to breed, we do not need another generation of leeches and tramps.
here, here.
[quote][p][bold]Shelfrhino[/bold] wrote: The cuts should be aimed at those in society who contribute nothing, ie, the work shy, the substance dependant and all other scroungers. First thing I would slash is housing benefit, this is so open to abuse it's unreal. If you can't afford to house your family then you shouldn't have one. Why should hard working people pay for the idle and the useless to breed, we do not need another generation of leeches and tramps.[/p][/quote]here, here. thingybob68

3:42pm Wed 28 Nov 12

tinytoonster says...

thingybob68 wrote:
Bradford has a large problem with worklessness, alcohol abuse and poor educational and professional achievement, meaning many are in low skilled jobs paying low wages.

The result, a pretty much broke and inept council, a reflection of Bradford itself.

We only have ourselves to blame.
you have just described the moron that his: Another Landless Peasant!
apart from the job bit of course.
can he not be banned?
its like listening to a labour conference but with LESS intelligence of course!!
complain about everything without doing ANYTHING!
stop his benefits and throw him in the street!
[quote][p][bold]thingybob68[/bold] wrote: Bradford has a large problem with worklessness, alcohol abuse and poor educational and professional achievement, meaning many are in low skilled jobs paying low wages. The result, a pretty much broke and inept council, a reflection of Bradford itself. We only have ourselves to blame.[/p][/quote]you have just described the moron that his: Another Landless Peasant! apart from the job bit of course. can he not be banned? its like listening to a labour conference but with LESS intelligence of course!! complain about everything without doing ANYTHING! stop his benefits and throw him in the street! tinytoonster

3:46pm Wed 28 Nov 12

tinytoonster says...

how about the council members taking a pay cut or put them on performance related pay? amounts to the same thing!!!
never happen.
how about the council members taking a pay cut or put them on performance related pay? amounts to the same thing!!! never happen. tinytoonster

4:06pm Wed 28 Nov 12

RollandSmoke says...

tinytoonster wrote:
thingybob68 wrote:
Bradford has a large problem with worklessness, alcohol abuse and poor educational and professional achievement, meaning many are in low skilled jobs paying low wages.

The result, a pretty much broke and inept council, a reflection of Bradford itself.

We only have ourselves to blame.
you have just described the moron that his: Another Landless Peasant!
apart from the job bit of course.
can he not be banned?
its like listening to a labour conference but with LESS intelligence of course!!
complain about everything without doing ANYTHING!
stop his benefits and throw him in the street!
So you'd rather pay higher insurance premiums and more council tax to fund the police and private prison services to protect you from the people driven to crime through desperation due to the policies you advocate? Smart guy. You've obviously given this a little thought.
[quote][p][bold]tinytoonster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thingybob68[/bold] wrote: Bradford has a large problem with worklessness, alcohol abuse and poor educational and professional achievement, meaning many are in low skilled jobs paying low wages. The result, a pretty much broke and inept council, a reflection of Bradford itself. We only have ourselves to blame.[/p][/quote]you have just described the moron that his: Another Landless Peasant! apart from the job bit of course. can he not be banned? its like listening to a labour conference but with LESS intelligence of course!! complain about everything without doing ANYTHING! stop his benefits and throw him in the street![/p][/quote]So you'd rather pay higher insurance premiums and more council tax to fund the police and private prison services to protect you from the people driven to crime through desperation due to the policies you advocate? Smart guy. You've obviously given this a little thought. RollandSmoke

4:13pm Wed 28 Nov 12

webess says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
tinytoonster wrote:
thingybob68 wrote:
Bradford has a large problem with worklessness, alcohol abuse and poor educational and professional achievement, meaning many are in low skilled jobs paying low wages.

The result, a pretty much broke and inept council, a reflection of Bradford itself.

We only have ourselves to blame.
you have just described the moron that his: Another Landless Peasant!
apart from the job bit of course.
can he not be banned?
its like listening to a labour conference but with LESS intelligence of course!!
complain about everything without doing ANYTHING!
stop his benefits and throw him in the street!
So you'd rather pay higher insurance premiums and more council tax to fund the police and private prison services to protect you from the people driven to crime through desperation due to the policies you advocate? Smart guy. You've obviously given this a little thought.
There might be short term issues, but the present policy of feather bedding the dregs of society isn't sustainable.
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tinytoonster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thingybob68[/bold] wrote: Bradford has a large problem with worklessness, alcohol abuse and poor educational and professional achievement, meaning many are in low skilled jobs paying low wages. The result, a pretty much broke and inept council, a reflection of Bradford itself. We only have ourselves to blame.[/p][/quote]you have just described the moron that his: Another Landless Peasant! apart from the job bit of course. can he not be banned? its like listening to a labour conference but with LESS intelligence of course!! complain about everything without doing ANYTHING! stop his benefits and throw him in the street![/p][/quote]So you'd rather pay higher insurance premiums and more council tax to fund the police and private prison services to protect you from the people driven to crime through desperation due to the policies you advocate? Smart guy. You've obviously given this a little thought.[/p][/quote]There might be short term issues, but the present policy of feather bedding the dregs of society isn't sustainable. webess

4:19pm Wed 28 Nov 12

WayneRouke says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
tinytoonster wrote:
thingybob68 wrote:
Bradford has a large problem with worklessness, alcohol abuse and poor educational and professional achievement, meaning many are in low skilled jobs paying low wages.

The result, a pretty much broke and inept council, a reflection of Bradford itself.

We only have ourselves to blame.
you have just described the moron that his: Another Landless Peasant!
apart from the job bit of course.
can he not be banned?
its like listening to a labour conference but with LESS intelligence of course!!
complain about everything without doing ANYTHING!
stop his benefits and throw him in the street!
So you'd rather pay higher insurance premiums and more council tax to fund the police and private prison services to protect you from the people driven to crime through desperation due to the policies you advocate? Smart guy. You've obviously given this a little thought.
Yes I would, short term, be prepared to pay a bit more as long as it was deliberately target at getting scum off our streets.

But would not be more, as the money NOT given to the dregs would be diverted to fighting crime and keeping our streets safe.
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tinytoonster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thingybob68[/bold] wrote: Bradford has a large problem with worklessness, alcohol abuse and poor educational and professional achievement, meaning many are in low skilled jobs paying low wages. The result, a pretty much broke and inept council, a reflection of Bradford itself. We only have ourselves to blame.[/p][/quote]you have just described the moron that his: Another Landless Peasant! apart from the job bit of course. can he not be banned? its like listening to a labour conference but with LESS intelligence of course!! complain about everything without doing ANYTHING! stop his benefits and throw him in the street![/p][/quote]So you'd rather pay higher insurance premiums and more council tax to fund the police and private prison services to protect you from the people driven to crime through desperation due to the policies you advocate? Smart guy. You've obviously given this a little thought.[/p][/quote]Yes I would, short term, be prepared to pay a bit more as long as it was deliberately target at getting scum off our streets. But would not be more, as the money NOT given to the dregs would be diverted to fighting crime and keeping our streets safe. WayneRouke

4:23pm Wed 28 Nov 12

RollandSmoke says...

webess wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
tinytoonster wrote:
thingybob68 wrote:
Bradford has a large problem with worklessness, alcohol abuse and poor educational and professional achievement, meaning many are in low skilled jobs paying low wages.

The result, a pretty much broke and inept council, a reflection of Bradford itself.

We only have ourselves to blame.
you have just described the moron that his: Another Landless Peasant!
apart from the job bit of course.
can he not be banned?
its like listening to a labour conference but with LESS intelligence of course!!
complain about everything without doing ANYTHING!
stop his benefits and throw him in the street!
So you'd rather pay higher insurance premiums and more council tax to fund the police and private prison services to protect you from the people driven to crime through desperation due to the policies you advocate? Smart guy. You've obviously given this a little thought.
There might be short term issues, but the present policy of feather bedding the dregs of society isn't sustainable.
How long do you think it would take to round them all up and get them safely put away? Is it worth feeding them once we've dealt with them or would that just be wasteful feather bedding prolonging processing times? Can you suggest further efficiency savings?
[quote][p][bold]webess[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tinytoonster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thingybob68[/bold] wrote: Bradford has a large problem with worklessness, alcohol abuse and poor educational and professional achievement, meaning many are in low skilled jobs paying low wages. The result, a pretty much broke and inept council, a reflection of Bradford itself. We only have ourselves to blame.[/p][/quote]you have just described the moron that his: Another Landless Peasant! apart from the job bit of course. can he not be banned? its like listening to a labour conference but with LESS intelligence of course!! complain about everything without doing ANYTHING! stop his benefits and throw him in the street![/p][/quote]So you'd rather pay higher insurance premiums and more council tax to fund the police and private prison services to protect you from the people driven to crime through desperation due to the policies you advocate? Smart guy. You've obviously given this a little thought.[/p][/quote]There might be short term issues, but the present policy of feather bedding the dregs of society isn't sustainable.[/p][/quote]How long do you think it would take to round them all up and get them safely put away? Is it worth feeding them once we've dealt with them or would that just be wasteful feather bedding prolonging processing times? Can you suggest further efficiency savings? RollandSmoke

4:38pm Wed 28 Nov 12

WayneRouke says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
webess wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
tinytoonster wrote:
thingybob68 wrote:
Bradford has a large problem with worklessness, alcohol abuse and poor educational and professional achievement, meaning many are in low skilled jobs paying low wages.

The result, a pretty much broke and inept council, a reflection of Bradford itself.

We only have ourselves to blame.
you have just described the moron that his: Another Landless Peasant!
apart from the job bit of course.
can he not be banned?
its like listening to a labour conference but with LESS intelligence of course!!
complain about everything without doing ANYTHING!
stop his benefits and throw him in the street!
So you'd rather pay higher insurance premiums and more council tax to fund the police and private prison services to protect you from the people driven to crime through desperation due to the policies you advocate? Smart guy. You've obviously given this a little thought.
There might be short term issues, but the present policy of feather bedding the dregs of society isn't sustainable.
How long do you think it would take to round them all up and get them safely put away? Is it worth feeding them once we've dealt with them or would that just be wasteful feather bedding prolonging processing times? Can you suggest further efficiency savings?
Can you suggest further efficiency savings?

I have something in mind, but my freedom of speech rights refer to what I say, not what I write, so unfortunately I cannot express it.
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]webess[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tinytoonster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thingybob68[/bold] wrote: Bradford has a large problem with worklessness, alcohol abuse and poor educational and professional achievement, meaning many are in low skilled jobs paying low wages. The result, a pretty much broke and inept council, a reflection of Bradford itself. We only have ourselves to blame.[/p][/quote]you have just described the moron that his: Another Landless Peasant! apart from the job bit of course. can he not be banned? its like listening to a labour conference but with LESS intelligence of course!! complain about everything without doing ANYTHING! stop his benefits and throw him in the street![/p][/quote]So you'd rather pay higher insurance premiums and more council tax to fund the police and private prison services to protect you from the people driven to crime through desperation due to the policies you advocate? Smart guy. You've obviously given this a little thought.[/p][/quote]There might be short term issues, but the present policy of feather bedding the dregs of society isn't sustainable.[/p][/quote]How long do you think it would take to round them all up and get them safely put away? Is it worth feeding them once we've dealt with them or would that just be wasteful feather bedding prolonging processing times? Can you suggest further efficiency savings?[/p][/quote]Can you suggest further efficiency savings? I have something in mind, but my freedom of speech rights refer to what I say, not what I write, so unfortunately I cannot express it. WayneRouke

5:13pm Wed 28 Nov 12

flogem says...

Another Landless Peasant wrote:
"Councillor Glen Miller, leader of the Conservative group, said that Labour was portraying “a picture of severe hardship in the funding of essential services”. WHAT ELSE CAN THEY PORTRAY IT AS? "when the former Government seemed determined to bankrupt the nation" IF THAT'S TRUE WHY HAS BORROWING INCREASED UNDER THE TORIES THEN? LABOUR DID NOT "BANKRUPT THE NATION" YOU LYING TORY SACK OF SH1T, THE RECESSION WAS CAUSED BY THE AMERICAN HOUSING AND STOCK MARKETS AND UNREGULATED GREED OF VULTURE CAPITALISTS. ALL GOVERNMENTS BORROW. LABOUR GOVERNMENTS SPEND THE MONEY ON THE PEOPLE. TORY GOVERNMENTS SPEND MONEY ON THE RICH.
Here we go again.
[quote][p][bold]Another Landless Peasant[/bold] wrote: "Councillor Glen Miller, leader of the Conservative group, said that Labour was portraying “a picture of severe hardship in the funding of essential services”. WHAT ELSE CAN THEY PORTRAY IT AS? "when the former Government seemed determined to bankrupt the nation" IF THAT'S TRUE WHY HAS BORROWING INCREASED UNDER THE TORIES THEN? LABOUR DID NOT "BANKRUPT THE NATION" YOU LYING TORY SACK OF SH1T, THE RECESSION WAS CAUSED BY THE AMERICAN HOUSING AND STOCK MARKETS AND UNREGULATED GREED OF VULTURE CAPITALISTS. ALL GOVERNMENTS BORROW. LABOUR GOVERNMENTS SPEND THE MONEY ON THE PEOPLE. TORY GOVERNMENTS SPEND MONEY ON THE RICH.[/p][/quote]Here we go again. flogem

5:16pm Wed 28 Nov 12

flogem says...

Another Landless Peasant wrote:
THE TORIES ARE PUBLIC ENEMY NUMBER ONE. IT IS THEIR MISSION TO KEEP YOU FACE DOWN IN THE DIRT WITH THEIR JACKBOOT ON YOUR HEAD. THEY ARE SCUM AND THEY ARE WILLFULLY OUT TO DESTROY EVERYTHING WE HAVE ACHIEVED OVER THE LAST CENTURY OR MORE. NEVER MIND THE 'BIG SOCIETY' THIS IS ALL-UT CLASS WAR !!!!! TAKE TO THE STREETS, GET OUT ON STRIKE, MAKE A STAND, PROTEST, DO NOT COMPLY, BRING THESE B'STRDS DOWN BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE!!! OFF WITH THEIR HEADS !!!!!!!
Somethings upset you this time.
[quote][p][bold]Another Landless Peasant[/bold] wrote: THE TORIES ARE PUBLIC ENEMY NUMBER ONE. IT IS THEIR MISSION TO KEEP YOU FACE DOWN IN THE DIRT WITH THEIR JACKBOOT ON YOUR HEAD. THEY ARE SCUM AND THEY ARE WILLFULLY OUT TO DESTROY EVERYTHING WE HAVE ACHIEVED OVER THE LAST CENTURY OR MORE. NEVER MIND THE 'BIG SOCIETY' THIS IS ALL-UT CLASS WAR !!!!! TAKE TO THE STREETS, GET OUT ON STRIKE, MAKE A STAND, PROTEST, DO NOT COMPLY, BRING THESE B'STRDS DOWN BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE!!! OFF WITH THEIR HEADS !!!!!!![/p][/quote]Somethings upset you this time. flogem

5:26pm Wed 28 Nov 12

Albion. says...

flogem wrote:
Another Landless Peasant wrote:
THE TORIES ARE PUBLIC ENEMY NUMBER ONE. IT IS THEIR MISSION TO KEEP YOU FACE DOWN IN THE DIRT WITH THEIR JACKBOOT ON YOUR HEAD. THEY ARE SCUM AND THEY ARE WILLFULLY OUT TO DESTROY EVERYTHING WE HAVE ACHIEVED OVER THE LAST CENTURY OR MORE. NEVER MIND THE 'BIG SOCIETY' THIS IS ALL-UT CLASS WAR !!!!! TAKE TO THE STREETS, GET OUT ON STRIKE, MAKE A STAND, PROTEST, DO NOT COMPLY, BRING THESE B'STRDS DOWN BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE!!! OFF WITH THEIR HEADS !!!!!!!
Somethings upset you this time.
No! It's just time for his medication.
[quote][p][bold]flogem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Another Landless Peasant[/bold] wrote: THE TORIES ARE PUBLIC ENEMY NUMBER ONE. IT IS THEIR MISSION TO KEEP YOU FACE DOWN IN THE DIRT WITH THEIR JACKBOOT ON YOUR HEAD. THEY ARE SCUM AND THEY ARE WILLFULLY OUT TO DESTROY EVERYTHING WE HAVE ACHIEVED OVER THE LAST CENTURY OR MORE. NEVER MIND THE 'BIG SOCIETY' THIS IS ALL-UT CLASS WAR !!!!! TAKE TO THE STREETS, GET OUT ON STRIKE, MAKE A STAND, PROTEST, DO NOT COMPLY, BRING THESE B'STRDS DOWN BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE!!! OFF WITH THEIR HEADS !!!!!!![/p][/quote]Somethings upset you this time.[/p][/quote]No! It's just time for his medication. Albion.

5:27pm Wed 28 Nov 12

flogem says...

Another Landless Peasant wrote:
Cameron, Osborne, Gove, Pickles, Grayling, Duncan-Smith = THE FOURTH REICH
obviously the lobotomy didn't work.
[quote][p][bold]Another Landless Peasant[/bold] wrote: Cameron, Osborne, Gove, Pickles, Grayling, Duncan-Smith = THE FOURTH REICH[/p][/quote]obviously the lobotomy didn't work. flogem

5:30pm Wed 28 Nov 12

Super Hero says...

Does it matter what any of you think? NO!!!

The democratic system is a farce in this country. You're begged for votes so the politicians can line their own pockets. When its time to make decisions the public's view doesn't count for sh1t!!!
Does it matter what any of you think? NO!!! The democratic system is a farce in this country. You're begged for votes so the politicians can line their own pockets. When its time to make decisions the public's view doesn't count for sh1t!!! Super Hero

5:41pm Wed 28 Nov 12

RollandSmoke says...

WayneRouke wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
webess wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
tinytoonster wrote:
thingybob68 wrote:
Bradford has a large problem with worklessness, alcohol abuse and poor educational and professional achievement, meaning many are in low skilled jobs paying low wages.

The result, a pretty much broke and inept council, a reflection of Bradford itself.

We only have ourselves to blame.
you have just described the moron that his: Another Landless Peasant!
apart from the job bit of course.
can he not be banned?
its like listening to a labour conference but with LESS intelligence of course!!
complain about everything without doing ANYTHING!
stop his benefits and throw him in the street!
So you'd rather pay higher insurance premiums and more council tax to fund the police and private prison services to protect you from the people driven to crime through desperation due to the policies you advocate? Smart guy. You've obviously given this a little thought.
There might be short term issues, but the present policy of feather bedding the dregs of society isn't sustainable.
How long do you think it would take to round them all up and get them safely put away? Is it worth feeding them once we've dealt with them or would that just be wasteful feather bedding prolonging processing times? Can you suggest further efficiency savings?
Can you suggest further efficiency savings?

I have something in mind, but my freedom of speech rights refer to what I say, not what I write, so unfortunately I cannot express it.
There must be some way of you giving readers an indication of exactly how sick and twisted you are. How would you describe your ideology?
[quote][p][bold]WayneRouke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]webess[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tinytoonster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thingybob68[/bold] wrote: Bradford has a large problem with worklessness, alcohol abuse and poor educational and professional achievement, meaning many are in low skilled jobs paying low wages. The result, a pretty much broke and inept council, a reflection of Bradford itself. We only have ourselves to blame.[/p][/quote]you have just described the moron that his: Another Landless Peasant! apart from the job bit of course. can he not be banned? its like listening to a labour conference but with LESS intelligence of course!! complain about everything without doing ANYTHING! stop his benefits and throw him in the street![/p][/quote]So you'd rather pay higher insurance premiums and more council tax to fund the police and private prison services to protect you from the people driven to crime through desperation due to the policies you advocate? Smart guy. You've obviously given this a little thought.[/p][/quote]There might be short term issues, but the present policy of feather bedding the dregs of society isn't sustainable.[/p][/quote]How long do you think it would take to round them all up and get them safely put away? Is it worth feeding them once we've dealt with them or would that just be wasteful feather bedding prolonging processing times? Can you suggest further efficiency savings?[/p][/quote]Can you suggest further efficiency savings? I have something in mind, but my freedom of speech rights refer to what I say, not what I write, so unfortunately I cannot express it.[/p][/quote]There must be some way of you giving readers an indication of exactly how sick and twisted you are. How would you describe your ideology? RollandSmoke

5:53pm Wed 28 Nov 12

Shelfrhino says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
webess wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
tinytoonster wrote:
thingybob68 wrote:
Bradford has a large problem with worklessness, alcohol abuse and poor educational and professional achievement, meaning many are in low skilled jobs paying low wages.

The result, a pretty much broke and inept council, a reflection of Bradford itself.

We only have ourselves to blame.
you have just described the moron that his: Another Landless Peasant!
apart from the job bit of course.
can he not be banned?
its like listening to a labour conference but with LESS intelligence of course!!
complain about everything without doing ANYTHING!
stop his benefits and throw him in the street!
So you'd rather pay higher insurance premiums and more council tax to fund the police and private prison services to protect you from the people driven to crime through desperation due to the policies you advocate? Smart guy. You've obviously given this a little thought.
There might be short term issues, but the present policy of feather bedding the dregs of society isn't sustainable.
How long do you think it would take to round them all up and get them safely put away? Is it worth feeding them once we've dealt with them or would that just be wasteful feather bedding prolonging processing times? Can you suggest further efficiency savings?
My dad and his friends all fly over to Scotland from Spain (where they live) every August to shoot Grouse, I'm sure if asked they would fly into LBA and shoot some of the dregs and druggies, thereby easing the burden on the law abiding taxpayer.
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]webess[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tinytoonster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thingybob68[/bold] wrote: Bradford has a large problem with worklessness, alcohol abuse and poor educational and professional achievement, meaning many are in low skilled jobs paying low wages. The result, a pretty much broke and inept council, a reflection of Bradford itself. We only have ourselves to blame.[/p][/quote]you have just described the moron that his: Another Landless Peasant! apart from the job bit of course. can he not be banned? its like listening to a labour conference but with LESS intelligence of course!! complain about everything without doing ANYTHING! stop his benefits and throw him in the street![/p][/quote]So you'd rather pay higher insurance premiums and more council tax to fund the police and private prison services to protect you from the people driven to crime through desperation due to the policies you advocate? Smart guy. You've obviously given this a little thought.[/p][/quote]There might be short term issues, but the present policy of feather bedding the dregs of society isn't sustainable.[/p][/quote]How long do you think it would take to round them all up and get them safely put away? Is it worth feeding them once we've dealt with them or would that just be wasteful feather bedding prolonging processing times? Can you suggest further efficiency savings?[/p][/quote]My dad and his friends all fly over to Scotland from Spain (where they live) every August to shoot Grouse, I'm sure if asked they would fly into LBA and shoot some of the dregs and druggies, thereby easing the burden on the law abiding taxpayer. Shelfrhino

6:11pm Wed 28 Nov 12

spearmint wino says...

thingybob68 wrote:
Shelfrhino wrote:
The cuts should be aimed at those in society who contribute nothing, ie, the work shy, the substance dependant and all other scroungers. First thing I would slash is housing benefit, this is so open to abuse it's unreal. If you can't afford to house your family then you shouldn't have one. Why should hard working people pay for the idle and the useless to breed, we do not need another generation of leeches and tramps.
here, here.
Being back the poor house I say! Why should my taxes subsides the rent those who are feckless or have never bothered to better themselves?

Re Tong Street and this applies to all blocked off and access only roads, I pay road tax to use all roads not some roads. The dual carriageway which was started and never finished from Dudley Hill to the Tong roundabout should be completed, this is a major trunk road get it sorted.

I never knew that £500k of council taxpayers money is spent on union officials! What's all that about!

Landless peasant, is your caps lock key broken? Stop SHOUTING.
[quote][p][bold]thingybob68[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shelfrhino[/bold] wrote: The cuts should be aimed at those in society who contribute nothing, ie, the work shy, the substance dependant and all other scroungers. First thing I would slash is housing benefit, this is so open to abuse it's unreal. If you can't afford to house your family then you shouldn't have one. Why should hard working people pay for the idle and the useless to breed, we do not need another generation of leeches and tramps.[/p][/quote]here, here.[/p][/quote]Being back the poor house I say! Why should my taxes subsides the rent those who are feckless or have never bothered to better themselves? Re Tong Street and this applies to all blocked off and access only roads, I pay road tax to use all roads not some roads. The dual carriageway which was started and never finished from Dudley Hill to the Tong roundabout should be completed, this is a major trunk road get it sorted. I never knew that £500k of council taxpayers money is spent on union officials! What's all that about! Landless peasant, is your caps lock key broken? Stop SHOUTING. spearmint wino

6:35pm Wed 28 Nov 12

RED65 says...

Shelfrhino wrote:
The cuts should be aimed at those in society who contribute nothing, ie, the work shy, the substance dependant and all other scroungers. First thing I would slash is housing benefit, this is so open to abuse it's unreal. If you can't afford to house your family then you shouldn't have one. Why should hard working people pay for the idle and the useless to breed, we do not need another generation of leeches and tramps.
People who own a second house and more have not been paying full council tax wow..... are these the same people who charge extortionate rent prices for people who need a house..the only thing the council has been good for me is moving my old furniture for nowt and now they might charge me but i bet inner city areas around the town will get there's moved cos they will just throw it into the street's ...
[quote][p][bold]Shelfrhino[/bold] wrote: The cuts should be aimed at those in society who contribute nothing, ie, the work shy, the substance dependant and all other scroungers. First thing I would slash is housing benefit, this is so open to abuse it's unreal. If you can't afford to house your family then you shouldn't have one. Why should hard working people pay for the idle and the useless to breed, we do not need another generation of leeches and tramps.[/p][/quote]People who own a second house and more have not been paying full council tax wow..... are these the same people who charge extortionate rent prices for people who need a house..the only thing the council has been good for me is moving my old furniture for nowt and now they might charge me but i bet inner city areas around the town will get there's moved cos they will just throw it into the street's ... RED65

7:02pm Wed 28 Nov 12

WayneRouke says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
WayneRouke wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
webess wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
tinytoonster wrote:
thingybob68 wrote:
Bradford has a large problem with worklessness, alcohol abuse and poor educational and professional achievement, meaning many are in low skilled jobs paying low wages.

The result, a pretty much broke and inept council, a reflection of Bradford itself.

We only have ourselves to blame.
you have just described the moron that his: Another Landless Peasant!
apart from the job bit of course.
can he not be banned?
its like listening to a labour conference but with LESS intelligence of course!!
complain about everything without doing ANYTHING!
stop his benefits and throw him in the street!
So you'd rather pay higher insurance premiums and more council tax to fund the police and private prison services to protect you from the people driven to crime through desperation due to the policies you advocate? Smart guy. You've obviously given this a little thought.
There might be short term issues, but the present policy of feather bedding the dregs of society isn't sustainable.
How long do you think it would take to round them all up and get them safely put away? Is it worth feeding them once we've dealt with them or would that just be wasteful feather bedding prolonging processing times? Can you suggest further efficiency savings?
Can you suggest further efficiency savings?

I have something in mind, but my freedom of speech rights refer to what I say, not what I write, so unfortunately I cannot express it.
There must be some way of you giving readers an indication of exactly how sick and twisted you are. How would you describe your ideology?
Allow me to put it in terms you may understand...

I go out and do something called WORK. I do it daily. If I lose my job, I go and get another and do not stop until I do. OK, my profession permits me to be a little more marketable than some, and for that I consider myself somewhat privileged.

For doing work, I get paid. I work hard and I am not badly paid. With that money, I pay TAX and National Insurance, and save a little for my old age. With what is left, I feed my family and BUY things with money I have worked hard to EARN.

Throughout my working life (quite a lot), I am lucky and have spent no more than 6 months unemployed. I am not of the belief that this once great country owes me a living. I believe I have to go out, work for it and earn it.

When I purchase something, I get a sense of pride at having worked to obtain it. I do not have the latest model of stuff because I cannot afford it, but I BUY what I can when I can.

My trainers come from Wyndsors, not expensive and are not the latest fashion item, nor are my jeans and I do not possess a sweatshirt with a hood.

Now, when some delinquent, neanderthal decides he wants to have what I have, but doesnt want to work to pay for it, and therefore decides to invade my privacy by entering my home and take, without permission, my hard worked for possessions, I tend to get the hump a little bit. In fact, I get the hump a lot.

Now, presuming the person is caught (which is likely in my house, because I believe in protecting what is mine and have the ability to use 'reasonable force') and goes to court, I despair at our society and the bleeding hearts when his act goes unpunished because 'he was brought up that way'. The toerag is laughing at me and society in general.

My father was not rich, and there were times we did without food. but I was brought up knowing the difference between right and wrong, and we did not steal just because we did not have, I brought my children up knowing the difference between right and wrong. Why cant some others have a basic respect for their fellow human beingsand do the same.

The thief mentality of "hes got it, i want it, I am going to take it off him" infuriates me, as it is caveman mentality and that of a completely brain dead moron.

Now, statistically, this buffoon who steals for a living is unlikely to have a job. He will therefore be dependent upon government handouts. I am therefore, in my own small way, through my taxes, paying for him and as such allowing him to carry on his depraved, disgusting existence. I object to paying for someone such as this, no matter how little.

I object to paying my taxes for several reasons, not just lowlife, but also thieving MPs, and paying for projects I have no interest in and do not wish to support.

Therefore, if I was not legally obliged to support such people, I would not do so. If they continued to steal from me, I would defend my home and possessions, using whatever means necessary. I would defend vigorously my right to do so.

However, I accept everybody has periods of bad luck, and when a person loses their job, if they are keen to find other work, then they should be given every support and opportnity, without being penalised. If the effort is being made help them, if not, drop them. Therefore, I object to supporting lazy good for nothings, who have no intention of finding work, but will help and support those trying to find it.

When I am ill, I like to think an ambulance will come if I need one, and I will have a hospital bed and be looked after. This is because I have paid into the system and believe it to be my right.

If I am ill, it will not be self inflicted by virtue of excess alcohol, smoking or through the usage of illegal substances. Now, if I am denied an ambulance, bed or treatment because some lowlife has abused their body by the usage of the above, and is taking my place or a higher priority, I am more than likely to become more than a little upset and will object, somewhat strongly.

The reason for this is twofold a) I have paid in and b) when I am better, I will go back to work and repay back for some of the services I took advantage of in the first place. The person taking my place is unlikely to do so, and in a lot of cases, will go back to abusing their body (and may well steal from me to pay for their habit, which would definitely be detrimental to their health).

OK, the bleeding hearts will say "Its not their fault".. Er.. they can say "NO", or is that simple, one syllable word beyond their comprehension.

But I accept that sometimes mistakes are made, and these people become victims through no fault of their own. At this point, they deserve help and the people who make them victims need to be caught and stopped, and put away (possibly throwing away the key so they never see the light of day again).

I therefore object to people who abuse alcohol, and drug users etc AND drug pushers as they are nothing more than a drain of society's resources.

Our National Health Service is not free. It is funded by and paid for by the contributions of people such as I, through National Insurance premiums and tax.So, if I pay for it, I want to be able to use it when I need to.

I objected to Ronnie Biggs return from Brazil, as his sole reason was to take advantage of our health service which he had not paid into. By the same token, I object to people deliberately visiting this country with the sole intention of making use of our Health System and taking as much as they can from the system without giving anything back. If a person contributes then they are allowed to take out. if they dont, they should not be permitted to do so.

I believe in right and wrong, and fairness. I think prison is too easy, and if it were made harder and more uncomfortable, less people would want to go back. A three year sentence should mean three years, with time ADDED ON for bad behaviour, not TAKEN OFF for good.

I object to the double standards of the people who are elected to represent us. I object to how they can claim expenses for two homes, claim expenses for travelling to their place of work and how they can hide money in tax havens, when those opportunities are not available to us all.

There are lots of others, but I suspect these words will fall on deaf ears and I refuse to waste my time any more on lost causes. I have better things to do.

I cannot say much more, as I may well end up having to make an involuntary contribution to Children in Need, having already made a voluntary contribution

So, in final answer, I am selfish and do not see why I should pay for people who decide to waste their life away.
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WayneRouke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]webess[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tinytoonster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thingybob68[/bold] wrote: Bradford has a large problem with worklessness, alcohol abuse and poor educational and professional achievement, meaning many are in low skilled jobs paying low wages. The result, a pretty much broke and inept council, a reflection of Bradford itself. We only have ourselves to blame.[/p][/quote]you have just described the moron that his: Another Landless Peasant! apart from the job bit of course. can he not be banned? its like listening to a labour conference but with LESS intelligence of course!! complain about everything without doing ANYTHING! stop his benefits and throw him in the street![/p][/quote]So you'd rather pay higher insurance premiums and more council tax to fund the police and private prison services to protect you from the people driven to crime through desperation due to the policies you advocate? Smart guy. You've obviously given this a little thought.[/p][/quote]There might be short term issues, but the present policy of feather bedding the dregs of society isn't sustainable.[/p][/quote]How long do you think it would take to round them all up and get them safely put away? Is it worth feeding them once we've dealt with them or would that just be wasteful feather bedding prolonging processing times? Can you suggest further efficiency savings?[/p][/quote]Can you suggest further efficiency savings? I have something in mind, but my freedom of speech rights refer to what I say, not what I write, so unfortunately I cannot express it.[/p][/quote]There must be some way of you giving readers an indication of exactly how sick and twisted you are. How would you describe your ideology?[/p][/quote]Allow me to put it in terms you may understand... I go out and do something called WORK. I do it daily. If I lose my job, I go and get another and do not stop until I do. OK, my profession permits me to be a little more marketable than some, and for that I consider myself somewhat privileged. For doing work, I get paid. I work hard and I am not badly paid. With that money, I pay TAX and National Insurance, and save a little for my old age. With what is left, I feed my family and BUY things with money I have worked hard to EARN. Throughout my working life (quite a lot), I am lucky and have spent no more than 6 months unemployed. I am not of the belief that this once great country owes me a living. I believe I have to go out, work for it and earn it. When I purchase something, I get a sense of pride at having worked to obtain it. I do not have the latest model of stuff because I cannot afford it, but I BUY what I can when I can. My trainers come from Wyndsors, not expensive and are not the latest fashion item, nor are my jeans and I do not possess a sweatshirt with a hood. Now, when some delinquent, neanderthal decides he wants to have what I have, but doesnt want to work to pay for it, and therefore decides to invade my privacy by entering my home and take, without permission, my hard worked for possessions, I tend to get the hump a little bit. In fact, I get the hump a lot. Now, presuming the person is caught (which is likely in my house, because I believe in protecting what is mine and have the ability to use 'reasonable force') and goes to court, I despair at our society and the bleeding hearts when his act goes unpunished because 'he was brought up that way'. The toerag is laughing at me and society in general. My father was not rich, and there were times we did without food. but I was brought up knowing the difference between right and wrong, and we did not steal just because we did not have, I brought my children up knowing the difference between right and wrong. Why cant some others have a basic respect for their fellow human beingsand do the same. The thief mentality of "hes got it, i want it, I am going to take it off him" infuriates me, as it is caveman mentality and that of a completely brain dead moron. Now, statistically, this buffoon who steals for a living is unlikely to have a job. He will therefore be dependent upon government handouts. I am therefore, in my own small way, through my taxes, paying for him and as such allowing him to carry on his depraved, disgusting existence. I object to paying for someone such as this, no matter how little. I object to paying my taxes for several reasons, not just lowlife, but also thieving MPs, and paying for projects I have no interest in and do not wish to support. Therefore, if I was not legally obliged to support such people, I would not do so. If they continued to steal from me, I would defend my home and possessions, using whatever means necessary. I would defend vigorously my right to do so. However, I accept everybody has periods of bad luck, and when a person loses their job, if they are keen to find other work, then they should be given every support and opportnity, without being penalised. If the effort is being made help them, if not, drop them. Therefore, I object to supporting lazy good for nothings, who have no intention of finding work, but will help and support those trying to find it. When I am ill, I like to think an ambulance will come if I need one, and I will have a hospital bed and be looked after. This is because I have paid into the system and believe it to be my right. If I am ill, it will not be self inflicted by virtue of excess alcohol, smoking or through the usage of illegal substances. Now, if I am denied an ambulance, bed or treatment because some lowlife has abused their body by the usage of the above, and is taking my place or a higher priority, I am more than likely to become more than a little upset and will object, somewhat strongly. The reason for this is twofold a) I have paid in and b) when I am better, I will go back to work and repay back for some of the services I took advantage of in the first place. The person taking my place is unlikely to do so, and in a lot of cases, will go back to abusing their body (and may well steal from me to pay for their habit, which would definitely be detrimental to their health). OK, the bleeding hearts will say "Its not their fault".. Er.. they can say "NO", or is that simple, one syllable word beyond their comprehension. But I accept that sometimes mistakes are made, and these people become victims through no fault of their own. At this point, they deserve help and the people who make them victims need to be caught and stopped, and put away (possibly throwing away the key so they never see the light of day again). I therefore object to people who abuse alcohol, and drug users etc AND drug pushers as they are nothing more than a drain of society's resources. Our National Health Service is not free. It is funded by and paid for by the contributions of people such as I, through National Insurance premiums and tax.So, if I pay for it, I want to be able to use it when I need to. I objected to Ronnie Biggs return from Brazil, as his sole reason was to take advantage of our health service which he had not paid into. By the same token, I object to people deliberately visiting this country with the sole intention of making use of our Health System and taking as much as they can from the system without giving anything back. If a person contributes then they are allowed to take out. if they dont, they should not be permitted to do so. I believe in right and wrong, and fairness. I think prison is too easy, and if it were made harder and more uncomfortable, less people would want to go back. A three year sentence should mean three years, with time ADDED ON for bad behaviour, not TAKEN OFF for good. I object to the double standards of the people who are elected to represent us. I object to how they can claim expenses for two homes, claim expenses for travelling to their place of work and how they can hide money in tax havens, when those opportunities are not available to us all. There are lots of others, but I suspect these words will fall on deaf ears and I refuse to waste my time any more on lost causes. I have better things to do. I cannot say much more, as I may well end up having to make an involuntary contribution to Children in Need, having already made a voluntary contribution So, in final answer, I am selfish and do not see why I should pay for people who decide to waste their life away. WayneRouke

7:42pm Wed 28 Nov 12

RollandSmoke says...

WayneRouke wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
WayneRouke wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
webess wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
tinytoonster wrote:
thingybob68 wrote:
Bradford has a large problem with worklessness, alcohol abuse and poor educational and professional achievement, meaning many are in low skilled jobs paying low wages.

The result, a pretty much broke and inept council, a reflection of Bradford itself.

We only have ourselves to blame.
you have just described the moron that his: Another Landless Peasant!
apart from the job bit of course.
can he not be banned?
its like listening to a labour conference but with LESS intelligence of course!!
complain about everything without doing ANYTHING!
stop his benefits and throw him in the street!
So you'd rather pay higher insurance premiums and more council tax to fund the police and private prison services to protect you from the people driven to crime through desperation due to the policies you advocate? Smart guy. You've obviously given this a little thought.
There might be short term issues, but the present policy of feather bedding the dregs of society isn't sustainable.
How long do you think it would take to round them all up and get them safely put away? Is it worth feeding them once we've dealt with them or would that just be wasteful feather bedding prolonging processing times? Can you suggest further efficiency savings?
Can you suggest further efficiency savings?

I have something in mind, but my freedom of speech rights refer to what I say, not what I write, so unfortunately I cannot express it.
There must be some way of you giving readers an indication of exactly how sick and twisted you are. How would you describe your ideology?
Allow me to put it in terms you may understand...

I go out and do something called WORK. I do it daily. If I lose my job, I go and get another and do not stop until I do. OK, my profession permits me to be a little more marketable than some, and for that I consider myself somewhat privileged.

For doing work, I get paid. I work hard and I am not badly paid. With that money, I pay TAX and National Insurance, and save a little for my old age. With what is left, I feed my family and BUY things with money I have worked hard to EARN.

Throughout my working life (quite a lot), I am lucky and have spent no more than 6 months unemployed. I am not of the belief that this once great country owes me a living. I believe I have to go out, work for it and earn it.

When I purchase something, I get a sense of pride at having worked to obtain it. I do not have the latest model of stuff because I cannot afford it, but I BUY what I can when I can.

My trainers come from Wyndsors, not expensive and are not the latest fashion item, nor are my jeans and I do not possess a sweatshirt with a hood.

Now, when some delinquent, neanderthal decides he wants to have what I have, but doesnt want to work to pay for it, and therefore decides to invade my privacy by entering my home and take, without permission, my hard worked for possessions, I tend to get the hump a little bit. In fact, I get the hump a lot.

Now, presuming the person is caught (which is likely in my house, because I believe in protecting what is mine and have the ability to use 'reasonable force') and goes to court, I despair at our society and the bleeding hearts when his act goes unpunished because 'he was brought up that way'. The toerag is laughing at me and society in general.

My father was not rich, and there were times we did without food. but I was brought up knowing the difference between right and wrong, and we did not steal just because we did not have, I brought my children up knowing the difference between right and wrong. Why cant some others have a basic respect for their fellow human beingsand do the same.

The thief mentality of "hes got it, i want it, I am going to take it off him" infuriates me, as it is caveman mentality and that of a completely brain dead moron.

Now, statistically, this buffoon who steals for a living is unlikely to have a job. He will therefore be dependent upon government handouts. I am therefore, in my own small way, through my taxes, paying for him and as such allowing him to carry on his depraved, disgusting existence. I object to paying for someone such as this, no matter how little.

I object to paying my taxes for several reasons, not just lowlife, but also thieving MPs, and paying for projects I have no interest in and do not wish to support.

Therefore, if I was not legally obliged to support such people, I would not do so. If they continued to steal from me, I would defend my home and possessions, using whatever means necessary. I would defend vigorously my right to do so.

However, I accept everybody has periods of bad luck, and when a person loses their job, if they are keen to find other work, then they should be given every support and opportnity, without being penalised. If the effort is being made help them, if not, drop them. Therefore, I object to supporting lazy good for nothings, who have no intention of finding work, but will help and support those trying to find it.

When I am ill, I like to think an ambulance will come if I need one, and I will have a hospital bed and be looked after. This is because I have paid into the system and believe it to be my right.

If I am ill, it will not be self inflicted by virtue of excess alcohol, smoking or through the usage of illegal substances. Now, if I am denied an ambulance, bed or treatment because some lowlife has abused their body by the usage of the above, and is taking my place or a higher priority, I am more than likely to become more than a little upset and will object, somewhat strongly.

The reason for this is twofold a) I have paid in and b) when I am better, I will go back to work and repay back for some of the services I took advantage of in the first place. The person taking my place is unlikely to do so, and in a lot of cases, will go back to abusing their body (and may well steal from me to pay for their habit, which would definitely be detrimental to their health).

OK, the bleeding hearts will say "Its not their fault".. Er.. they can say "NO", or is that simple, one syllable word beyond their comprehension.

But I accept that sometimes mistakes are made, and these people become victims through no fault of their own. At this point, they deserve help and the people who make them victims need to be caught and stopped, and put away (possibly throwing away the key so they never see the light of day again).

I therefore object to people who abuse alcohol, and drug users etc AND drug pushers as they are nothing more than a drain of society's resources.

Our National Health Service is not free. It is funded by and paid for by the contributions of people such as I, through National Insurance premiums and tax.So, if I pay for it, I want to be able to use it when I need to.

I objected to Ronnie Biggs return from Brazil, as his sole reason was to take advantage of our health service which he had not paid into. By the same token, I object to people deliberately visiting this country with the sole intention of making use of our Health System and taking as much as they can from the system without giving anything back. If a person contributes then they are allowed to take out. if they dont, they should not be permitted to do so.

I believe in right and wrong, and fairness. I think prison is too easy, and if it were made harder and more uncomfortable, less people would want to go back. A three year sentence should mean three years, with time ADDED ON for bad behaviour, not TAKEN OFF for good.

I object to the double standards of the people who are elected to represent us. I object to how they can claim expenses for two homes, claim expenses for travelling to their place of work and how they can hide money in tax havens, when those opportunities are not available to us all.

There are lots of others, but I suspect these words will fall on deaf ears and I refuse to waste my time any more on lost causes. I have better things to do.

I cannot say much more, as I may well end up having to make an involuntary contribution to Children in Need, having already made a voluntary contribution

So, in final answer, I am selfish and do not see why I should pay for people who decide to waste their life away.
Now as this discussion started as a result of the suggestion that Landless should have his benefits withdrawn and be thrown out on the streets...
I have no reason to believe that he is a thief who wishes to have what you've got. By reducing his already minimal income you increase the chances of him having no alternative but to turn to crime. If caught and jailed the cost to the taxpayer increases from JSA + housing benefit to around £40,000 per anum. By maintaining people on a bare minimum amount we are breeding the crime that concerns you as well as denying them the opertunity to be consumers which would stimulate the local economy and generate jobs. I'm glad to see you acknowledge that it's wrong to make generalisations but this is exactly what is happening across the country as everyone is made to suffer for the rare cases that the media hypes the hell out of. I understand your frustration at the level of taxes you pay but I would suggest it has more to do with the tax avoidence/evasion by big players than it has Landless. Create jobs that pay at a level that rewards work and the dole queues will shorten but forcing people into jobs that still leave them in poverty by threatening to leave them totally destitute isn't the way to go.
[quote][p][bold]WayneRouke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WayneRouke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]webess[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tinytoonster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thingybob68[/bold] wrote: Bradford has a large problem with worklessness, alcohol abuse and poor educational and professional achievement, meaning many are in low skilled jobs paying low wages. The result, a pretty much broke and inept council, a reflection of Bradford itself. We only have ourselves to blame.[/p][/quote]you have just described the moron that his: Another Landless Peasant! apart from the job bit of course. can he not be banned? its like listening to a labour conference but with LESS intelligence of course!! complain about everything without doing ANYTHING! stop his benefits and throw him in the street![/p][/quote]So you'd rather pay higher insurance premiums and more council tax to fund the police and private prison services to protect you from the people driven to crime through desperation due to the policies you advocate? Smart guy. You've obviously given this a little thought.[/p][/quote]There might be short term issues, but the present policy of feather bedding the dregs of society isn't sustainable.[/p][/quote]How long do you think it would take to round them all up and get them safely put away? Is it worth feeding them once we've dealt with them or would that just be wasteful feather bedding prolonging processing times? Can you suggest further efficiency savings?[/p][/quote]Can you suggest further efficiency savings? I have something in mind, but my freedom of speech rights refer to what I say, not what I write, so unfortunately I cannot express it.[/p][/quote]There must be some way of you giving readers an indication of exactly how sick and twisted you are. How would you describe your ideology?[/p][/quote]Allow me to put it in terms you may understand... I go out and do something called WORK. I do it daily. If I lose my job, I go and get another and do not stop until I do. OK, my profession permits me to be a little more marketable than some, and for that I consider myself somewhat privileged. For doing work, I get paid. I work hard and I am not badly paid. With that money, I pay TAX and National Insurance, and save a little for my old age. With what is left, I feed my family and BUY things with money I have worked hard to EARN. Throughout my working life (quite a lot), I am lucky and have spent no more than 6 months unemployed. I am not of the belief that this once great country owes me a living. I believe I have to go out, work for it and earn it. When I purchase something, I get a sense of pride at having worked to obtain it. I do not have the latest model of stuff because I cannot afford it, but I BUY what I can when I can. My trainers come from Wyndsors, not expensive and are not the latest fashion item, nor are my jeans and I do not possess a sweatshirt with a hood. Now, when some delinquent, neanderthal decides he wants to have what I have, but doesnt want to work to pay for it, and therefore decides to invade my privacy by entering my home and take, without permission, my hard worked for possessions, I tend to get the hump a little bit. In fact, I get the hump a lot. Now, presuming the person is caught (which is likely in my house, because I believe in protecting what is mine and have the ability to use 'reasonable force') and goes to court, I despair at our society and the bleeding hearts when his act goes unpunished because 'he was brought up that way'. The toerag is laughing at me and society in general. My father was not rich, and there were times we did without food. but I was brought up knowing the difference between right and wrong, and we did not steal just because we did not have, I brought my children up knowing the difference between right and wrong. Why cant some others have a basic respect for their fellow human beingsand do the same. The thief mentality of "hes got it, i want it, I am going to take it off him" infuriates me, as it is caveman mentality and that of a completely brain dead moron. Now, statistically, this buffoon who steals for a living is unlikely to have a job. He will therefore be dependent upon government handouts. I am therefore, in my own small way, through my taxes, paying for him and as such allowing him to carry on his depraved, disgusting existence. I object to paying for someone such as this, no matter how little. I object to paying my taxes for several reasons, not just lowlife, but also thieving MPs, and paying for projects I have no interest in and do not wish to support. Therefore, if I was not legally obliged to support such people, I would not do so. If they continued to steal from me, I would defend my home and possessions, using whatever means necessary. I would defend vigorously my right to do so. However, I accept everybody has periods of bad luck, and when a person loses their job, if they are keen to find other work, then they should be given every support and opportnity, without being penalised. If the effort is being made help them, if not, drop them. Therefore, I object to supporting lazy good for nothings, who have no intention of finding work, but will help and support those trying to find it. When I am ill, I like to think an ambulance will come if I need one, and I will have a hospital bed and be looked after. This is because I have paid into the system and believe it to be my right. If I am ill, it will not be self inflicted by virtue of excess alcohol, smoking or through the usage of illegal substances. Now, if I am denied an ambulance, bed or treatment because some lowlife has abused their body by the usage of the above, and is taking my place or a higher priority, I am more than likely to become more than a little upset and will object, somewhat strongly. The reason for this is twofold a) I have paid in and b) when I am better, I will go back to work and repay back for some of the services I took advantage of in the first place. The person taking my place is unlikely to do so, and in a lot of cases, will go back to abusing their body (and may well steal from me to pay for their habit, which would definitely be detrimental to their health). OK, the bleeding hearts will say "Its not their fault".. Er.. they can say "NO", or is that simple, one syllable word beyond their comprehension. But I accept that sometimes mistakes are made, and these people become victims through no fault of their own. At this point, they deserve help and the people who make them victims need to be caught and stopped, and put away (possibly throwing away the key so they never see the light of day again). I therefore object to people who abuse alcohol, and drug users etc AND drug pushers as they are nothing more than a drain of society's resources. Our National Health Service is not free. It is funded by and paid for by the contributions of people such as I, through National Insurance premiums and tax.So, if I pay for it, I want to be able to use it when I need to. I objected to Ronnie Biggs return from Brazil, as his sole reason was to take advantage of our health service which he had not paid into. By the same token, I object to people deliberately visiting this country with the sole intention of making use of our Health System and taking as much as they can from the system without giving anything back. If a person contributes then they are allowed to take out. if they dont, they should not be permitted to do so. I believe in right and wrong, and fairness. I think prison is too easy, and if it were made harder and more uncomfortable, less people would want to go back. A three year sentence should mean three years, with time ADDED ON for bad behaviour, not TAKEN OFF for good. I object to the double standards of the people who are elected to represent us. I object to how they can claim expenses for two homes, claim expenses for travelling to their place of work and how they can hide money in tax havens, when those opportunities are not available to us all. There are lots of others, but I suspect these words will fall on deaf ears and I refuse to waste my time any more on lost causes. I have better things to do. I cannot say much more, as I may well end up having to make an involuntary contribution to Children in Need, having already made a voluntary contribution So, in final answer, I am selfish and do not see why I should pay for people who decide to waste their life away.[/p][/quote]Now as this discussion started as a result of the suggestion that Landless should have his benefits withdrawn and be thrown out on the streets... I have no reason to believe that he is a thief who wishes to have what you've got. By reducing his already minimal income you increase the chances of him having no alternative but to turn to crime. If caught and jailed the cost to the taxpayer increases from JSA + housing benefit to around £40,000 per anum. By maintaining people on a bare minimum amount we are breeding the crime that concerns you as well as denying them the opertunity to be consumers which would stimulate the local economy and generate jobs. I'm glad to see you acknowledge that it's wrong to make generalisations but this is exactly what is happening across the country as everyone is made to suffer for the rare cases that the media hypes the hell out of. I understand your frustration at the level of taxes you pay but I would suggest it has more to do with the tax avoidence/evasion by big players than it has Landless. Create jobs that pay at a level that rewards work and the dole queues will shorten but forcing people into jobs that still leave them in poverty by threatening to leave them totally destitute isn't the way to go. RollandSmoke

7:59pm Wed 28 Nov 12

undercliffebantam says...

THE TORIES ARE PUBLIC ENEMY NUMBER ONE. IT IS THEIR MISSION TO KEEP YOU FACE DOWN IN THE DIRT WITH THEIR JACKBOOT ON YOUR HEAD. THEY ARE SCUM AND THEY ARE WILLFULLY OUT TO DESTROY EVERYTHING WE HAVE ACHIEVED OVER THE LAST CENTURY OR MORE. NEVER MIND THE 'BIG SOCIETY' THIS IS ALL-UT CLASS WAR !!!!! TAKE TO THE STREETS, GET OUT ON STRIKE, MAKE A STAND, PROTEST, DO NOT COMPLY, BRING THESE B'STRDS DOWN BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE!!! OFF WITH THEIR HEADS !!!!!!!


I agree with all you say but don,t shout
THE TORIES ARE PUBLIC ENEMY NUMBER ONE. IT IS THEIR MISSION TO KEEP YOU FACE DOWN IN THE DIRT WITH THEIR JACKBOOT ON YOUR HEAD. THEY ARE SCUM AND THEY ARE WILLFULLY OUT TO DESTROY EVERYTHING WE HAVE ACHIEVED OVER THE LAST CENTURY OR MORE. NEVER MIND THE 'BIG SOCIETY' THIS IS ALL-UT CLASS WAR !!!!! TAKE TO THE STREETS, GET OUT ON STRIKE, MAKE A STAND, PROTEST, DO NOT COMPLY, BRING THESE B'STRDS DOWN BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE!!! OFF WITH THEIR HEADS !!!!!!! I agree with all you say but don,t shout undercliffebantam

8:49pm Wed 28 Nov 12

WayneRouke says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
WayneRouke wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
WayneRouke wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
webess wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
tinytoonster wrote:
thingybob68 wrote:
Bradford has a large problem with worklessness, alcohol abuse and poor educational and professional achievement, meaning many are in low skilled jobs paying low wages.

The result, a pretty much broke and inept council, a reflection of Bradford itself.

We only have ourselves to blame.
you have just described the moron that his: Another Landless Peasant!
apart from the job bit of course.
can he not be banned?
its like listening to a labour conference but with LESS intelligence of course!!
complain about everything without doing ANYTHING!
stop his benefits and throw him in the street!
So you'd rather pay higher insurance premiums and more council tax to fund the police and private prison services to protect you from the people driven to crime through desperation due to the policies you advocate? Smart guy. You've obviously given this a little thought.
There might be short term issues, but the present policy of feather bedding the dregs of society isn't sustainable.
How long do you think it would take to round them all up and get them safely put away? Is it worth feeding them once we've dealt with them or would that just be wasteful feather bedding prolonging processing times? Can you suggest further efficiency savings?
Can you suggest further efficiency savings?

I have something in mind, but my freedom of speech rights refer to what I say, not what I write, so unfortunately I cannot express it.
There must be some way of you giving readers an indication of exactly how sick and twisted you are. How would you describe your ideology?
Allow me to put it in terms you may understand...

I go out and do something called WORK. I do it daily. If I lose my job, I go and get another and do not stop until I do. OK, my profession permits me to be a little more marketable than some, and for that I consider myself somewhat privileged.

For doing work, I get paid. I work hard and I am not badly paid. With that money, I pay TAX and National Insurance, and save a little for my old age. With what is left, I feed my family and BUY things with money I have worked hard to EARN.

Throughout my working life (quite a lot), I am lucky and have spent no more than 6 months unemployed. I am not of the belief that this once great country owes me a living. I believe I have to go out, work for it and earn it.

When I purchase something, I get a sense of pride at having worked to obtain it. I do not have the latest model of stuff because I cannot afford it, but I BUY what I can when I can.

My trainers come from Wyndsors, not expensive and are not the latest fashion item, nor are my jeans and I do not possess a sweatshirt with a hood.

Now, when some delinquent, neanderthal decides he wants to have what I have, but doesnt want to work to pay for it, and therefore decides to invade my privacy by entering my home and take, without permission, my hard worked for possessions, I tend to get the hump a little bit. In fact, I get the hump a lot.

Now, presuming the person is caught (which is likely in my house, because I believe in protecting what is mine and have the ability to use 'reasonable force') and goes to court, I despair at our society and the bleeding hearts when his act goes unpunished because 'he was brought up that way'. The toerag is laughing at me and society in general.

My father was not rich, and there were times we did without food. but I was brought up knowing the difference between right and wrong, and we did not steal just because we did not have, I brought my children up knowing the difference between right and wrong. Why cant some others have a basic respect for their fellow human beingsand do the same.

The thief mentality of "hes got it, i want it, I am going to take it off him" infuriates me, as it is caveman mentality and that of a completely brain dead moron.

Now, statistically, this buffoon who steals for a living is unlikely to have a job. He will therefore be dependent upon government handouts. I am therefore, in my own small way, through my taxes, paying for him and as such allowing him to carry on his depraved, disgusting existence. I object to paying for someone such as this, no matter how little.

I object to paying my taxes for several reasons, not just lowlife, but also thieving MPs, and paying for projects I have no interest in and do not wish to support.

Therefore, if I was not legally obliged to support such people, I would not do so. If they continued to steal from me, I would defend my home and possessions, using whatever means necessary. I would defend vigorously my right to do so.

However, I accept everybody has periods of bad luck, and when a person loses their job, if they are keen to find other work, then they should be given every support and opportnity, without being penalised. If the effort is being made help them, if not, drop them. Therefore, I object to supporting lazy good for nothings, who have no intention of finding work, but will help and support those trying to find it.

When I am ill, I like to think an ambulance will come if I need one, and I will have a hospital bed and be looked after. This is because I have paid into the system and believe it to be my right.

If I am ill, it will not be self inflicted by virtue of excess alcohol, smoking or through the usage of illegal substances. Now, if I am denied an ambulance, bed or treatment because some lowlife has abused their body by the usage of the above, and is taking my place or a higher priority, I am more than likely to become more than a little upset and will object, somewhat strongly.

The reason for this is twofold a) I have paid in and b) when I am better, I will go back to work and repay back for some of the services I took advantage of in the first place. The person taking my place is unlikely to do so, and in a lot of cases, will go back to abusing their body (and may well steal from me to pay for their habit, which would definitely be detrimental to their health).

OK, the bleeding hearts will say "Its not their fault".. Er.. they can say "NO", or is that simple, one syllable word beyond their comprehension.

But I accept that sometimes mistakes are made, and these people become victims through no fault of their own. At this point, they deserve help and the people who make them victims need to be caught and stopped, and put away (possibly throwing away the key so they never see the light of day again).

I therefore object to people who abuse alcohol, and drug users etc AND drug pushers as they are nothing more than a drain of society's resources.

Our National Health Service is not free. It is funded by and paid for by the contributions of people such as I, through National Insurance premiums and tax.So, if I pay for it, I want to be able to use it when I need to.

I objected to Ronnie Biggs return from Brazil, as his sole reason was to take advantage of our health service which he had not paid into. By the same token, I object to people deliberately visiting this country with the sole intention of making use of our Health System and taking as much as they can from the system without giving anything back. If a person contributes then they are allowed to take out. if they dont, they should not be permitted to do so.

I believe in right and wrong, and fairness. I think prison is too easy, and if it were made harder and more uncomfortable, less people would want to go back. A three year sentence should mean three years, with time ADDED ON for bad behaviour, not TAKEN OFF for good.

I object to the double standards of the people who are elected to represent us. I object to how they can claim expenses for two homes, claim expenses for travelling to their place of work and how they can hide money in tax havens, when those opportunities are not available to us all.

There are lots of others, but I suspect these words will fall on deaf ears and I refuse to waste my time any more on lost causes. I have better things to do.

I cannot say much more, as I may well end up having to make an involuntary contribution to Children in Need, having already made a voluntary contribution

So, in final answer, I am selfish and do not see why I should pay for people who decide to waste their life away.
Now as this discussion started as a result of the suggestion that Landless should have his benefits withdrawn and be thrown out on the streets...
I have no reason to believe that he is a thief who wishes to have what you've got. By reducing his already minimal income you increase the chances of him having no alternative but to turn to crime. If caught and jailed the cost to the taxpayer increases from JSA + housing benefit to around £40,000 per anum. By maintaining people on a bare minimum amount we are breeding the crime that concerns you as well as denying them the opertunity to be consumers which would stimulate the local economy and generate jobs. I'm glad to see you acknowledge that it's wrong to make generalisations but this is exactly what is happening across the country as everyone is made to suffer for the rare cases that the media hypes the hell out of. I understand your frustration at the level of taxes you pay but I would suggest it has more to do with the tax avoidence/evasion by big players than it has Landless. Create jobs that pay at a level that rewards work and the dole queues will shorten but forcing people into jobs that still leave them in poverty by threatening to leave them totally destitute isn't the way to go.
Thank you for a well worded, polite response.. I have to admit to expecting some mindless drivel similar to that of a lot of respondents on here.I am new to this, but there are one or two on here with whom I do not wish to enter dialogue with, and will not.

My thief example was purely that, an example of how I feel about degenerates who take and not give.

However, whilst I agree on the whole with your comments, I do not entirely agree..I am not above compassion and I do agree with your principle of a proper job paying a proper wage, and a fair days pay for a fair days work..

I do disagree with your cost on prison. You are making the assumption this is on present cost. This would not be the case in my prison. a) All privileges would be withdrawn, b) the population would be less due to the very harsh environment, and other factors.
c) If my works canteen can feed me for £2.50 and make a profit, I am sure a prison can d) Prisoners would be made to work and be paid, with a deduction made for rent of their cell and their food (as I believe happens in Florida). e) Privileges would be earned through good behaviour and paid for out of earnings. In brief, anything and everything would have to be earned and paid for.

You make the assumption the ALP WANTS to work. I make no assumption either way.. IF he wants to work, then yes, I totally agree, he deserves support and help. If, however, he has no intention of finding work then he is worthy of nothing but my contempt and should be made to do work to earn his keep. Look around you, There are plenty of parks around which need litter picking up. I make no assumption regarding ALP, and I do not know what makes him tick (nor do I want to know).

Whilst I agree that a proportion (probably more than half) of the countrys difficulties are are result of the rich avoiding tax, and rich people getting richer and all the other things MPs get up to, I also feel a proportion of it is caused by the expense of the spongers who have every intention of taking what they can and giving nothing back.

Now I am running a risk. But, in my opinion, the Jerry Sutcliffes, Hyndleys and other plainly and beyond doubt guilty people would no longer exist on this earth. Why should people pay for such animals to exist in prison and waste money on appeals. A similar fate would await drug dealers (but not victims), as they are beyond evil, in my mind. But, with drug dealers, I would make them suffer first by forcing them to partake of their own wares, to overdose level. Let them suffer the way their victims suffer. Cruel, I know, but I have no doubt it would be effective.

Somebody once said to me "If you treat people like animals, they will behave like animals". I disagree. Some people have already in a way that insults animals, and as such deserve to be treated at lesser than an animal.


The original topic of this was Council cutbacks. On the whole, I agree that cuts should start from the top, but some of the other comments are beyond insane. There are cuts that can be made. I have worked for a council before, and I have never before seen such a waste of public money. Two people spent a whole afternoon discussing what to wear for an xmas party, theres a good use of council funds. An organisation cannot function without its grass roots workers, and a level of management. Therefore, to get rid if the workforce is sheer folly, as there is nothing to manage. But also by the same token, some management should remain. But there are a lot of firms where the organisation is top heavy and too much management (NHS), and this should be the first target. However, redundancies are made by managers, and nobody in their right mind is going to sack themself. No win situation.

Cuts can be made to social budgets without inflicting any more pain on those worthy of help, by taking away from the spongers and work shy, whom I have no time for and see no reason to help them.

Whilst a hot potato, £30 million cuts could be made up straight away by selling the big pond in the centre. Nice to look at etc, I agree, but you dont buy caviar when you can only afford chips. I am sure cuts could be made elsewhere (eg I know of one council which used to replace its office carpets every three years).

If people have the intention of entering this country, they should have the means to support themselves and their family. I am fully in favour of integration and multi cultural existence, but only with contributors to the economy, not those who take and get on their high horse over this and that (and that goes for ALL cultures, including my own). But, where you do not have the correct paperwork, or no visible means of support, then do what Australia do and put you straight on a plane back home.

I have the same opinion for this Abu KTurdhead. Stuff the unelected European court of do gooders, this 'thing' is a known threat to our country, so simply put him on a plane and send him straight back to the hole he crawled from. In my eyes, he has no right to stay in this country and is costing more than my salary to keep him. Either eliminate him or send him home.

I am not sure which side of the political fence I sit on, as I am basically a 'look after number one' person, but I believe the energy companies should be nationalised and become not for profit, to ease the fuel burden so people dont have to choose between heating and eating. I believe we should nationalise public transport and spend money on getting people to where they want (need) to go, as opposed to transporting them to the centre.

Such things would ease the personal purse, at not too much cost and take away the greedy shareholders to milk away profits at the expense of their customers (British Gas take note).

So, I am also in favour of helping others, as long as I am helped too.

I DO NOT believe in supporting and helping those who do not deserve it. People such as that should shift their lazy backsides and do something for themselves for a change. You never know, they might just enjoy the sense of achievement they get.
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WayneRouke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WayneRouke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]webess[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tinytoonster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thingybob68[/bold] wrote: Bradford has a large problem with worklessness, alcohol abuse and poor educational and professional achievement, meaning many are in low skilled jobs paying low wages. The result, a pretty much broke and inept council, a reflection of Bradford itself. We only have ourselves to blame.[/p][/quote]you have just described the moron that his: Another Landless Peasant! apart from the job bit of course. can he not be banned? its like listening to a labour conference but with LESS intelligence of course!! complain about everything without doing ANYTHING! stop his benefits and throw him in the street![/p][/quote]So you'd rather pay higher insurance premiums and more council tax to fund the police and private prison services to protect you from the people driven to crime through desperation due to the policies you advocate? Smart guy. You've obviously given this a little thought.[/p][/quote]There might be short term issues, but the present policy of feather bedding the dregs of society isn't sustainable.[/p][/quote]How long do you think it would take to round them all up and get them safely put away? Is it worth feeding them once we've dealt with them or would that just be wasteful feather bedding prolonging processing times? Can you suggest further efficiency savings?[/p][/quote]Can you suggest further efficiency savings? I have something in mind, but my freedom of speech rights refer to what I say, not what I write, so unfortunately I cannot express it.[/p][/quote]There must be some way of you giving readers an indication of exactly how sick and twisted you are. How would you describe your ideology?[/p][/quote]Allow me to put it in terms you may understand... I go out and do something called WORK. I do it daily. If I lose my job, I go and get another and do not stop until I do. OK, my profession permits me to be a little more marketable than some, and for that I consider myself somewhat privileged. For doing work, I get paid. I work hard and I am not badly paid. With that money, I pay TAX and National Insurance, and save a little for my old age. With what is left, I feed my family and BUY things with money I have worked hard to EARN. Throughout my working life (quite a lot), I am lucky and have spent no more than 6 months unemployed. I am not of the belief that this once great country owes me a living. I believe I have to go out, work for it and earn it. When I purchase something, I get a sense of pride at having worked to obtain it. I do not have the latest model of stuff because I cannot afford it, but I BUY what I can when I can. My trainers come from Wyndsors, not expensive and are not the latest fashion item, nor are my jeans and I do not possess a sweatshirt with a hood. Now, when some delinquent, neanderthal decides he wants to have what I have, but doesnt want to work to pay for it, and therefore decides to invade my privacy by entering my home and take, without permission, my hard worked for possessions, I tend to get the hump a little bit. In fact, I get the hump a lot. Now, presuming the person is caught (which is likely in my house, because I believe in protecting what is mine and have the ability to use 'reasonable force') and goes to court, I despair at our society and the bleeding hearts when his act goes unpunished because 'he was brought up that way'. The toerag is laughing at me and society in general. My father was not rich, and there were times we did without food. but I was brought up knowing the difference between right and wrong, and we did not steal just because we did not have, I brought my children up knowing the difference between right and wrong. Why cant some others have a basic respect for their fellow human beingsand do the same. The thief mentality of "hes got it, i want it, I am going to take it off him" infuriates me, as it is caveman mentality and that of a completely brain dead moron. Now, statistically, this buffoon who steals for a living is unlikely to have a job. He will therefore be dependent upon government handouts. I am therefore, in my own small way, through my taxes, paying for him and as such allowing him to carry on his depraved, disgusting existence. I object to paying for someone such as this, no matter how little. I object to paying my taxes for several reasons, not just lowlife, but also thieving MPs, and paying for projects I have no interest in and do not wish to support. Therefore, if I was not legally obliged to support such people, I would not do so. If they continued to steal from me, I would defend my home and possessions, using whatever means necessary. I would defend vigorously my right to do so. However, I accept everybody has periods of bad luck, and when a person loses their job, if they are keen to find other work, then they should be given every support and opportnity, without being penalised. If the effort is being made help them, if not, drop them. Therefore, I object to supporting lazy good for nothings, who have no intention of finding work, but will help and support those trying to find it. When I am ill, I like to think an ambulance will come if I need one, and I will have a hospital bed and be looked after. This is because I have paid into the system and believe it to be my right. If I am ill, it will not be self inflicted by virtue of excess alcohol, smoking or through the usage of illegal substances. Now, if I am denied an ambulance, bed or treatment because some lowlife has abused their body by the usage of the above, and is taking my place or a higher priority, I am more than likely to become more than a little upset and will object, somewhat strongly. The reason for this is twofold a) I have paid in and b) when I am better, I will go back to work and repay back for some of the services I took advantage of in the first place. The person taking my place is unlikely to do so, and in a lot of cases, will go back to abusing their body (and may well steal from me to pay for their habit, which would definitely be detrimental to their health). OK, the bleeding hearts will say "Its not their fault".. Er.. they can say "NO", or is that simple, one syllable word beyond their comprehension. But I accept that sometimes mistakes are made, and these people become victims through no fault of their own. At this point, they deserve help and the people who make them victims need to be caught and stopped, and put away (possibly throwing away the key so they never see the light of day again). I therefore object to people who abuse alcohol, and drug users etc AND drug pushers as they are nothing more than a drain of society's resources. Our National Health Service is not free. It is funded by and paid for by the contributions of people such as I, through National Insurance premiums and tax.So, if I pay for it, I want to be able to use it when I need to. I objected to Ronnie Biggs return from Brazil, as his sole reason was to take advantage of our health service which he had not paid into. By the same token, I object to people deliberately visiting this country with the sole intention of making use of our Health System and taking as much as they can from the system without giving anything back. If a person contributes then they are allowed to take out. if they dont, they should not be permitted to do so. I believe in right and wrong, and fairness. I think prison is too easy, and if it were made harder and more uncomfortable, less people would want to go back. A three year sentence should mean three years, with time ADDED ON for bad behaviour, not TAKEN OFF for good. I object to the double standards of the people who are elected to represent us. I object to how they can claim expenses for two homes, claim expenses for travelling to their place of work and how they can hide money in tax havens, when those opportunities are not available to us all. There are lots of others, but I suspect these words will fall on deaf ears and I refuse to waste my time any more on lost causes. I have better things to do. I cannot say much more, as I may well end up having to make an involuntary contribution to Children in Need, having already made a voluntary contribution So, in final answer, I am selfish and do not see why I should pay for people who decide to waste their life away.[/p][/quote]Now as this discussion started as a result of the suggestion that Landless should have his benefits withdrawn and be thrown out on the streets... I have no reason to believe that he is a thief who wishes to have what you've got. By reducing his already minimal income you increase the chances of him having no alternative but to turn to crime. If caught and jailed the cost to the taxpayer increases from JSA + housing benefit to around £40,000 per anum. By maintaining people on a bare minimum amount we are breeding the crime that concerns you as well as denying them the opertunity to be consumers which would stimulate the local economy and generate jobs. I'm glad to see you acknowledge that it's wrong to make generalisations but this is exactly what is happening across the country as everyone is made to suffer for the rare cases that the media hypes the hell out of. I understand your frustration at the level of taxes you pay but I would suggest it has more to do with the tax avoidence/evasion by big players than it has Landless. Create jobs that pay at a level that rewards work and the dole queues will shorten but forcing people into jobs that still leave them in poverty by threatening to leave them totally destitute isn't the way to go.[/p][/quote]Thank you for a well worded, polite response.. I have to admit to expecting some mindless drivel similar to that of a lot of respondents on here.I am new to this, but there are one or two on here with whom I do not wish to enter dialogue with, and will not. My thief example was purely that, an example of how I feel about degenerates who take and not give. However, whilst I agree on the whole with your comments, I do not entirely agree..I am not above compassion and I do agree with your principle of a proper job paying a proper wage, and a fair days pay for a fair days work.. I do disagree with your cost on prison. You are making the assumption this is on present cost. This would not be the case in my prison. a) All privileges would be withdrawn, b) the population would be less due to the very harsh environment, and other factors. c) If my works canteen can feed me for £2.50 and make a profit, I am sure a prison can d) Prisoners would be made to work and be paid, with a deduction made for rent of their cell and their food (as I believe happens in Florida). e) Privileges would be earned through good behaviour and paid for out of earnings. In brief, anything and everything would have to be earned and paid for. You make the assumption the ALP WANTS to work. I make no assumption either way.. IF he wants to work, then yes, I totally agree, he deserves support and help. If, however, he has no intention of finding work then he is worthy of nothing but my contempt and should be made to do work to earn his keep. Look around you, There are plenty of parks around which need litter picking up. I make no assumption regarding ALP, and I do not know what makes him tick (nor do I want to know). Whilst I agree that a proportion (probably more than half) of the countrys difficulties are are result of the rich avoiding tax, and rich people getting richer and all the other things MPs get up to, I also feel a proportion of it is caused by the expense of the spongers who have every intention of taking what they can and giving nothing back. Now I am running a risk. But, in my opinion, the Jerry Sutcliffes, Hyndleys and other plainly and beyond doubt guilty people would no longer exist on this earth. Why should people pay for such animals to exist in prison and waste money on appeals. A similar fate would await drug dealers (but not victims), as they are beyond evil, in my mind. But, with drug dealers, I would make them suffer first by forcing them to partake of their own wares, to overdose level. Let them suffer the way their victims suffer. Cruel, I know, but I have no doubt it would be effective. Somebody once said to me "If you treat people like animals, they will behave like animals". I disagree. Some people have already in a way that insults animals, and as such deserve to be treated at lesser than an animal. The original topic of this was Council cutbacks. On the whole, I agree that cuts should start from the top, but some of the other comments are beyond insane. There are cuts that can be made. I have worked for a council before, and I have never before seen such a waste of public money. Two people spent a whole afternoon discussing what to wear for an xmas party, theres a good use of council funds. An organisation cannot function without its grass roots workers, and a level of management. Therefore, to get rid if the workforce is sheer folly, as there is nothing to manage. But also by the same token, some management should remain. But there are a lot of firms where the organisation is top heavy and too much management (NHS), and this should be the first target. However, redundancies are made by managers, and nobody in their right mind is going to sack themself. No win situation. Cuts can be made to social budgets without inflicting any more pain on those worthy of help, by taking away from the spongers and work shy, whom I have no time for and see no reason to help them. Whilst a hot potato, £30 million cuts could be made up straight away by selling the big pond in the centre. Nice to look at etc, I agree, but you dont buy caviar when you can only afford chips. I am sure cuts could be made elsewhere (eg I know of one council which used to replace its office carpets every three years). If people have the intention of entering this country, they should have the means to support themselves and their family. I am fully in favour of integration and multi cultural existence, but only with contributors to the economy, not those who take and get on their high horse over this and that (and that goes for ALL cultures, including my own). But, where you do not have the correct paperwork, or no visible means of support, then do what Australia do and put you straight on a plane back home. I have the same opinion for this Abu KTurdhead. Stuff the unelected European court of do gooders, this 'thing' is a known threat to our country, so simply put him on a plane and send him straight back to the hole he crawled from. In my eyes, he has no right to stay in this country and is costing more than my salary to keep him. Either eliminate him or send him home. I am not sure which side of the political fence I sit on, as I am basically a 'look after number one' person, but I believe the energy companies should be nationalised and become not for profit, to ease the fuel burden so people dont have to choose between heating and eating. I believe we should nationalise public transport and spend money on getting people to where they want (need) to go, as opposed to transporting them to the centre. Such things would ease the personal purse, at not too much cost and take away the greedy shareholders to milk away profits at the expense of their customers (British Gas take note). So, I am also in favour of helping others, as long as I am helped too. I DO NOT believe in supporting and helping those who do not deserve it. People such as that should shift their lazy backsides and do something for themselves for a change. You never know, they might just enjoy the sense of achievement they get. WayneRouke

10:50pm Wed 28 Nov 12

RollandSmoke says...

Do you think reducing poverty amongst those who find themselves out of work would reduce offending/re-offendi
ng rates? A single person on JSA is seeing little of the money paid to him. It goes straight to the private companies that provide the essentials for him to live who's objective is to make money for their shareholders who are fortunate enough to have enough spare money that they can gamble some. How much disposable income will the benefit claimant be left with? If that money fails to stretch for whatever reason till next payment what then Provident? We should all have a little something tucked away but when your down to counting pennies at the end of the week it's hard to save. After a while you become demoralised and your confidence goes you become depressed and look for some way to distract yourself from reality then they've got you again. "Tough on crime tough on the causes of crime" remember that one? Don't make me laugh, they are willfully creating demand for a service. Prohibition exists for the same reason and is directly responsible for much of the prostitution and theft by people dealing with the health problem of addiction.
Do you think reducing poverty amongst those who find themselves out of work would reduce offending/re-offendi ng rates? A single person on JSA is seeing little of the money paid to him. It goes straight to the private companies that provide the essentials for him to live who's objective is to make money for their shareholders who are fortunate enough to have enough spare money that they can gamble some. How much disposable income will the benefit claimant be left with? If that money fails to stretch for whatever reason till next payment what then Provident? We should all have a little something tucked away but when your down to counting pennies at the end of the week it's hard to save. After a while you become demoralised and your confidence goes you become depressed and look for some way to distract yourself from reality then they've got you again. "Tough on crime tough on the causes of crime" remember that one? Don't make me laugh, they are willfully creating demand for a service. Prohibition exists for the same reason and is directly responsible for much of the prostitution and theft by people dealing with the health problem of addiction. RollandSmoke

11:40pm Wed 28 Nov 12

Commonsensefirst says...

'When the former Government seemed determined to bankrupt the nation.'

Who is Councillor Glen Miller trying to fool? I'd like to remind him that the Rt Hon Norman Lamont MP lamented his lack of control of the banking sector as Chancellor of the Exchequer during John Major's Government. The Conservatives had a chance to do something about it then and there, but did nothing; now we're all paying the price of failure.
'When the former Government seemed determined to bankrupt the nation.' Who is Councillor Glen Miller trying to fool? I'd like to remind him that the Rt Hon Norman Lamont MP lamented his lack of control of the banking sector as Chancellor of the Exchequer during John Major's Government. The Conservatives had a chance to do something about it then and there, but did nothing; now we're all paying the price of failure. Commonsensefirst

11:57am Thu 29 Nov 12

Andy2010 says...

Why is their an assumption that if benefits are cut for the workshy that they HAVE to turn to crime?

Surely this is their choice and nothing to do with the government? isnt it or am I missing something

Why cant they just be "normal" and go and find a job...if that one job doesnt pay enough get two jobs..simple really or is hard work a dirty word amongst these types?

And before anyone says "what jobs" I have just had a brief look at the JC site and their is loads...yes most are low paid etc but isnt any job better than no job....well apparently not but this is solely down to the benefits they will lose. Take away them benefits and this would change peoples mentality to work. If you need a job to literally survive you will do anything.
Why is their an assumption that if benefits are cut for the workshy that they HAVE to turn to crime? Surely this is their choice and nothing to do with the government? isnt it or am I missing something Why cant they just be "normal" and go and find a job...if that one job doesnt pay enough get two jobs..simple really or is hard work a dirty word amongst these types? And before anyone says "what jobs" I have just had a brief look at the JC site and their is loads...yes most are low paid etc but isnt any job better than no job....well apparently not but this is solely down to the benefits they will lose. Take away them benefits and this would change peoples mentality to work. If you need a job to literally survive you will do anything. Andy2010

1:59pm Thu 29 Nov 12

Alex_Ross-Shaw says...

angry bradfordian wrote:
Some of the details of the councils budget and investments plan make interesting reading:

Investment of £250,000 to undertake additional events based around the City Park; short of money, but we can afford a party now and again?

Investment of £65,000 through the reduced cost of grit due to negotiating prices; were they not trying to get the cheapest price before?

Investment of £50,000 to introduce additional refuse collections to address property growth; doesn't the additional Council Tax of the additional properties cover this?

Investment of £1,735,000 to meet increasing demands due to demographic pressure in Adult & Community Services. Again, if there are more people, where's the additional Council Tax revenue?


If you read the budget changes one by one there seem to be lot of efficiency savings that made myself ask why it's taken a recession to make them spend our money more efficiently.
Gah - I wish you could respond a little easier on these boards to comments.

Anyway, re: the £250k, it's about bringing people into the centre of Bradford to spend money and boost the local economy.

Figures have shown that since the City Park has opened footfall in the city centre has increased and benefited local businesses, therefore the £250k to run further events in the city centre is an investment aimed at boosting the city centre economy.

Re: the 65k on the grit - I should imagine (and hope!) they were always trying to get the cheapest price, but what that price is can change year-on-year.

Regarding the Council Tax issue - I'm guessing the additional CT does not cover the additional revenue collections else there would be no need to bring in every money to fund it. Bear in mind Council Tax has been frozen for several years now while inflation means the cost of services will still go up (e.g. grit, fuel and so on), so I would imagine that cash shortfalls are possible.

Regarding Adult and Community Services, depending on what they cover, some groups are exempt from CT, which would also apply to the refuse collection - everyone has a right to the service, but not everyone pays CT.

However, it's worth bearing in mind CT is now a direct like-for-like tax that covers every single council service, most of which I believe are usually funded from other sources, e.g. central government, which is making unprecedented cuts to said funding.
[quote][p][bold]angry bradfordian[/bold] wrote: Some of the details of the councils budget and investments plan make interesting reading: Investment of £250,000 to undertake additional events based around the City Park; short of money, but we can afford a party now and again? Investment of £65,000 through the reduced cost of grit due to negotiating prices; were they not trying to get the cheapest price before? Investment of £50,000 to introduce additional refuse collections to address property growth; doesn't the additional Council Tax of the additional properties cover this? Investment of £1,735,000 to meet increasing demands due to demographic pressure in Adult & Community Services. Again, if there are more people, where's the additional Council Tax revenue? If you read the budget changes one by one there seem to be lot of efficiency savings that made myself ask why it's taken a recession to make them spend our money more efficiently.[/p][/quote]Gah - I wish you could respond a little easier on these boards to comments. Anyway, re: the £250k, it's about bringing people into the centre of Bradford to spend money and boost the local economy. Figures have shown that since the City Park has opened footfall in the city centre has increased and benefited local businesses, therefore the £250k to run further events in the city centre is an investment aimed at boosting the city centre economy. Re: the 65k on the grit - I should imagine (and hope!) they were always trying to get the cheapest price, but what that price is can change year-on-year. Regarding the Council Tax issue - I'm guessing the additional CT does not cover the additional revenue collections else there would be no need to bring in every money to fund it. Bear in mind Council Tax has been frozen for several years now while inflation means the cost of services will still go up (e.g. grit, fuel and so on), so I would imagine that cash shortfalls are possible. Regarding Adult and Community Services, depending on what they cover, some groups are exempt from CT, which would also apply to the refuse collection - everyone has a right to the service, but not everyone pays CT. However, it's worth bearing in mind CT is now a direct like-for-like tax that covers every single council service, most of which I believe are usually funded from other sources, e.g. central government, which is making unprecedented cuts to said funding. Alex_Ross-Shaw

2:09pm Thu 29 Nov 12

Shelfrhino says...

Well said Wayne, I couldn't have put it better myself mate.
Well said Wayne, I couldn't have put it better myself mate. Shelfrhino

3:13pm Thu 29 Nov 12

RollandSmoke says...

Andy2010 wrote:
Why is their an assumption that if benefits are cut for the workshy that they HAVE to turn to crime?

Surely this is their choice and nothing to do with the government? isnt it or am I missing something

Why cant they just be "normal" and go and find a job...if that one job doesnt pay enough get two jobs..simple really or is hard work a dirty word amongst these types?

And before anyone says "what jobs" I have just had a brief look at the JC site and their is loads...yes most are low paid etc but isnt any job better than no job....well apparently not but this is solely down to the benefits they will lose. Take away them benefits and this would change peoples mentality to work. If you need a job to literally survive you will do anything.
What's your definition of slavery Andy? If the benefit claimant repeatedly fails to get selected from the vast pool of applicants what then? I think it's your mentality that is causing more damage to society. Oh I forgot, Maggie told you that "society doesn't exist" didn't she?
[quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: Why is their an assumption that if benefits are cut for the workshy that they HAVE to turn to crime? Surely this is their choice and nothing to do with the government? isnt it or am I missing something Why cant they just be "normal" and go and find a job...if that one job doesnt pay enough get two jobs..simple really or is hard work a dirty word amongst these types? And before anyone says "what jobs" I have just had a brief look at the JC site and their is loads...yes most are low paid etc but isnt any job better than no job....well apparently not but this is solely down to the benefits they will lose. Take away them benefits and this would change peoples mentality to work. If you need a job to literally survive you will do anything.[/p][/quote]What's your definition of slavery Andy? If the benefit claimant repeatedly fails to get selected from the vast pool of applicants what then? I think it's your mentality that is causing more damage to society. Oh I forgot, Maggie told you that "society doesn't exist" didn't she? RollandSmoke

3:52pm Thu 29 Nov 12

Andy2010 says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote: Why is their an assumption that if benefits are cut for the workshy that they HAVE to turn to crime? Surely this is their choice and nothing to do with the government? isnt it or am I missing something Why cant they just be "normal" and go and find a job...if that one job doesnt pay enough get two jobs..simple really or is hard work a dirty word amongst these types? And before anyone says "what jobs" I have just had a brief look at the JC site and their is loads...yes most are low paid etc but isnt any job better than no job....well apparently not but this is solely down to the benefits they will lose. Take away them benefits and this would change peoples mentality to work. If you need a job to literally survive you will do anything.
What's your definition of slavery Andy? If the benefit claimant repeatedly fails to get selected from the vast pool of applicants what then? I think it's your mentality that is causing more damage to society. Oh I forgot, Maggie told you that "society doesn't exist" didn't she?
Ok so what your saying is if someone is applying for 10 / 20 / 30 jobs a weeks and is unsuccesfull in 6 months in applying for 700 or so jobs then something is clearly not working. This is when the JC steps in offers coaching / courses and even a unpaid role in a business to gain experience and thus increase their future chances of employment. This is how things should work and indeed do so whats the problem.?

And slavery...cmon

Sorry I dont remember reading about many slaves in the last hundred years that got a house free, got a payout on the number of children they had, got exemptions from paying taxes that their "masters" had to pay, had numerous entertainment at their disposal in their homes, drank, smoked, whose children were granted a free education and free health service

Yeah the benefit system is exactly the same as slavery !
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: Why is their an assumption that if benefits are cut for the workshy that they HAVE to turn to crime? Surely this is their choice and nothing to do with the government? isnt it or am I missing something Why cant they just be "normal" and go and find a job...if that one job doesnt pay enough get two jobs..simple really or is hard work a dirty word amongst these types? And before anyone says "what jobs" I have just had a brief look at the JC site and their is loads...yes most are low paid etc but isnt any job better than no job....well apparently not but this is solely down to the benefits they will lose. Take away them benefits and this would change peoples mentality to work. If you need a job to literally survive you will do anything.[/p][/quote]What's your definition of slavery Andy? If the benefit claimant repeatedly fails to get selected from the vast pool of applicants what then? I think it's your mentality that is causing more damage to society. Oh I forgot, Maggie told you that "society doesn't exist" didn't she?[/p][/quote]Ok so what your saying is if someone is applying for 10 / 20 / 30 jobs a weeks and is unsuccesfull in 6 months in applying for 700 or so jobs then something is clearly not working. This is when the JC steps in offers coaching / courses and even a unpaid role in a business to gain experience and thus increase their future chances of employment. This is how things should work and indeed do so whats the problem.? And slavery...cmon Sorry I dont remember reading about many slaves in the last hundred years that got a house free, got a payout on the number of children they had, got exemptions from paying taxes that their "masters" had to pay, had numerous entertainment at their disposal in their homes, drank, smoked, whose children were granted a free education and free health service Yeah the benefit system is exactly the same as slavery ! Andy2010

4:09pm Thu 29 Nov 12

RollandSmoke says...

Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote: Why is their an assumption that if benefits are cut for the workshy that they HAVE to turn to crime? Surely this is their choice and nothing to do with the government? isnt it or am I missing something Why cant they just be "normal" and go and find a job...if that one job doesnt pay enough get two jobs..simple really or is hard work a dirty word amongst these types? And before anyone says "what jobs" I have just had a brief look at the JC site and their is loads...yes most are low paid etc but isnt any job better than no job....well apparently not but this is solely down to the benefits they will lose. Take away them benefits and this would change peoples mentality to work. If you need a job to literally survive you will do anything.
What's your definition of slavery Andy? If the benefit claimant repeatedly fails to get selected from the vast pool of applicants what then? I think it's your mentality that is causing more damage to society. Oh I forgot, Maggie told you that "society doesn't exist" didn't she?
Ok so what your saying is if someone is applying for 10 / 20 / 30 jobs a weeks and is unsuccesfull in 6 months in applying for 700 or so jobs then something is clearly not working. This is when the JC steps in offers coaching / courses and even a unpaid role in a business to gain experience and thus increase their future chances of employment. This is how things should work and indeed do so whats the problem.?

And slavery...cmon

Sorry I dont remember reading about many slaves in the last hundred years that got a house free, got a payout on the number of children they had, got exemptions from paying taxes that their "masters" had to pay, had numerous entertainment at their disposal in their homes, drank, smoked, whose children were granted a free education and free health service

Yeah the benefit system is exactly the same as slavery !
In your little capitalist utopia does industry exist to serve people or do people exist to serve industry? If industry needs less people due to efficiency savings better technology ect which maintains profits what becomes of their outdated workers? "Isn't job is better than no job" not sure maybe you could as the workers at Foxconn (you can google it unless you've got blood on your ipod screen)
[quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: Why is their an assumption that if benefits are cut for the workshy that they HAVE to turn to crime? Surely this is their choice and nothing to do with the government? isnt it or am I missing something Why cant they just be "normal" and go and find a job...if that one job doesnt pay enough get two jobs..simple really or is hard work a dirty word amongst these types? And before anyone says "what jobs" I have just had a brief look at the JC site and their is loads...yes most are low paid etc but isnt any job better than no job....well apparently not but this is solely down to the benefits they will lose. Take away them benefits and this would change peoples mentality to work. If you need a job to literally survive you will do anything.[/p][/quote]What's your definition of slavery Andy? If the benefit claimant repeatedly fails to get selected from the vast pool of applicants what then? I think it's your mentality that is causing more damage to society. Oh I forgot, Maggie told you that "society doesn't exist" didn't she?[/p][/quote]Ok so what your saying is if someone is applying for 10 / 20 / 30 jobs a weeks and is unsuccesfull in 6 months in applying for 700 or so jobs then something is clearly not working. This is when the JC steps in offers coaching / courses and even a unpaid role in a business to gain experience and thus increase their future chances of employment. This is how things should work and indeed do so whats the problem.? And slavery...cmon Sorry I dont remember reading about many slaves in the last hundred years that got a house free, got a payout on the number of children they had, got exemptions from paying taxes that their "masters" had to pay, had numerous entertainment at their disposal in their homes, drank, smoked, whose children were granted a free education and free health service Yeah the benefit system is exactly the same as slavery ![/p][/quote]In your little capitalist utopia does industry exist to serve people or do people exist to serve industry? If industry needs less people due to efficiency savings better technology ect which maintains profits what becomes of their outdated workers? "Isn't job is better than no job" not sure maybe you could as the workers at Foxconn (you can google it unless you've got blood on your ipod screen) RollandSmoke

4:10pm Thu 29 Nov 12

RollandSmoke says...

Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote: Why is their an assumption that if benefits are cut for the workshy that they HAVE to turn to crime? Surely this is their choice and nothing to do with the government? isnt it or am I missing something Why cant they just be "normal" and go and find a job...if that one job doesnt pay enough get two jobs..simple really or is hard work a dirty word amongst these types? And before anyone says "what jobs" I have just had a brief look at the JC site and their is loads...yes most are low paid etc but isnt any job better than no job....well apparently not but this is solely down to the benefits they will lose. Take away them benefits and this would change peoples mentality to work. If you need a job to literally survive you will do anything.
What's your definition of slavery Andy? If the benefit claimant repeatedly fails to get selected from the vast pool of applicants what then? I think it's your mentality that is causing more damage to society. Oh I forgot, Maggie told you that "society doesn't exist" didn't she?
Ok so what your saying is if someone is applying for 10 / 20 / 30 jobs a weeks and is unsuccesfull in 6 months in applying for 700 or so jobs then something is clearly not working. This is when the JC steps in offers coaching / courses and even a unpaid role in a business to gain experience and thus increase their future chances of employment. This is how things should work and indeed do so whats the problem.?

And slavery...cmon

Sorry I dont remember reading about many slaves in the last hundred years that got a house free, got a payout on the number of children they had, got exemptions from paying taxes that their "masters" had to pay, had numerous entertainment at their disposal in their homes, drank, smoked, whose children were granted a free education and free health service

Yeah the benefit system is exactly the same as slavery !
In your little capitalist utopia does industry exist to serve people or do people exist to serve industry? If industry needs less people due to efficiency savings better technology ect which maintains profits what becomes of their outdated workers? "Isn't any job is better than no job" not sure maybe you could as the workers at Foxconn (you can google it unless you've got blood on your ipod screen)
[quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: Why is their an assumption that if benefits are cut for the workshy that they HAVE to turn to crime? Surely this is their choice and nothing to do with the government? isnt it or am I missing something Why cant they just be "normal" and go and find a job...if that one job doesnt pay enough get two jobs..simple really or is hard work a dirty word amongst these types? And before anyone says "what jobs" I have just had a brief look at the JC site and their is loads...yes most are low paid etc but isnt any job better than no job....well apparently not but this is solely down to the benefits they will lose. Take away them benefits and this would change peoples mentality to work. If you need a job to literally survive you will do anything.[/p][/quote]What's your definition of slavery Andy? If the benefit claimant repeatedly fails to get selected from the vast pool of applicants what then? I think it's your mentality that is causing more damage to society. Oh I forgot, Maggie told you that "society doesn't exist" didn't she?[/p][/quote]Ok so what your saying is if someone is applying for 10 / 20 / 30 jobs a weeks and is unsuccesfull in 6 months in applying for 700 or so jobs then something is clearly not working. This is when the JC steps in offers coaching / courses and even a unpaid role in a business to gain experience and thus increase their future chances of employment. This is how things should work and indeed do so whats the problem.? And slavery...cmon Sorry I dont remember reading about many slaves in the last hundred years that got a house free, got a payout on the number of children they had, got exemptions from paying taxes that their "masters" had to pay, had numerous entertainment at their disposal in their homes, drank, smoked, whose children were granted a free education and free health service Yeah the benefit system is exactly the same as slavery ![/p][/quote]In your little capitalist utopia does industry exist to serve people or do people exist to serve industry? If industry needs less people due to efficiency savings better technology ect which maintains profits what becomes of their outdated workers? "Isn't any job is better than no job" not sure maybe you could as the workers at Foxconn (you can google it unless you've got blood on your ipod screen) RollandSmoke

4:34pm Thu 29 Nov 12

Andy2010 says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote: Why is their an assumption that if benefits are cut for the workshy that they HAVE to turn to crime? Surely this is their choice and nothing to do with the government? isnt it or am I missing something Why cant they just be "normal" and go and find a job...if that one job doesnt pay enough get two jobs..simple really or is hard work a dirty word amongst these types? And before anyone says "what jobs" I have just had a brief look at the JC site and their is loads...yes most are low paid etc but isnt any job better than no job....well apparently not but this is solely down to the benefits they will lose. Take away them benefits and this would change peoples mentality to work. If you need a job to literally survive you will do anything.
What's your definition of slavery Andy? If the benefit claimant repeatedly fails to get selected from the vast pool of applicants what then? I think it's your mentality that is causing more damage to society. Oh I forgot, Maggie told you that "society doesn't exist" didn't she?
Ok so what your saying is if someone is applying for 10 / 20 / 30 jobs a weeks and is unsuccesfull in 6 months in applying for 700 or so jobs then something is clearly not working. This is when the JC steps in offers coaching / courses and even a unpaid role in a business to gain experience and thus increase their future chances of employment. This is how things should work and indeed do so whats the problem.? And slavery...cmon Sorry I dont remember reading about many slaves in the last hundred years that got a house free, got a payout on the number of children they had, got exemptions from paying taxes that their "masters" had to pay, had numerous entertainment at their disposal in their homes, drank, smoked, whose children were granted a free education and free health service Yeah the benefit system is exactly the same as slavery !
In your little capitalist utopia does industry exist to serve people or do people exist to serve industry? If industry needs less people due to efficiency savings better technology ect which maintains profits what becomes of their outdated workers? "Isn't any job is better than no job" not sure maybe you could as the workers at Foxconn (you can google it unless you've got blood on your ipod screen)
What has Foxconn got to do with anything. are you saying Apple are at fault here

Where do you do your shopping. I take it from your ethical stance you dont shop at any supermarkets (as they effectively act unethical to their suppliers), I also take it you only buy your clothes that are manufactered in the UK?

So yes any job is better than no job and Last time I looked into it Foxconn didnt seem short of applicants for their roles. No-one frogmarches people into their premises and pays them in food. Alas in China these workers are glad to be providing for their families as they dont have the benefit system we have in this country

And your point about industry is it works both ways. Industry exists both to supply people and people exist to supply industry so your point is ?
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: Why is their an assumption that if benefits are cut for the workshy that they HAVE to turn to crime? Surely this is their choice and nothing to do with the government? isnt it or am I missing something Why cant they just be "normal" and go and find a job...if that one job doesnt pay enough get two jobs..simple really or is hard work a dirty word amongst these types? And before anyone says "what jobs" I have just had a brief look at the JC site and their is loads...yes most are low paid etc but isnt any job better than no job....well apparently not but this is solely down to the benefits they will lose. Take away them benefits and this would change peoples mentality to work. If you need a job to literally survive you will do anything.[/p][/quote]What's your definition of slavery Andy? If the benefit claimant repeatedly fails to get selected from the vast pool of applicants what then? I think it's your mentality that is causing more damage to society. Oh I forgot, Maggie told you that "society doesn't exist" didn't she?[/p][/quote]Ok so what your saying is if someone is applying for 10 / 20 / 30 jobs a weeks and is unsuccesfull in 6 months in applying for 700 or so jobs then something is clearly not working. This is when the JC steps in offers coaching / courses and even a unpaid role in a business to gain experience and thus increase their future chances of employment. This is how things should work and indeed do so whats the problem.? And slavery...cmon Sorry I dont remember reading about many slaves in the last hundred years that got a house free, got a payout on the number of children they had, got exemptions from paying taxes that their "masters" had to pay, had numerous entertainment at their disposal in their homes, drank, smoked, whose children were granted a free education and free health service Yeah the benefit system is exactly the same as slavery ![/p][/quote]In your little capitalist utopia does industry exist to serve people or do people exist to serve industry? If industry needs less people due to efficiency savings better technology ect which maintains profits what becomes of their outdated workers? "Isn't any job is better than no job" not sure maybe you could as the workers at Foxconn (you can google it unless you've got blood on your ipod screen)[/p][/quote]What has Foxconn got to do with anything. are you saying Apple are at fault here Where do you do your shopping. I take it from your ethical stance you dont shop at any supermarkets (as they effectively act unethical to their suppliers), I also take it you only buy your clothes that are manufactered in the UK? So yes any job is better than no job and Last time I looked into it Foxconn didnt seem short of applicants for their roles. No-one frogmarches people into their premises and pays them in food. Alas in China these workers are glad to be providing for their families as they dont have the benefit system we have in this country And your point about industry is it works both ways. Industry exists both to supply people and people exist to supply industry so your point is ? Andy2010

5:03pm Thu 29 Nov 12

RollandSmoke says...

Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote: Why is their an assumption that if benefits are cut for the workshy that they HAVE to turn to crime? Surely this is their choice and nothing to do with the government? isnt it or am I missing something Why cant they just be "normal" and go and find a job...if that one job doesnt pay enough get two jobs..simple really or is hard work a dirty word amongst these types? And before anyone says "what jobs" I have just had a brief look at the JC site and their is loads...yes most are low paid etc but isnt any job better than no job....well apparently not but this is solely down to the benefits they will lose. Take away them benefits and this would change peoples mentality to work. If you need a job to literally survive you will do anything.
What's your definition of slavery Andy? If the benefit claimant repeatedly fails to get selected from the vast pool of applicants what then? I think it's your mentality that is causing more damage to society. Oh I forgot, Maggie told you that "society doesn't exist" didn't she?
Ok so what your saying is if someone is applying for 10 / 20 / 30 jobs a weeks and is unsuccesfull in 6 months in applying for 700 or so jobs then something is clearly not working. This is when the JC steps in offers coaching / courses and even a unpaid role in a business to gain experience and thus increase their future chances of employment. This is how things should work and indeed do so whats the problem.? And slavery...cmon Sorry I dont remember reading about many slaves in the last hundred years that got a house free, got a payout on the number of children they had, got exemptions from paying taxes that their "masters" had to pay, had numerous entertainment at their disposal in their homes, drank, smoked, whose children were granted a free education and free health service Yeah the benefit system is exactly the same as slavery !
In your little capitalist utopia does industry exist to serve people or do people exist to serve industry? If industry needs less people due to efficiency savings better technology ect which maintains profits what becomes of their outdated workers? "Isn't any job is better than no job" not sure maybe you could as the workers at Foxconn (you can google it unless you've got blood on your ipod screen)
What has Foxconn got to do with anything. are you saying Apple are at fault here

Where do you do your shopping. I take it from your ethical stance you dont shop at any supermarkets (as they effectively act unethical to their suppliers), I also take it you only buy your clothes that are manufactered in the UK?

So yes any job is better than no job and Last time I looked into it Foxconn didnt seem short of applicants for their roles. No-one frogmarches people into their premises and pays them in food. Alas in China these workers are glad to be providing for their families as they dont have the benefit system we have in this country

And your point about industry is it works both ways. Industry exists both to supply people and people exist to supply industry so your point is ?
Due to the success of capitalism I have no choice but to shop at supermarkets and buy clothes manufactured by slave labour abroad.
But capitalism's all about competition isn't it? I'm sure Foxconn will have a queue of people desperate to replace the ones who threw themselves from the roof but no you can't blame apple it's not like they're making much profit from the goods these workers make. Your belief that "people exist to supply industry" is a deeply disturbing one. If the industry that exists to serve the people were paying the taxes they should on the profits made from serving them we wouldn't have to be persicuting people for the failure of capitalism to create futher living wage jobs.
[quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: Why is their an assumption that if benefits are cut for the workshy that they HAVE to turn to crime? Surely this is their choice and nothing to do with the government? isnt it or am I missing something Why cant they just be "normal" and go and find a job...if that one job doesnt pay enough get two jobs..simple really or is hard work a dirty word amongst these types? And before anyone says "what jobs" I have just had a brief look at the JC site and their is loads...yes most are low paid etc but isnt any job better than no job....well apparently not but this is solely down to the benefits they will lose. Take away them benefits and this would change peoples mentality to work. If you need a job to literally survive you will do anything.[/p][/quote]What's your definition of slavery Andy? If the benefit claimant repeatedly fails to get selected from the vast pool of applicants what then? I think it's your mentality that is causing more damage to society. Oh I forgot, Maggie told you that "society doesn't exist" didn't she?[/p][/quote]Ok so what your saying is if someone is applying for 10 / 20 / 30 jobs a weeks and is unsuccesfull in 6 months in applying for 700 or so jobs then something is clearly not working. This is when the JC steps in offers coaching / courses and even a unpaid role in a business to gain experience and thus increase their future chances of employment. This is how things should work and indeed do so whats the problem.? And slavery...cmon Sorry I dont remember reading about many slaves in the last hundred years that got a house free, got a payout on the number of children they had, got exemptions from paying taxes that their "masters" had to pay, had numerous entertainment at their disposal in their homes, drank, smoked, whose children were granted a free education and free health service Yeah the benefit system is exactly the same as slavery ![/p][/quote]In your little capitalist utopia does industry exist to serve people or do people exist to serve industry? If industry needs less people due to efficiency savings better technology ect which maintains profits what becomes of their outdated workers? "Isn't any job is better than no job" not sure maybe you could as the workers at Foxconn (you can google it unless you've got blood on your ipod screen)[/p][/quote]What has Foxconn got to do with anything. are you saying Apple are at fault here Where do you do your shopping. I take it from your ethical stance you dont shop at any supermarkets (as they effectively act unethical to their suppliers), I also take it you only buy your clothes that are manufactered in the UK? So yes any job is better than no job and Last time I looked into it Foxconn didnt seem short of applicants for their roles. No-one frogmarches people into their premises and pays them in food. Alas in China these workers are glad to be providing for their families as they dont have the benefit system we have in this country And your point about industry is it works both ways. Industry exists both to supply people and people exist to supply industry so your point is ?[/p][/quote]Due to the success of capitalism I have no choice but to shop at supermarkets and buy clothes manufactured by slave labour abroad. But capitalism's all about competition isn't it? I'm sure Foxconn will have a queue of people desperate to replace the ones who threw themselves from the roof but no you can't blame apple it's not like they're making much profit from the goods these workers make. Your belief that "people exist to supply industry" is a deeply disturbing one. If the industry that exists to serve the people were paying the taxes they should on the profits made from serving them we wouldn't have to be persicuting people for the failure of capitalism to create futher living wage jobs. RollandSmoke

5:28pm Thu 29 Nov 12

Andy2010 says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote: Why is their an assumption that if benefits are cut for the workshy that they HAVE to turn to crime? Surely this is their choice and nothing to do with the government? isnt it or am I missing something Why cant they just be "normal" and go and find a job...if that one job doesnt pay enough get two jobs..simple really or is hard work a dirty word amongst these types? And before anyone says "what jobs" I have just had a brief look at the JC site and their is loads...yes most are low paid etc but isnt any job better than no job....well apparently not but this is solely down to the benefits they will lose. Take away them benefits and this would change peoples mentality to work. If you need a job to literally survive you will do anything.
What's your definition of slavery Andy? If the benefit claimant repeatedly fails to get selected from the vast pool of applicants what then? I think it's your mentality that is causing more damage to society. Oh I forgot, Maggie told you that "society doesn't exist" didn't she?
Ok so what your saying is if someone is applying for 10 / 20 / 30 jobs a weeks and is unsuccesfull in 6 months in applying for 700 or so jobs then something is clearly not working. This is when the JC steps in offers coaching / courses and even a unpaid role in a business to gain experience and thus increase their future chances of employment. This is how things should work and indeed do so whats the problem.? And slavery...cmon Sorry I dont remember reading about many slaves in the last hundred years that got a house free, got a payout on the number of children they had, got exemptions from paying taxes that their "masters" had to pay, had numerous entertainment at their disposal in their homes, drank, smoked, whose children were granted a free education and free health service Yeah the benefit system is exactly the same as slavery !
In your little capitalist utopia does industry exist to serve people or do people exist to serve industry? If industry needs less people due to efficiency savings better technology ect which maintains profits what becomes of their outdated workers? "Isn't any job is better than no job" not sure maybe you could as the workers at Foxconn (you can google it unless you've got blood on your ipod screen)
What has Foxconn got to do with anything. are you saying Apple are at fault here Where do you do your shopping. I take it from your ethical stance you dont shop at any supermarkets (as they effectively act unethical to their suppliers), I also take it you only buy your clothes that are manufactered in the UK? So yes any job is better than no job and Last time I looked into it Foxconn didnt seem short of applicants for their roles. No-one frogmarches people into their premises and pays them in food. Alas in China these workers are glad to be providing for their families as they dont have the benefit system we have in this country And your point about industry is it works both ways. Industry exists both to supply people and people exist to supply industry so your point is ?
Due to the success of capitalism I have no choice but to shop at supermarkets and buy clothes manufactured by slave labour abroad. But capitalism's all about competition isn't it? I'm sure Foxconn will have a queue of people desperate to replace the ones who threw themselves from the roof but no you can't blame apple it's not like they're making much profit from the goods these workers make. Your belief that "people exist to supply industry" is a deeply disturbing one. If the industry that exists to serve the people were paying the taxes they should on the profits made from serving them we wouldn't have to be persicuting people for the failure of capitalism to create futher living wage jobs.
well of course people exist to supply industry. On the assumption that every employer is "industry" isnt that the case?

Without the people industry couldnt exist and without people industry couldnt exist so both equally exist to serve each other.

But in reference to what you are referring to yes I feel glad to have a job and lucky in having one. Yes I will work hard and indeed pay taxes but I dont see what is wrong with that where clearly you do

And to imply that no "industries" pay taxes then you are misguided as this is only a few that dont and generally these are imported companies in the EU. The vast majority of the UK's companies pay vast amount of taxes on their profits but dont let the truth detract you away from your sensational headlines
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: Why is their an assumption that if benefits are cut for the workshy that they HAVE to turn to crime? Surely this is their choice and nothing to do with the government? isnt it or am I missing something Why cant they just be "normal" and go and find a job...if that one job doesnt pay enough get two jobs..simple really or is hard work a dirty word amongst these types? And before anyone says "what jobs" I have just had a brief look at the JC site and their is loads...yes most are low paid etc but isnt any job better than no job....well apparently not but this is solely down to the benefits they will lose. Take away them benefits and this would change peoples mentality to work. If you need a job to literally survive you will do anything.[/p][/quote]What's your definition of slavery Andy? If the benefit claimant repeatedly fails to get selected from the vast pool of applicants what then? I think it's your mentality that is causing more damage to society. Oh I forgot, Maggie told you that "society doesn't exist" didn't she?[/p][/quote]Ok so what your saying is if someone is applying for 10 / 20 / 30 jobs a weeks and is unsuccesfull in 6 months in applying for 700 or so jobs then something is clearly not working. This is when the JC steps in offers coaching / courses and even a unpaid role in a business to gain experience and thus increase their future chances of employment. This is how things should work and indeed do so whats the problem.? And slavery...cmon Sorry I dont remember reading about many slaves in the last hundred years that got a house free, got a payout on the number of children they had, got exemptions from paying taxes that their "masters" had to pay, had numerous entertainment at their disposal in their homes, drank, smoked, whose children were granted a free education and free health service Yeah the benefit system is exactly the same as slavery ![/p][/quote]In your little capitalist utopia does industry exist to serve people or do people exist to serve industry? If industry needs less people due to efficiency savings better technology ect which maintains profits what becomes of their outdated workers? "Isn't any job is better than no job" not sure maybe you could as the workers at Foxconn (you can google it unless you've got blood on your ipod screen)[/p][/quote]What has Foxconn got to do with anything. are you saying Apple are at fault here Where do you do your shopping. I take it from your ethical stance you dont shop at any supermarkets (as they effectively act unethical to their suppliers), I also take it you only buy your clothes that are manufactered in the UK? So yes any job is better than no job and Last time I looked into it Foxconn didnt seem short of applicants for their roles. No-one frogmarches people into their premises and pays them in food. Alas in China these workers are glad to be providing for their families as they dont have the benefit system we have in this country And your point about industry is it works both ways. Industry exists both to supply people and people exist to supply industry so your point is ?[/p][/quote]Due to the success of capitalism I have no choice but to shop at supermarkets and buy clothes manufactured by slave labour abroad. But capitalism's all about competition isn't it? I'm sure Foxconn will have a queue of people desperate to replace the ones who threw themselves from the roof but no you can't blame apple it's not like they're making much profit from the goods these workers make. Your belief that "people exist to supply industry" is a deeply disturbing one. If the industry that exists to serve the people were paying the taxes they should on the profits made from serving them we wouldn't have to be persicuting people for the failure of capitalism to create futher living wage jobs.[/p][/quote]well of course people exist to supply industry. On the assumption that every employer is "industry" isnt that the case? Without the people industry couldnt exist and without people industry couldnt exist so both equally exist to serve each other. But in reference to what you are referring to yes I feel glad to have a job and lucky in having one. Yes I will work hard and indeed pay taxes but I dont see what is wrong with that where clearly you do And to imply that no "industries" pay taxes then you are misguided as this is only a few that dont and generally these are imported companies in the EU. The vast majority of the UK's companies pay vast amount of taxes on their profits but dont let the truth detract you away from your sensational headlines Andy2010

6:06pm Thu 29 Nov 12

RollandSmoke says...

Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote: Why is their an assumption that if benefits are cut for the workshy that they HAVE to turn to crime? Surely this is their choice and nothing to do with the government? isnt it or am I missing something Why cant they just be "normal" and go and find a job...if that one job doesnt pay enough get two jobs..simple really or is hard work a dirty word amongst these types? And before anyone says "what jobs" I have just had a brief look at the JC site and their is loads...yes most are low paid etc but isnt any job better than no job....well apparently not but this is solely down to the benefits they will lose. Take away them benefits and this would change peoples mentality to work. If you need a job to literally survive you will do anything.
What's your definition of slavery Andy? If the benefit claimant repeatedly fails to get selected from the vast pool of applicants what then? I think it's your mentality that is causing more damage to society. Oh I forgot, Maggie told you that "society doesn't exist" didn't she?
Ok so what your saying is if someone is applying for 10 / 20 / 30 jobs a weeks and is unsuccesfull in 6 months in applying for 700 or so jobs then something is clearly not working. This is when the JC steps in offers coaching / courses and even a unpaid role in a business to gain experience and thus increase their future chances of employment. This is how things should work and indeed do so whats the problem.? And slavery...cmon Sorry I dont remember reading about many slaves in the last hundred years that got a house free, got a payout on the number of children they had, got exemptions from paying taxes that their "masters" had to pay, had numerous entertainment at their disposal in their homes, drank, smoked, whose children were granted a free education and free health service Yeah the benefit system is exactly the same as slavery !
In your little capitalist utopia does industry exist to serve people or do people exist to serve industry? If industry needs less people due to efficiency savings better technology ect which maintains profits what becomes of their outdated workers? "Isn't any job is better than no job" not sure maybe you could as the workers at Foxconn (you can google it unless you've got blood on your ipod screen)
What has Foxconn got to do with anything. are you saying Apple are at fault here Where do you do your shopping. I take it from your ethical stance you dont shop at any supermarkets (as they effectively act unethical to their suppliers), I also take it you only buy your clothes that are manufactered in the UK? So yes any job is better than no job and Last time I looked into it Foxconn didnt seem short of applicants for their roles. No-one frogmarches people into their premises and pays them in food. Alas in China these workers are glad to be providing for their families as they dont have the benefit system we have in this country And your point about industry is it works both ways. Industry exists both to supply people and people exist to supply industry so your point is ?
Due to the success of capitalism I have no choice but to shop at supermarkets and buy clothes manufactured by slave labour abroad. But capitalism's all about competition isn't it? I'm sure Foxconn will have a queue of people desperate to replace the ones who threw themselves from the roof but no you can't blame apple it's not like they're making much profit from the goods these workers make. Your belief that "people exist to supply industry" is a deeply disturbing one. If the industry that exists to serve the people were paying the taxes they should on the profits made from serving them we wouldn't have to be persicuting people for the failure of capitalism to create futher living wage jobs.
well of course people exist to supply industry. On the assumption that every employer is "industry" isnt that the case?

Without the people industry couldnt exist and without people industry couldnt exist so both equally exist to serve each other.

But in reference to what you are referring to yes I feel glad to have a job and lucky in having one. Yes I will work hard and indeed pay taxes but I dont see what is wrong with that where clearly you do

And to imply that no "industries" pay taxes then you are misguided as this is only a few that dont and generally these are imported companies in the EU. The vast majority of the UK's companies pay vast amount of taxes on their profits but dont let the truth detract you away from your sensational headlines
I do apologise for making sweeping generalisations, bad form I know. I see nothing whatsoever wrong with you having a decent job. What I have a problem with is the vile way you deride those less fortunate than yourself especially as your definition of working hard is Trolling the T&A to find stories about the less fortunate for you to attack day in day out. You have lost connection to your humanity and see people as nothing more than a commodity to be exploited so as those with wealth can expand on it and the cheaper that commodity the better. I doubt it will even register in your brain why your attitude is wrong. You lack empathy but that is just a symptom of the psycopathy that makes you so successful in the capitalist system. Amusingly you think that others are jealous of you and what you've got when in reality I pity you for the person you've become and the bitterness it's created within you.
[quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: Why is their an assumption that if benefits are cut for the workshy that they HAVE to turn to crime? Surely this is their choice and nothing to do with the government? isnt it or am I missing something Why cant they just be "normal" and go and find a job...if that one job doesnt pay enough get two jobs..simple really or is hard work a dirty word amongst these types? And before anyone says "what jobs" I have just had a brief look at the JC site and their is loads...yes most are low paid etc but isnt any job better than no job....well apparently not but this is solely down to the benefits they will lose. Take away them benefits and this would change peoples mentality to work. If you need a job to literally survive you will do anything.[/p][/quote]What's your definition of slavery Andy? If the benefit claimant repeatedly fails to get selected from the vast pool of applicants what then? I think it's your mentality that is causing more damage to society. Oh I forgot, Maggie told you that "society doesn't exist" didn't she?[/p][/quote]Ok so what your saying is if someone is applying for 10 / 20 / 30 jobs a weeks and is unsuccesfull in 6 months in applying for 700 or so jobs then something is clearly not working. This is when the JC steps in offers coaching / courses and even a unpaid role in a business to gain experience and thus increase their future chances of employment. This is how things should work and indeed do so whats the problem.? And slavery...cmon Sorry I dont remember reading about many slaves in the last hundred years that got a house free, got a payout on the number of children they had, got exemptions from paying taxes that their "masters" had to pay, had numerous entertainment at their disposal in their homes, drank, smoked, whose children were granted a free education and free health service Yeah the benefit system is exactly the same as slavery ![/p][/quote]In your little capitalist utopia does industry exist to serve people or do people exist to serve industry? If industry needs less people due to efficiency savings better technology ect which maintains profits what becomes of their outdated workers? "Isn't any job is better than no job" not sure maybe you could as the workers at Foxconn (you can google it unless you've got blood on your ipod screen)[/p][/quote]What has Foxconn got to do with anything. are you saying Apple are at fault here Where do you do your shopping. I take it from your ethical stance you dont shop at any supermarkets (as they effectively act unethical to their suppliers), I also take it you only buy your clothes that are manufactered in the UK? So yes any job is better than no job and Last time I looked into it Foxconn didnt seem short of applicants for their roles. No-one frogmarches people into their premises and pays them in food. Alas in China these workers are glad to be providing for their families as they dont have the benefit system we have in this country And your point about industry is it works both ways. Industry exists both to supply people and people exist to supply industry so your point is ?[/p][/quote]Due to the success of capitalism I have no choice but to shop at supermarkets and buy clothes manufactured by slave labour abroad. But capitalism's all about competition isn't it? I'm sure Foxconn will have a queue of people desperate to replace the ones who threw themselves from the roof but no you can't blame apple it's not like they're making much profit from the goods these workers make. Your belief that "people exist to supply industry" is a deeply disturbing one. If the industry that exists to serve the people were paying the taxes they should on the profits made from serving them we wouldn't have to be persicuting people for the failure of capitalism to create futher living wage jobs.[/p][/quote]well of course people exist to supply industry. On the assumption that every employer is "industry" isnt that the case? Without the people industry couldnt exist and without people industry couldnt exist so both equally exist to serve each other. But in reference to what you are referring to yes I feel glad to have a job and lucky in having one. Yes I will work hard and indeed pay taxes but I dont see what is wrong with that where clearly you do And to imply that no "industries" pay taxes then you are misguided as this is only a few that dont and generally these are imported companies in the EU. The vast majority of the UK's companies pay vast amount of taxes on their profits but dont let the truth detract you away from your sensational headlines[/p][/quote]I do apologise for making sweeping generalisations, bad form I know. I see nothing whatsoever wrong with you having a decent job. What I have a problem with is the vile way you deride those less fortunate than yourself especially as your definition of working hard is Trolling the T&A to find stories about the less fortunate for you to attack day in day out. You have lost connection to your humanity and see people as nothing more than a commodity to be exploited so as those with wealth can expand on it and the cheaper that commodity the better. I doubt it will even register in your brain why your attitude is wrong. You lack empathy but that is just a symptom of the psycopathy that makes you so successful in the capitalist system. Amusingly you think that others are jealous of you and what you've got when in reality I pity you for the person you've become and the bitterness it's created within you. RollandSmoke

6:54pm Thu 29 Nov 12

Andy2010 says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote: Why is their an assumption that if benefits are cut for the workshy that they HAVE to turn to crime? Surely this is their choice and nothing to do with the government? isnt it or am I missing something Why cant they just be "normal" and go and find a job...if that one job doesnt pay enough get two jobs..simple really or is hard work a dirty word amongst these types? And before anyone says "what jobs" I have just had a brief look at the JC site and their is loads...yes most are low paid etc but isnt any job better than no job....well apparently not but this is solely down to the benefits they will lose. Take away them benefits and this would change peoples mentality to work. If you need a job to literally survive you will do anything.
What's your definition of slavery Andy? If the benefit claimant repeatedly fails to get selected from the vast pool of applicants what then? I think it's your mentality that is causing more damage to society. Oh I forgot, Maggie told you that "society doesn't exist" didn't she?
Ok so what your saying is if someone is applying for 10 / 20 / 30 jobs a weeks and is unsuccesfull in 6 months in applying for 700 or so jobs then something is clearly not working. This is when the JC steps in offers coaching / courses and even a unpaid role in a business to gain experience and thus increase their future chances of employment. This is how things should work and indeed do so whats the problem.? And slavery...cmon Sorry I dont remember reading about many slaves in the last hundred years that got a house free, got a payout on the number of children they had, got exemptions from paying taxes that their "masters" had to pay, had numerous entertainment at their disposal in their homes, drank, smoked, whose children were granted a free education and free health service Yeah the benefit system is exactly the same as slavery !
In your little capitalist utopia does industry exist to serve people or do people exist to serve industry? If industry needs less people due to efficiency savings better technology ect which maintains profits what becomes of their outdated workers? "Isn't any job is better than no job" not sure maybe you could as the workers at Foxconn (you can google it unless you've got blood on your ipod screen)
What has Foxconn got to do with anything. are you saying Apple are at fault here Where do you do your shopping. I take it from your ethical stance you dont shop at any supermarkets (as they effectively act unethical to their suppliers), I also take it you only buy your clothes that are manufactered in the UK? So yes any job is better than no job and Last time I looked into it Foxconn didnt seem short of applicants for their roles. No-one frogmarches people into their premises and pays them in food. Alas in China these workers are glad to be providing for their families as they dont have the benefit system we have in this country And your point about industry is it works both ways. Industry exists both to supply people and people exist to supply industry so your point is ?
Due to the success of capitalism I have no choice but to shop at supermarkets and buy clothes manufactured by slave labour abroad. But capitalism's all about competition isn't it? I'm sure Foxconn will have a queue of people desperate to replace the ones who threw themselves from the roof but no you can't blame apple it's not like they're making much profit from the goods these workers make. Your belief that "people exist to supply industry" is a deeply disturbing one. If the industry that exists to serve the people were paying the taxes they should on the profits made from serving them we wouldn't have to be persicuting people for the failure of capitalism to create futher living wage jobs.
well of course people exist to supply industry. On the assumption that every employer is "industry" isnt that the case?

Without the people industry couldnt exist and without people industry couldnt exist so both equally exist to serve each other.

But in reference to what you are referring to yes I feel glad to have a job and lucky in having one. Yes I will work hard and indeed pay taxes but I dont see what is wrong with that where clearly you do

And to imply that no "industries" pay taxes then you are misguided as this is only a few that dont and generally these are imported companies in the EU. The vast majority of the UK's companies pay vast amount of taxes on their profits but dont let the truth detract you away from your sensational headlines
I do apologise for making sweeping generalisations, bad form I know. I see nothing whatsoever wrong with you having a decent job. What I have a problem with is the vile way you deride those less fortunate than yourself especially as your definition of working hard is Trolling the T&A to find stories about the less fortunate for you to attack day in day out. You have lost connection to your humanity and see people as nothing more than a commodity to be exploited so as those with wealth can expand on it and the cheaper that commodity the better. I doubt it will even register in your brain why your attitude is wrong. You lack empathy but that is just a symptom of the psycopathy that makes you so successful in the capitalist system. Amusingly you think that others are jealous of you and what you've got when in reality I pity you for the person you've become and the bitterness it's created within you.
You clearly misunderstand

Since when have it attacked those less fortunate. I'm all for the welfare state but not in the way ALP and yourself portray it. Those in need should always be helped by the state but I'm not deluded to conclude that it's a god given right. There was a period in my life when I've been there myself but I was brought up to work hard to provide for my family. I I know this is a principle sadly now in decline in modern Britain but it's one I believe in and will also instil in my children. I believe that and you can disagree with me all you want but don't start throwing around accusations at me just for having values that don't agree with yours. And for the records when it comes to business and being an employer myself I see people as assets not commodity as I appreciate what the right people add to a business.

And I certainly don't think anyone is jealous of me as I got nothing to be jealous of. I'm just a hard working family man no different to millions of others but the same as millions of others that are sick to death of certain elements of society not pulling their weight and the rest of us paying for it.
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: Why is their an assumption that if benefits are cut for the workshy that they HAVE to turn to crime? Surely this is their choice and nothing to do with the government? isnt it or am I missing something Why cant they just be "normal" and go and find a job...if that one job doesnt pay enough get two jobs..simple really or is hard work a dirty word amongst these types? And before anyone says "what jobs" I have just had a brief look at the JC site and their is loads...yes most are low paid etc but isnt any job better than no job....well apparently not but this is solely down to the benefits they will lose. Take away them benefits and this would change peoples mentality to work. If you need a job to literally survive you will do anything.[/p][/quote]What's your definition of slavery Andy? If the benefit claimant repeatedly fails to get selected from the vast pool of applicants what then? I think it's your mentality that is causing more damage to society. Oh I forgot, Maggie told you that "society doesn't exist" didn't she?[/p][/quote]Ok so what your saying is if someone is applying for 10 / 20 / 30 jobs a weeks and is unsuccesfull in 6 months in applying for 700 or so jobs then something is clearly not working. This is when the JC steps in offers coaching / courses and even a unpaid role in a business to gain experience and thus increase their future chances of employment. This is how things should work and indeed do so whats the problem.? And slavery...cmon Sorry I dont remember reading about many slaves in the last hundred years that got a house free, got a payout on the number of children they had, got exemptions from paying taxes that their "masters" had to pay, had numerous entertainment at their disposal in their homes, drank, smoked, whose children were granted a free education and free health service Yeah the benefit system is exactly the same as slavery ![/p][/quote]In your little capitalist utopia does industry exist to serve people or do people exist to serve industry? If industry needs less people due to efficiency savings better technology ect which maintains profits what becomes of their outdated workers? "Isn't any job is better than no job" not sure maybe you could as the workers at Foxconn (you can google it unless you've got blood on your ipod screen)[/p][/quote]What has Foxconn got to do with anything. are you saying Apple are at fault here Where do you do your shopping. I take it from your ethical stance you dont shop at any supermarkets (as they effectively act unethical to their suppliers), I also take it you only buy your clothes that are manufactered in the UK? So yes any job is better than no job and Last time I looked into it Foxconn didnt seem short of applicants for their roles. No-one frogmarches people into their premises and pays them in food. Alas in China these workers are glad to be providing for their families as they dont have the benefit system we have in this country And your point about industry is it works both ways. Industry exists both to supply people and people exist to supply industry so your point is ?[/p][/quote]Due to the success of capitalism I have no choice but to shop at supermarkets and buy clothes manufactured by slave labour abroad. But capitalism's all about competition isn't it? I'm sure Foxconn will have a queue of people desperate to replace the ones who threw themselves from the roof but no you can't blame apple it's not like they're making much profit from the goods these workers make. Your belief that "people exist to supply industry" is a deeply disturbing one. If the industry that exists to serve the people were paying the taxes they should on the profits made from serving them we wouldn't have to be persicuting people for the failure of capitalism to create futher living wage jobs.[/p][/quote]well of course people exist to supply industry. On the assumption that every employer is "industry" isnt that the case? Without the people industry couldnt exist and without people industry couldnt exist so both equally exist to serve each other. But in reference to what you are referring to yes I feel glad to have a job and lucky in having one. Yes I will work hard and indeed pay taxes but I dont see what is wrong with that where clearly you do And to imply that no "industries" pay taxes then you are misguided as this is only a few that dont and generally these are imported companies in the EU. The vast majority of the UK's companies pay vast amount of taxes on their profits but dont let the truth detract you away from your sensational headlines[/p][/quote]I do apologise for making sweeping generalisations, bad form I know. I see nothing whatsoever wrong with you having a decent job. What I have a problem with is the vile way you deride those less fortunate than yourself especially as your definition of working hard is Trolling the T&A to find stories about the less fortunate for you to attack day in day out. You have lost connection to your humanity and see people as nothing more than a commodity to be exploited so as those with wealth can expand on it and the cheaper that commodity the better. I doubt it will even register in your brain why your attitude is wrong. You lack empathy but that is just a symptom of the psycopathy that makes you so successful in the capitalist system. Amusingly you think that others are jealous of you and what you've got when in reality I pity you for the person you've become and the bitterness it's created within you.[/p][/quote]You clearly misunderstand Since when have it attacked those less fortunate. I'm all for the welfare state but not in the way ALP and yourself portray it. Those in need should always be helped by the state but I'm not deluded to conclude that it's a god given right. There was a period in my life when I've been there myself but I was brought up to work hard to provide for my family. I I know this is a principle sadly now in decline in modern Britain but it's one I believe in and will also instil in my children. I believe that and you can disagree with me all you want but don't start throwing around accusations at me just for having values that don't agree with yours. And for the records when it comes to business and being an employer myself I see people as assets not commodity as I appreciate what the right people add to a business. And I certainly don't think anyone is jealous of me as I got nothing to be jealous of. I'm just a hard working family man no different to millions of others but the same as millions of others that are sick to death of certain elements of society not pulling their weight and the rest of us paying for it. Andy2010

8:05pm Thu 29 Nov 12

RollandSmoke says...

" Take away them benefits and this would change peoples mentality to work. If you need a job to literally survive you will do anything".

Would that include committing crime if no work could be found?

"Ok so what your saying is if someone is applying for 10 / 20 / 30 jobs a weeks and is unsuccesfull in 6 months in applying for 700 or so jobs then something is clearly not working"
.
Like what, the bodily functions of the person you've just starved for 6 months?

"even a unpaid role in a business to gain experience and thus increase their future chances of employment"

If there is a job that needs doing why not pay them to do it as this is their only means of survival. If the job doesn't need doing the job doesn't exist. Starving people tend not to be very productive or reliable with no money to pay for transport.
" Take away them benefits and this would change peoples mentality to work. If you need a job to literally survive you will do anything". Would that include committing crime if no work could be found? "Ok so what your saying is if someone is applying for 10 / 20 / 30 jobs a weeks and is unsuccesfull in 6 months in applying for 700 or so jobs then something is clearly not working" . Like what, the bodily functions of the person you've just starved for 6 months? "even a unpaid role in a business to gain experience and thus increase their future chances of employment" If there is a job that needs doing why not pay them to do it as this is their only means of survival. If the job doesn't need doing the job doesn't exist. Starving people tend not to be very productive or reliable with no money to pay for transport. RollandSmoke

8:08pm Thu 29 Nov 12

Shelfrhino says...

Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote: Why is their an assumption that if benefits are cut for the workshy that they HAVE to turn to crime? Surely this is their choice and nothing to do with the government? isnt it or am I missing something Why cant they just be "normal" and go and find a job...if that one job doesnt pay enough get two jobs..simple really or is hard work a dirty word amongst these types? And before anyone says "what jobs" I have just had a brief look at the JC site and their is loads...yes most are low paid etc but isnt any job better than no job....well apparently not but this is solely down to the benefits they will lose. Take away them benefits and this would change peoples mentality to work. If you need a job to literally survive you will do anything.
What's your definition of slavery Andy? If the benefit claimant repeatedly fails to get selected from the vast pool of applicants what then? I think it's your mentality that is causing more damage to society. Oh I forgot, Maggie told you that "society doesn't exist" didn't she?
Ok so what your saying is if someone is applying for 10 / 20 / 30 jobs a weeks and is unsuccesfull in 6 months in applying for 700 or so jobs then something is clearly not working. This is when the JC steps in offers coaching / courses and even a unpaid role in a business to gain experience and thus increase their future chances of employment. This is how things should work and indeed do so whats the problem.? And slavery...cmon Sorry I dont remember reading about many slaves in the last hundred years that got a house free, got a payout on the number of children they had, got exemptions from paying taxes that their "masters" had to pay, had numerous entertainment at their disposal in their homes, drank, smoked, whose children were granted a free education and free health service Yeah the benefit system is exactly the same as slavery !
In your little capitalist utopia does industry exist to serve people or do people exist to serve industry? If industry needs less people due to efficiency savings better technology ect which maintains profits what becomes of their outdated workers? "Isn't any job is better than no job" not sure maybe you could as the workers at Foxconn (you can google it unless you've got blood on your ipod screen)
What has Foxconn got to do with anything. are you saying Apple are at fault here Where do you do your shopping. I take it from your ethical stance you dont shop at any supermarkets (as they effectively act unethical to their suppliers), I also take it you only buy your clothes that are manufactered in the UK? So yes any job is better than no job and Last time I looked into it Foxconn didnt seem short of applicants for their roles. No-one frogmarches people into their premises and pays them in food. Alas in China these workers are glad to be providing for their families as they dont have the benefit system we have in this country And your point about industry is it works both ways. Industry exists both to supply people and people exist to supply industry so your point is ?
Due to the success of capitalism I have no choice but to shop at supermarkets and buy clothes manufactured by slave labour abroad. But capitalism's all about competition isn't it? I'm sure Foxconn will have a queue of people desperate to replace the ones who threw themselves from the roof but no you can't blame apple it's not like they're making much profit from the goods these workers make. Your belief that "people exist to supply industry" is a deeply disturbing one. If the industry that exists to serve the people were paying the taxes they should on the profits made from serving them we wouldn't have to be persicuting people for the failure of capitalism to create futher living wage jobs.
well of course people exist to supply industry. On the assumption that every employer is "industry" isnt that the case?

Without the people industry couldnt exist and without people industry couldnt exist so both equally exist to serve each other.

But in reference to what you are referring to yes I feel glad to have a job and lucky in having one. Yes I will work hard and indeed pay taxes but I dont see what is wrong with that where clearly you do

And to imply that no "industries" pay taxes then you are misguided as this is only a few that dont and generally these are imported companies in the EU. The vast majority of the UK's companies pay vast amount of taxes on their profits but dont let the truth detract you away from your sensational headlines
I do apologise for making sweeping generalisations, bad form I know. I see nothing whatsoever wrong with you having a decent job. What I have a problem with is the vile way you deride those less fortunate than yourself especially as your definition of working hard is Trolling the T&A to find stories about the less fortunate for you to attack day in day out. You have lost connection to your humanity and see people as nothing more than a commodity to be exploited so as those with wealth can expand on it and the cheaper that commodity the better. I doubt it will even register in your brain why your attitude is wrong. You lack empathy but that is just a symptom of the psycopathy that makes you so successful in the capitalist system. Amusingly you think that others are jealous of you and what you've got when in reality I pity you for the person you've become and the bitterness it's created within you.
You clearly misunderstand

Since when have it attacked those less fortunate. I'm all for the welfare state but not in the way ALP and yourself portray it. Those in need should always be helped by the state but I'm not deluded to conclude that it's a god given right. There was a period in my life when I've been there myself but I was brought up to work hard to provide for my family. I I know this is a principle sadly now in decline in modern Britain but it's one I believe in and will also instil in my children. I believe that and you can disagree with me all you want but don't start throwing around accusations at me just for having values that don't agree with yours. And for the records when it comes to business and being an employer myself I see people as assets not commodity as I appreciate what the right people add to a business.

And I certainly don't think anyone is jealous of me as I got nothing to be jealous of. I'm just a hard working family man no different to millions of others but the same as millions of others that are sick to death of certain elements of society not pulling their weight and the rest of us paying for it.
Well said Andy,
That's just how I feel, I'm sick to death of paying out to anyone who holds out the begging bowl. As stated elsewhere on here, I would be all for the return of the workhouse, it would put some of the lazy feckless breeders off increasing their brood of spongers and criminals if they though they were going to have to live in a place like that instead of a taxpayer funded house.
[quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: Why is their an assumption that if benefits are cut for the workshy that they HAVE to turn to crime? Surely this is their choice and nothing to do with the government? isnt it or am I missing something Why cant they just be "normal" and go and find a job...if that one job doesnt pay enough get two jobs..simple really or is hard work a dirty word amongst these types? And before anyone says "what jobs" I have just had a brief look at the JC site and their is loads...yes most are low paid etc but isnt any job better than no job....well apparently not but this is solely down to the benefits they will lose. Take away them benefits and this would change peoples mentality to work. If you need a job to literally survive you will do anything.[/p][/quote]What's your definition of slavery Andy? If the benefit claimant repeatedly fails to get selected from the vast pool of applicants what then? I think it's your mentality that is causing more damage to society. Oh I forgot, Maggie told you that "society doesn't exist" didn't she?[/p][/quote]Ok so what your saying is if someone is applying for 10 / 20 / 30 jobs a weeks and is unsuccesfull in 6 months in applying for 700 or so jobs then something is clearly not working. This is when the JC steps in offers coaching / courses and even a unpaid role in a business to gain experience and thus increase their future chances of employment. This is how things should work and indeed do so whats the problem.? And slavery...cmon Sorry I dont remember reading about many slaves in the last hundred years that got a house free, got a payout on the number of children they had, got exemptions from paying taxes that their "masters" had to pay, had numerous entertainment at their disposal in their homes, drank, smoked, whose children were granted a free education and free health service Yeah the benefit system is exactly the same as slavery ![/p][/quote]In your little capitalist utopia does industry exist to serve people or do people exist to serve industry? If industry needs less people due to efficiency savings better technology ect which maintains profits what becomes of their outdated workers? "Isn't any job is better than no job" not sure maybe you could as the workers at Foxconn (you can google it unless you've got blood on your ipod screen)[/p][/quote]What has Foxconn got to do with anything. are you saying Apple are at fault here Where do you do your shopping. I take it from your ethical stance you dont shop at any supermarkets (as they effectively act unethical to their suppliers), I also take it you only buy your clothes that are manufactered in the UK? So yes any job is better than no job and Last time I looked into it Foxconn didnt seem short of applicants for their roles. No-one frogmarches people into their premises and pays them in food. Alas in China these workers are glad to be providing for their families as they dont have the benefit system we have in this country And your point about industry is it works both ways. Industry exists both to supply people and people exist to supply industry so your point is ?[/p][/quote]Due to the success of capitalism I have no choice but to shop at supermarkets and buy clothes manufactured by slave labour abroad. But capitalism's all about competition isn't it? I'm sure Foxconn will have a queue of people desperate to replace the ones who threw themselves from the roof but no you can't blame apple it's not like they're making much profit from the goods these workers make. Your belief that "people exist to supply industry" is a deeply disturbing one. If the industry that exists to serve the people were paying the taxes they should on the profits made from serving them we wouldn't have to be persicuting people for the failure of capitalism to create futher living wage jobs.[/p][/quote]well of course people exist to supply industry. On the assumption that every employer is "industry" isnt that the case? Without the people industry couldnt exist and without people industry couldnt exist so both equally exist to serve each other. But in reference to what you are referring to yes I feel glad to have a job and lucky in having one. Yes I will work hard and indeed pay taxes but I dont see what is wrong with that where clearly you do And to imply that no "industries" pay taxes then you are misguided as this is only a few that dont and generally these are imported companies in the EU. The vast majority of the UK's companies pay vast amount of taxes on their profits but dont let the truth detract you away from your sensational headlines[/p][/quote]I do apologise for making sweeping generalisations, bad form I know. I see nothing whatsoever wrong with you having a decent job. What I have a problem with is the vile way you deride those less fortunate than yourself especially as your definition of working hard is Trolling the T&A to find stories about the less fortunate for you to attack day in day out. You have lost connection to your humanity and see people as nothing more than a commodity to be exploited so as those with wealth can expand on it and the cheaper that commodity the better. I doubt it will even register in your brain why your attitude is wrong. You lack empathy but that is just a symptom of the psycopathy that makes you so successful in the capitalist system. Amusingly you think that others are jealous of you and what you've got when in reality I pity you for the person you've become and the bitterness it's created within you.[/p][/quote]You clearly misunderstand Since when have it attacked those less fortunate. I'm all for the welfare state but not in the way ALP and yourself portray it. Those in need should always be helped by the state but I'm not deluded to conclude that it's a god given right. There was a period in my life when I've been there myself but I was brought up to work hard to provide for my family. I I know this is a principle sadly now in decline in modern Britain but it's one I believe in and will also instil in my children. I believe that and you can disagree with me all you want but don't start throwing around accusations at me just for having values that don't agree with yours. And for the records when it comes to business and being an employer myself I see people as assets not commodity as I appreciate what the right people add to a business. And I certainly don't think anyone is jealous of me as I got nothing to be jealous of. I'm just a hard working family man no different to millions of others but the same as millions of others that are sick to death of certain elements of society not pulling their weight and the rest of us paying for it.[/p][/quote]Well said Andy, That's just how I feel, I'm sick to death of paying out to anyone who holds out the begging bowl. As stated elsewhere on here, I would be all for the return of the workhouse, it would put some of the lazy feckless breeders off increasing their brood of spongers and criminals if they though they were going to have to live in a place like that instead of a taxpayer funded house. Shelfrhino

8:16pm Thu 29 Nov 12

Andy2010 says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
" Take away them benefits and this would change peoples mentality to work. If you need a job to literally survive you will do anything".

Would that include committing crime if no work could be found?

"Ok so what your saying is if someone is applying for 10 / 20 / 30 jobs a weeks and is unsuccesfull in 6 months in applying for 700 or so jobs then something is clearly not working"
.
Like what, the bodily functions of the person you've just starved for 6 months?

"even a unpaid role in a business to gain experience and thus increase their future chances of employment"

If there is a job that needs doing why not pay them to do it as this is their only means of survival. If the job doesn't need doing the job doesn't exist. Starving people tend not to be very productive or reliable with no money to pay for transport.
Starving people... Really

This is the UK not Africa where you always get something or there is always somewhere to turn for help and even as your example with travel so what... Walk...... If it what that important to you you would walk to work, and bike it or cadge a lift. But and back to my original point the current system makes it too easy for some people to be bothered.

Starving lol... Yeah the papers are awash with people dying of starvation
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: " Take away them benefits and this would change peoples mentality to work. If you need a job to literally survive you will do anything". Would that include committing crime if no work could be found? "Ok so what your saying is if someone is applying for 10 / 20 / 30 jobs a weeks and is unsuccesfull in 6 months in applying for 700 or so jobs then something is clearly not working" . Like what, the bodily functions of the person you've just starved for 6 months? "even a unpaid role in a business to gain experience and thus increase their future chances of employment" If there is a job that needs doing why not pay them to do it as this is their only means of survival. If the job doesn't need doing the job doesn't exist. Starving people tend not to be very productive or reliable with no money to pay for transport.[/p][/quote]Starving people... Really This is the UK not Africa where you always get something or there is always somewhere to turn for help and even as your example with travel so what... Walk...... If it what that important to you you would walk to work, and bike it or cadge a lift. But and back to my original point the current system makes it too easy for some people to be bothered. Starving lol... Yeah the papers are awash with people dying of starvation Andy2010

8:26pm Thu 29 Nov 12

RollandSmoke says...

" Take away them benefits and this would change peoples mentality to work. If you need a job to literally survive you will do anything".

Would that include committing crime if no work could be found?

"Ok so what your saying is if someone is applying for 10 / 20 / 30 jobs a weeks and is unsuccesfull in 6 months in applying for 700 or so jobs then something is clearly not working"
.
Like what, the bodily functions of the person you've just starved for 6 months?

"even a unpaid role in a business to gain experience and thus increase their future chances of employment"

If there is a job that needs doing why not pay them to do it as this is their only means of survival. If the job doesn't need doing the job doesn't exist. Starving people tend not to be very productive or reliable with no money to pay for transport.
" Take away them benefits and this would change peoples mentality to work. If you need a job to literally survive you will do anything". Would that include committing crime if no work could be found? "Ok so what your saying is if someone is applying for 10 / 20 / 30 jobs a weeks and is unsuccesfull in 6 months in applying for 700 or so jobs then something is clearly not working" . Like what, the bodily functions of the person you've just starved for 6 months? "even a unpaid role in a business to gain experience and thus increase their future chances of employment" If there is a job that needs doing why not pay them to do it as this is their only means of survival. If the job doesn't need doing the job doesn't exist. Starving people tend not to be very productive or reliable with no money to pay for transport. RollandSmoke

9:03pm Thu 29 Nov 12

voiceforyouth says...

No council worker should be paid over a certain threshold for example £60,000 including benefits.

This would help save some salary costs.

Good to see that many savings are happening by departments cutting their costs. Hopefully this is stopping reckless spending on expensive stationary and extras that aren't needed.

Councillor and management travel should be public transport where possible, and costs on residential and conferences should be kept to a minimum with a limit of expenditure for meals etc.

Also the office I work in hasn't been decorated in over 5 years so I don't see the need for buildings to be constantly upgraded. If it's not broken why fix it?

With more tightening of the belts and careful cuts savings can be made. Without people having to resort to cheap insults against others. Sadly we are all facing the cuts and increase of living but if people look for solutions rather than just pointing out the failings all the time we can sort it.
No council worker should be paid over a certain threshold for example £60,000 including benefits. This would help save some salary costs. Good to see that many savings are happening by departments cutting their costs. Hopefully this is stopping reckless spending on expensive stationary and extras that aren't needed. Councillor and management travel should be public transport where possible, and costs on residential and conferences should be kept to a minimum with a limit of expenditure for meals etc. Also the office I work in hasn't been decorated in over 5 years so I don't see the need for buildings to be constantly upgraded. If it's not broken why fix it? With more tightening of the belts and careful cuts savings can be made. Without people having to resort to cheap insults against others. Sadly we are all facing the cuts and increase of living but if people look for solutions rather than just pointing out the failings all the time we can sort it. voiceforyouth

9:10pm Thu 29 Nov 12

RollandSmoke says...

Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
" Take away them benefits and this would change peoples mentality to work. If you need a job to literally survive you will do anything".

Would that include committing crime if no work could be found?

"Ok so what your saying is if someone is applying for 10 / 20 / 30 jobs a weeks and is unsuccesfull in 6 months in applying for 700 or so jobs then something is clearly not working"
.
Like what, the bodily functions of the person you've just starved for 6 months?

"even a unpaid role in a business to gain experience and thus increase their future chances of employment"

If there is a job that needs doing why not pay them to do it as this is their only means of survival. If the job doesn't need doing the job doesn't exist. Starving people tend not to be very productive or reliable with no money to pay for transport.
Starving people... Really

This is the UK not Africa where you always get something or there is always somewhere to turn for help and even as your example with travel so what... Walk...... If it what that important to you you would walk to work, and bike it or cadge a lift. But and back to my original point the current system makes it too easy for some people to be bothered.

Starving lol... Yeah the papers are awash with people dying of starvation
Your suggestion was that we incentivise people into finding work by removing any other means of support. So until such time as work can be found they will go hungry and loose their homes. Meanwhile some will be given false hope by being given jobs that don't need doing or that no one is willing to pay someone to do, for free, in the hope that someone will want to pay for that job doing in the future. I appreciate the transport issue was a bit of a red herring as by this point where ever they lay their cardboard box that's their home, although I'm still a little confused as to how they'll be keeping their strength up.
The papers would be awash with people starving and I'm sure you'd be found on the comments section lapping it up or complaining that the inconsiderate sods weren't dying quick enough.
It really is a genius plan. Have you considered Politics?
[quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: " Take away them benefits and this would change peoples mentality to work. If you need a job to literally survive you will do anything". Would that include committing crime if no work could be found? "Ok so what your saying is if someone is applying for 10 / 20 / 30 jobs a weeks and is unsuccesfull in 6 months in applying for 700 or so jobs then something is clearly not working" . Like what, the bodily functions of the person you've just starved for 6 months? "even a unpaid role in a business to gain experience and thus increase their future chances of employment" If there is a job that needs doing why not pay them to do it as this is their only means of survival. If the job doesn't need doing the job doesn't exist. Starving people tend not to be very productive or reliable with no money to pay for transport.[/p][/quote]Starving people... Really This is the UK not Africa where you always get something or there is always somewhere to turn for help and even as your example with travel so what... Walk...... If it what that important to you you would walk to work, and bike it or cadge a lift. But and back to my original point the current system makes it too easy for some people to be bothered. Starving lol... Yeah the papers are awash with people dying of starvation[/p][/quote]Your suggestion was that we incentivise people into finding work by removing any other means of support. So until such time as work can be found they will go hungry and loose their homes. Meanwhile some will be given false hope by being given jobs that don't need doing or that no one is willing to pay someone to do, for free, in the hope that someone will want to pay for that job doing in the future. I appreciate the transport issue was a bit of a red herring as by this point where ever they lay their cardboard box that's their home, although I'm still a little confused as to how they'll be keeping their strength up. The papers would be awash with people starving and I'm sure you'd be found on the comments section lapping it up or complaining that the inconsiderate sods weren't dying quick enough. It really is a genius plan. Have you considered Politics? RollandSmoke

9:30pm Thu 29 Nov 12

Andy2010 says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
" Take away them benefits and this would change peoples mentality to work. If you need a job to literally survive you will do anything".

Would that include committing crime if no work could be found?

"Ok so what your saying is if someone is applying for 10 / 20 / 30 jobs a weeks and is unsuccesfull in 6 months in applying for 700 or so jobs then something is clearly not working"
.
Like what, the bodily functions of the person you've just starved for 6 months?

"even a unpaid role in a business to gain experience and thus increase their future chances of employment"

If there is a job that needs doing why not pay them to do it as this is their only means of survival. If the job doesn't need doing the job doesn't exist. Starving people tend not to be very productive or reliable with no money to pay for transport.
Starving people... Really

This is the UK not Africa where you always get something or there is always somewhere to turn for help and even as your example with travel so what... Walk...... If it what that important to you you would walk to work, and bike it or cadge a lift. But and back to my original point the current system makes it too easy for some people to be bothered.

Starving lol... Yeah the papers are awash with people dying of starvation
Your suggestion was that we incentivise people into finding work by removing any other means of support. So until such time as work can be found they will go hungry and loose their homes. Meanwhile some will be given false hope by being given jobs that don't need doing or that no one is willing to pay someone to do, for free, in the hope that someone will want to pay for that job doing in the future. I appreciate the transport issue was a bit of a red herring as by this point where ever they lay their cardboard box that's their home, although I'm still a little confused as to how they'll be keeping their strength up.
The papers would be awash with people starving and I'm sure you'd be found on the comments section lapping it up or complaining that the inconsiderate sods weren't dying quick enough.
It really is a genius plan. Have you considered Politics?
I was under the impression when the Job Centre sent people out for work experience they still received the benefits they received before. Is that not the case ? If they do please explain how them going to work everyday is leaving these people starving and homeless?
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: " Take away them benefits and this would change peoples mentality to work. If you need a job to literally survive you will do anything". Would that include committing crime if no work could be found? "Ok so what your saying is if someone is applying for 10 / 20 / 30 jobs a weeks and is unsuccesfull in 6 months in applying for 700 or so jobs then something is clearly not working" . Like what, the bodily functions of the person you've just starved for 6 months? "even a unpaid role in a business to gain experience and thus increase their future chances of employment" If there is a job that needs doing why not pay them to do it as this is their only means of survival. If the job doesn't need doing the job doesn't exist. Starving people tend not to be very productive or reliable with no money to pay for transport.[/p][/quote]Starving people... Really This is the UK not Africa where you always get something or there is always somewhere to turn for help and even as your example with travel so what... Walk...... If it what that important to you you would walk to work, and bike it or cadge a lift. But and back to my original point the current system makes it too easy for some people to be bothered. Starving lol... Yeah the papers are awash with people dying of starvation[/p][/quote]Your suggestion was that we incentivise people into finding work by removing any other means of support. So until such time as work can be found they will go hungry and loose their homes. Meanwhile some will be given false hope by being given jobs that don't need doing or that no one is willing to pay someone to do, for free, in the hope that someone will want to pay for that job doing in the future. I appreciate the transport issue was a bit of a red herring as by this point where ever they lay their cardboard box that's their home, although I'm still a little confused as to how they'll be keeping their strength up. The papers would be awash with people starving and I'm sure you'd be found on the comments section lapping it up or complaining that the inconsiderate sods weren't dying quick enough. It really is a genius plan. Have you considered Politics?[/p][/quote]I was under the impression when the Job Centre sent people out for work experience they still received the benefits they received before. Is that not the case ? If they do please explain how them going to work everyday is leaving these people starving and homeless? Andy2010

12:02pm Fri 30 Nov 12

RollandSmoke says...

Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
" Take away them benefits and this would change peoples mentality to work. If you need a job to literally survive you will do anything".

Would that include committing crime if no work could be found?

"Ok so what your saying is if someone is applying for 10 / 20 / 30 jobs a weeks and is unsuccesfull in 6 months in applying for 700 or so jobs then something is clearly not working"
.
Like what, the bodily functions of the person you've just starved for 6 months?

"even a unpaid role in a business to gain experience and thus increase their future chances of employment"

If there is a job that needs doing why not pay them to do it as this is their only means of survival. If the job doesn't need doing the job doesn't exist. Starving people tend not to be very productive or reliable with no money to pay for transport.
Starving people... Really

This is the UK not Africa where you always get something or there is always somewhere to turn for help and even as your example with travel so what... Walk...... If it what that important to you you would walk to work, and bike it or cadge a lift. But and back to my original point the current system makes it too easy for some people to be bothered.

Starving lol... Yeah the papers are awash with people dying of starvation
Your suggestion was that we incentivise people into finding work by removing any other means of support. So until such time as work can be found they will go hungry and loose their homes. Meanwhile some will be given false hope by being given jobs that don't need doing or that no one is willing to pay someone to do, for free, in the hope that someone will want to pay for that job doing in the future. I appreciate the transport issue was a bit of a red herring as by this point where ever they lay their cardboard box that's their home, although I'm still a little confused as to how they'll be keeping their strength up.
The papers would be awash with people starving and I'm sure you'd be found on the comments section lapping it up or complaining that the inconsiderate sods weren't dying quick enough.
It really is a genius plan. Have you considered Politics?
I was under the impression when the Job Centre sent people out for work experience they still received the benefits they received before. Is that not the case ? If they do please explain how them going to work everyday is leaving these people starving and homeless?
Oh I see, the starvation of people is merely a blackmail device to force them into working for their benefits. I'm glad to see that you have no problem paying your taxes to subsidise the wages bill of big business and prop up the failed capitalist system.
[quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: " Take away them benefits and this would change peoples mentality to work. If you need a job to literally survive you will do anything". Would that include committing crime if no work could be found? "Ok so what your saying is if someone is applying for 10 / 20 / 30 jobs a weeks and is unsuccesfull in 6 months in applying for 700 or so jobs then something is clearly not working" . Like what, the bodily functions of the person you've just starved for 6 months? "even a unpaid role in a business to gain experience and thus increase their future chances of employment" If there is a job that needs doing why not pay them to do it as this is their only means of survival. If the job doesn't need doing the job doesn't exist. Starving people tend not to be very productive or reliable with no money to pay for transport.[/p][/quote]Starving people... Really This is the UK not Africa where you always get something or there is always somewhere to turn for help and even as your example with travel so what... Walk...... If it what that important to you you would walk to work, and bike it or cadge a lift. But and back to my original point the current system makes it too easy for some people to be bothered. Starving lol... Yeah the papers are awash with people dying of starvation[/p][/quote]Your suggestion was that we incentivise people into finding work by removing any other means of support. So until such time as work can be found they will go hungry and loose their homes. Meanwhile some will be given false hope by being given jobs that don't need doing or that no one is willing to pay someone to do, for free, in the hope that someone will want to pay for that job doing in the future. I appreciate the transport issue was a bit of a red herring as by this point where ever they lay their cardboard box that's their home, although I'm still a little confused as to how they'll be keeping their strength up. The papers would be awash with people starving and I'm sure you'd be found on the comments section lapping it up or complaining that the inconsiderate sods weren't dying quick enough. It really is a genius plan. Have you considered Politics?[/p][/quote]I was under the impression when the Job Centre sent people out for work experience they still received the benefits they received before. Is that not the case ? If they do please explain how them going to work everyday is leaving these people starving and homeless?[/p][/quote]Oh I see, the starvation of people is merely a blackmail device to force them into working for their benefits. I'm glad to see that you have no problem paying your taxes to subsidise the wages bill of big business and prop up the failed capitalist system. RollandSmoke

5:21pm Sun 2 Dec 12

WayneRouke says...

An interesting one

https://www.facebook
.com/photo.php?fbid=
467737749931133&set=
a.112478365457075.72
31.107705785934333&t
ype=1&ref=nf
An interesting one https://www.facebook .com/photo.php?fbid= 467737749931133&set= a.112478365457075.72 31.107705785934333&t ype=1&ref=nf WayneRouke

8:40pm Sun 2 Dec 12

Commonsensefirst says...

'https://www.faceboo
k
.com/photo.php?fbid=

467737749931133&set=

a.112478365457075.72

31.107705785934333&t

ype=1&ref=nf'

If Wayne Rouke is offering me a job I'm accepting it!
'https://www.faceboo k .com/photo.php?fbid= 467737749931133&set= a.112478365457075.72 31.107705785934333&t ype=1&ref=nf' If Wayne Rouke is offering me a job I'm accepting it! Commonsensefirst

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree