Bradford school uniform voucher cuts are proposed

Bradford Telegraph and Argus: Pupils in school uniform Pupils in school uniform

Schools could be encouraged to re-design their uniforms to make them cheaper and offer students “hand me downs” to help poor families.

Bradford Council plans to cut youth services by £3.2 million in the next two years and one saving being explored by the council is the scrapping of its “necessitous clothing grants”, which provide parents with help to buy school uniforms and cost £465,000 a year.

The grants are paid in the form of vouchers for £26 to low income households and those on Council benefits.

They are used to purchase uniforms from schools or dedicated shops.

The authority has been urged to reconsider scrapping the grants, which one councillor said would amount to “stealing the shirts off children’s backs”.

But the man in charge of children’s services at the Council feels that even if the grants are scrapped, parents may still be able to get help directly from schools. The Government provides schools with a “pupil premium” for disadvantaged pupils, and may now be encouraged to use some of this money to help parents pay for uniforms.

Next Tuesday, the Council’s Children’s Services Scrutiny Committee will receive a report into possible cuts and ways to soften the blow to children and vulnerable families.

The report says: “This proposal could impact on children from low income households, and in deprived areas of the district, who are more reliant on a grant to purchase a school uniform.”

Among the “mitigation” proposed to deal with the cuts are asking schools to support low income families themselves through the pupil premiums, re-designing school uniforms to make them cheaper and consider setting up a “nearly new” provision to recycle uniforms.

It also says that because the vouchers required families to buy uniforms in specialist shops, scrapping them would free up parents to “benefit from the lower cost of uniforms on sale in large supermarket chains”.

Coun Ralph Berry, in charge of children’s services, said: “These are just proposals, it is not certain these grants will end.

“A significant number of schools are already making provisions for uniform grants from their pupil premiums and we are having discussions with schools to expand this.

“We are one of the last councils in the country that still offer these. Cutting them is not nice or something I like to do, but we do have to plug a huge gap.”

He says more simple, and cheap, school uniforms could help lots of families, adding: “It would be better for parents to be able to buy more generic uniforms from mainstream supermarkets. If schools want uniforms that are expensive or fancy they should provide them themselves.”

Coun Jeanette Sunderland, leader of the Liberal Democrat group, said: “All the years I’ve been a councillor, officers have tried to cut this grant and it would be outrageous if the Labour Council did this now. I can’t believe that while the Council is considering spending money on building new swimming pools they are planning to take the shirts off the backs of our most vulnerable children.”

Martin Stokes is an 18-year-old former pupil of Tong High School who has previously campaigned against the high cost of school uniforms with charity Save the Children.

He said: “Cutting these grants would be a ridiculous idea – families need it.

“Suggesting that pupils could have ‘nearly new’ uniforms is ridiculous, it is downgrading them. If this goes ahead a lot of these pupils will get bullied. Some already get bullied if they have tatty uniforms.

“But I do think trying to make uniforms cheaper is a good idea.”

Jessica Firth, of the school uniform supplier group that runs Andrew Firth’s in Keighley and Henry Smith’s in Shipley, said: “We frequently come face-to-face with those who most need school uniform vouchers. To us, it is glaringly obvious that cutting this vital resource would directly affect many families.”

Andrew Allcoat, manager of Rawcliffe’s on Darley Street, Bradford, also said large numbers of parents seemed to rely on the vouchers when it came to uniform shopping. “It does help a lot of families, and if they were to cut it I think it would really effect them.”

He said some schools were already looking at reducing the cost of their uniform, adding: “We have already spoken to a few schools about them making their uniforms more simple by redesigning them.”

Comments (69)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:08am Wed 11 Dec 13

Albion. says...

You can get school clothes much cheaper at supermarkets and large chains, they should be considered adequate, rather than the expensive badged items from specialist outlets.
You can get school clothes much cheaper at supermarkets and large chains, they should be considered adequate, rather than the expensive badged items from specialist outlets. Albion.

7:40am Wed 11 Dec 13

angry bradfordian says...

Surely it's common sense to make the schools change their policy? This grant is effectively subsidising these high end clothes shops to the tune of nearly half a million pounds a year.

If you want an impartial view on the subject, someone who owns Henry Smiths is hardly the best person to go to!
Surely it's common sense to make the schools change their policy? This grant is effectively subsidising these high end clothes shops to the tune of nearly half a million pounds a year. If you want an impartial view on the subject, someone who owns Henry Smiths is hardly the best person to go to! angry bradfordian

8:14am Wed 11 Dec 13

johnh1 says...

I can't belive the suggestion of hand me downs, these poor kids will be picked on from morning till night.
Let them get the clothes from supermarkets for goodness sake.
I can't belive the suggestion of hand me downs, these poor kids will be picked on from morning till night. Let them get the clothes from supermarkets for goodness sake. johnh1

8:29am Wed 11 Dec 13

Huneybunch says...

I go to Asda and get most of school wear from there. The only thing I cant get is the sweatshirt where I have to buy from school at 9 pounds a time and you can go through 2 in the 1 year, so schools are making a bit of money aswell. I dont get any grant. There is nothing wrong with hand me downs if they are in good condition..
I go to Asda and get most of school wear from there. The only thing I cant get is the sweatshirt where I have to buy from school at 9 pounds a time and you can go through 2 in the 1 year, so schools are making a bit of money aswell. I dont get any grant. There is nothing wrong with hand me downs if they are in good condition.. Huneybunch

8:33am Wed 11 Dec 13

Ted Evans says...

My Grand children have to wear a white shirt & black trousers/skirt for school, but it can't be 'just' a white shirt & black trousers, they have to have a small school logo embroidered on the collar and waistband so have to buy them from Rawcliffes etc at a premium.
It's about time all that was scrapped.

Also the uniforms that people get vouchers to buy, would last much longer if their kids changed out of them when they get home instead of playing out all night in them.
My Grand children have to wear a white shirt & black trousers/skirt for school, but it can't be 'just' a white shirt & black trousers, they have to have a small school logo embroidered on the collar and waistband so have to buy them from Rawcliffes etc at a premium. It's about time all that was scrapped. Also the uniforms that people get vouchers to buy, would last much longer if their kids changed out of them when they get home instead of playing out all night in them. Ted Evans

9:17am Wed 11 Dec 13

Baildon girl says...

Wow this takes me back remember as a youngster when my parents split up having to go to shipley town hall to get some bits i ended up with this horrile red coat all the other kids used to tease me about :(

Personally i cant seeing £26 having much impact on families anyway price of uniformes you couldnt get much anyway. Makes me laugh how people complain about having to get the logo tops and using their funding up due to the price of them but are happy to goto Next for school coats and Clarkes for school shoes and pay for it themselves
Wow this takes me back remember as a youngster when my parents split up having to go to shipley town hall to get some bits i ended up with this horrile red coat all the other kids used to tease me about :( Personally i cant seeing £26 having much impact on families anyway price of uniformes you couldnt get much anyway. Makes me laugh how people complain about having to get the logo tops and using their funding up due to the price of them but are happy to goto Next for school coats and Clarkes for school shoes and pay for it themselves Baildon girl

9:34am Wed 11 Dec 13

Prisoner Cell Block A says...

Scrap school logos, or any other form of badging.

A basic smart pair of trosuers/skirt, white shirt/blouse, plain jumper is good enough and cheap enough from Asda etc.

Hand me downs?? Are we back in 1901? Post war 1945? Come on you cretins, there is nothong more likely to stigmatise a child and make them not want to go to school than fear of ridicule by their peers.

About time schools were forced out of pomposity regarding uniform and it was made UNIFORM across the city. School identity is pathetic
Scrap school logos, or any other form of badging. A basic smart pair of trosuers/skirt, white shirt/blouse, plain jumper is good enough and cheap enough from Asda etc. Hand me downs?? Are we back in 1901? Post war 1945? Come on you cretins, there is nothong more likely to stigmatise a child and make them not want to go to school than fear of ridicule by their peers. About time schools were forced out of pomposity regarding uniform and it was made UNIFORM across the city. School identity is pathetic Prisoner Cell Block A

9:37am Wed 11 Dec 13

Freddy Elliot says...

£26. Bet a fair percentage of the 'families' that receive the payment could easily spend over that amount at a Subway/Greggs in one visit.
£26. Bet a fair percentage of the 'families' that receive the payment could easily spend over that amount at a Subway/Greggs in one visit. Freddy Elliot

9:53am Wed 11 Dec 13

Joedavid says...

If girls were allowed to wear dresses and skirts would that be a saving?
If girls were allowed to wear dresses and skirts would that be a saving? Joedavid

10:09am Wed 11 Dec 13

allinittogether says...

Freddy Elliot wrote:
£26. Bet a fair percentage of the 'families' that receive the payment could easily spend over that amount at a Subway/Greggs in one visit.
What on earth has that got to do with school uniforms? And why write families in inverted commas?
Grow up you spiteful individual.
[quote][p][bold]Freddy Elliot[/bold] wrote: £26. Bet a fair percentage of the 'families' that receive the payment could easily spend over that amount at a Subway/Greggs in one visit.[/p][/quote]What on earth has that got to do with school uniforms? And why write families in inverted commas? Grow up you spiteful individual. allinittogether

10:37am Wed 11 Dec 13

Bone_idle18 says...

You can buy a pack of school shirts from asda for less than a pack of Fags!
Same with Skirts/Trousers.

Last logo sweatshirt we bought was £8, which, coincidentally, is the price of a pack of fags!

As has been mentioned, parents moan about spending £30 on school uniforms, but will happily pay that for a football shirt or tracky bottoms, or status trainers for their kids!

Parental responsibility starts with not having more kids that you can afford!
You can buy a pack of school shirts from asda for less than a pack of Fags! Same with Skirts/Trousers. Last logo sweatshirt we bought was £8, which, coincidentally, is the price of a pack of fags! As has been mentioned, parents moan about spending £30 on school uniforms, but will happily pay that for a football shirt or tracky bottoms, or status trainers for their kids! Parental responsibility starts with not having more kids that you can afford! Bone_idle18

10:46am Wed 11 Dec 13

bcfc1903 says...

It does seem churlish to be cutting back on kids school uniform vouchers, always took our kids to Rawcliffes but some folk simply cannot afford school uniforms ....the idea of hand me downs seems reasonable, we put many uniforms in good order into charity bags. How sad, we seem to be going backwards as a nation.
It does seem churlish to be cutting back on kids school uniform vouchers, always took our kids to Rawcliffes but some folk simply cannot afford school uniforms ....the idea of hand me downs seems reasonable, we put many uniforms in good order into charity bags. How sad, we seem to be going backwards as a nation. bcfc1903

10:46am Wed 11 Dec 13

bcfc1903 says...

It does seem churlish to be cutting back on kids school uniform vouchers, always took our kids to Rawcliffes but some folk simply cannot afford school uniforms ....the idea of hand me downs seems reasonable, we put many uniforms in good order into charity bags. How sad, we seem to be going backwards as a nation.
It does seem churlish to be cutting back on kids school uniform vouchers, always took our kids to Rawcliffes but some folk simply cannot afford school uniforms ....the idea of hand me downs seems reasonable, we put many uniforms in good order into charity bags. How sad, we seem to be going backwards as a nation. bcfc1903

12:15pm Wed 11 Dec 13

bd7 helper says...

Multi buy offers at supermarkets
Multi buy offers at supermarkets bd7 helper

12:44pm Wed 11 Dec 13

Here today says...

Appleton academy in Wyke is another "monopoly" school.
Appleton academy in Wyke is another "monopoly" school. Here today

1:03pm Wed 11 Dec 13

RollandSmoke says...

I've read of schools having RFID chips sewn into the logos. What does this add to the cost?. Also it is becoming common practice for children to be biometrically scanned in order to get their school dinners. While education costs are becoming a problem I think it is worth considering exactly how much is being spent on treating the pupils like prisoners and what value this adds to their indoctrination?
I've read of schools having RFID chips sewn into the logos. What does this add to the cost?. Also it is becoming common practice for children to be biometrically scanned in order to get their school dinners. While education costs are becoming a problem I think it is worth considering exactly how much is being spent on treating the pupils like prisoners and what value this adds to their indoctrination? RollandSmoke

1:17pm Wed 11 Dec 13

Apollo says...

allinittogether wrote:
Freddy Elliot wrote: £26. Bet a fair percentage of the 'families' that receive the payment could easily spend over that amount at a Subway/Greggs in one visit.
What on earth has that got to do with school uniforms? And why write families in inverted commas? Grow up you spiteful individual.
Because you can bet at least one 'family' member will be a smoker at nearly £10 per pack and for those families one has no sympathy.
[quote][p][bold]allinittogether[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Freddy Elliot[/bold] wrote: £26. Bet a fair percentage of the 'families' that receive the payment could easily spend over that amount at a Subway/Greggs in one visit.[/p][/quote]What on earth has that got to do with school uniforms? And why write families in inverted commas? Grow up you spiteful individual.[/p][/quote]Because you can bet at least one 'family' member will be a smoker at nearly £10 per pack and for those families one has no sympathy. Apollo

1:30pm Wed 11 Dec 13

RollandSmoke says...

Apollo wrote:
allinittogether wrote:
Freddy Elliot wrote: £26. Bet a fair percentage of the 'families' that receive the payment could easily spend over that amount at a Subway/Greggs in one visit.
What on earth has that got to do with school uniforms? And why write families in inverted commas? Grow up you spiteful individual.
Because you can bet at least one 'family' member will be a smoker at nearly £10 per pack and for those families one has no sympathy.
You will find that smokers on benefits smoke roll ups which takes the cost down to under £15 a week and still they will find this a struggle so they will seek out imported tobacco which will take the cost down to under £10 a week. OK so it is driving other crime but it is obvious as to the reasons behind this and the police will be the last on the list of people to suggest anything that may reduce this crime. If they were paying £10 a pack then they would be paying a higher percentage of tax than most workers do on their income.
[quote][p][bold]Apollo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]allinittogether[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Freddy Elliot[/bold] wrote: £26. Bet a fair percentage of the 'families' that receive the payment could easily spend over that amount at a Subway/Greggs in one visit.[/p][/quote]What on earth has that got to do with school uniforms? And why write families in inverted commas? Grow up you spiteful individual.[/p][/quote]Because you can bet at least one 'family' member will be a smoker at nearly £10 per pack and for those families one has no sympathy.[/p][/quote]You will find that smokers on benefits smoke roll ups which takes the cost down to under £15 a week and still they will find this a struggle so they will seek out imported tobacco which will take the cost down to under £10 a week. OK so it is driving other crime but it is obvious as to the reasons behind this and the police will be the last on the list of people to suggest anything that may reduce this crime. If they were paying £10 a pack then they would be paying a higher percentage of tax than most workers do on their income. RollandSmoke

1:59pm Wed 11 Dec 13

privatemartin says...

Why cant schools have Iron on logos.

Then people can buy uniforms from supermarkets which are very cheap indeed and simply iron on the logo.

That should help.
Why cant schools have Iron on logos. Then people can buy uniforms from supermarkets which are very cheap indeed and simply iron on the logo. That should help. privatemartin

2:10pm Wed 11 Dec 13

Alhaurinrhino says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
Apollo wrote:
allinittogether wrote:
Freddy Elliot wrote: £26. Bet a fair percentage of the 'families' that receive the payment could easily spend over that amount at a Subway/Greggs in one visit.
What on earth has that got to do with school uniforms? And why write families in inverted commas? Grow up you spiteful individual.
Because you can bet at least one 'family' member will be a smoker at nearly £10 per pack and for those families one has no sympathy.
You will find that smokers on benefits smoke roll ups which takes the cost down to under £15 a week and still they will find this a struggle so they will seek out imported tobacco which will take the cost down to under £10 a week. OK so it is driving other crime but it is obvious as to the reasons behind this and the police will be the last on the list of people to suggest anything that may reduce this crime. If they were paying £10 a pack then they would be paying a higher percentage of tax than most workers do on their income.
Smokers should have their benefits stopped. Why should I pay for your illegal tobacco?
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Apollo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]allinittogether[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Freddy Elliot[/bold] wrote: £26. Bet a fair percentage of the 'families' that receive the payment could easily spend over that amount at a Subway/Greggs in one visit.[/p][/quote]What on earth has that got to do with school uniforms? And why write families in inverted commas? Grow up you spiteful individual.[/p][/quote]Because you can bet at least one 'family' member will be a smoker at nearly £10 per pack and for those families one has no sympathy.[/p][/quote]You will find that smokers on benefits smoke roll ups which takes the cost down to under £15 a week and still they will find this a struggle so they will seek out imported tobacco which will take the cost down to under £10 a week. OK so it is driving other crime but it is obvious as to the reasons behind this and the police will be the last on the list of people to suggest anything that may reduce this crime. If they were paying £10 a pack then they would be paying a higher percentage of tax than most workers do on their income.[/p][/quote]Smokers should have their benefits stopped. Why should I pay for your illegal tobacco? Alhaurinrhino

2:18pm Wed 11 Dec 13

Andy2010 says...

Alhaurinrhino wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Apollo wrote:
allinittogether wrote:
Freddy Elliot wrote: £26. Bet a fair percentage of the 'families' that receive the payment could easily spend over that amount at a Subway/Greggs in one visit.
What on earth has that got to do with school uniforms? And why write families in inverted commas? Grow up you spiteful individual.
Because you can bet at least one 'family' member will be a smoker at nearly £10 per pack and for those families one has no sympathy.
You will find that smokers on benefits smoke roll ups which takes the cost down to under £15 a week and still they will find this a struggle so they will seek out imported tobacco which will take the cost down to under £10 a week. OK so it is driving other crime but it is obvious as to the reasons behind this and the police will be the last on the list of people to suggest anything that may reduce this crime. If they were paying £10 a pack then they would be paying a higher percentage of tax than most workers do on their income.
Smokers should have their benefits stopped. Why should I pay for your illegal tobacco?
This is why benefits should be paid in form of a "benefit card" that can only be used to buy food or utilities.

After all benefits are there only to help people get through until they get a job so their basic needs are met....everything else such as tobacco and alcohol are pure luxuries.
[quote][p][bold]Alhaurinrhino[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Apollo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]allinittogether[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Freddy Elliot[/bold] wrote: £26. Bet a fair percentage of the 'families' that receive the payment could easily spend over that amount at a Subway/Greggs in one visit.[/p][/quote]What on earth has that got to do with school uniforms? And why write families in inverted commas? Grow up you spiteful individual.[/p][/quote]Because you can bet at least one 'family' member will be a smoker at nearly £10 per pack and for those families one has no sympathy.[/p][/quote]You will find that smokers on benefits smoke roll ups which takes the cost down to under £15 a week and still they will find this a struggle so they will seek out imported tobacco which will take the cost down to under £10 a week. OK so it is driving other crime but it is obvious as to the reasons behind this and the police will be the last on the list of people to suggest anything that may reduce this crime. If they were paying £10 a pack then they would be paying a higher percentage of tax than most workers do on their income.[/p][/quote]Smokers should have their benefits stopped. Why should I pay for your illegal tobacco?[/p][/quote]This is why benefits should be paid in form of a "benefit card" that can only be used to buy food or utilities. After all benefits are there only to help people get through until they get a job so their basic needs are met....everything else such as tobacco and alcohol are pure luxuries. Andy2010

2:23pm Wed 11 Dec 13

Bone_idle18 says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
Apollo wrote:
allinittogether wrote:
Freddy Elliot wrote: £26. Bet a fair percentage of the 'families' that receive the payment could easily spend over that amount at a Subway/Greggs in one visit.
What on earth has that got to do with school uniforms? And why write families in inverted commas? Grow up you spiteful individual.
Because you can bet at least one 'family' member will be a smoker at nearly £10 per pack and for those families one has no sympathy.
You will find that smokers on benefits smoke roll ups which takes the cost down to under £15 a week and still they will find this a struggle so they will seek out imported tobacco which will take the cost down to under £10 a week. OK so it is driving other crime but it is obvious as to the reasons behind this and the police will be the last on the list of people to suggest anything that may reduce this crime. If they were paying £10 a pack then they would be paying a higher percentage of tax than most workers do on their income.
£15 a week? You could buy a a kids uniform for that! And that would last at least a term!

Or you could feed them pretty well for £15 a week.

So that £15 a week is taking £15 a week out of their kids mouths!

Totally selfish!
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Apollo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]allinittogether[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Freddy Elliot[/bold] wrote: £26. Bet a fair percentage of the 'families' that receive the payment could easily spend over that amount at a Subway/Greggs in one visit.[/p][/quote]What on earth has that got to do with school uniforms? And why write families in inverted commas? Grow up you spiteful individual.[/p][/quote]Because you can bet at least one 'family' member will be a smoker at nearly £10 per pack and for those families one has no sympathy.[/p][/quote]You will find that smokers on benefits smoke roll ups which takes the cost down to under £15 a week and still they will find this a struggle so they will seek out imported tobacco which will take the cost down to under £10 a week. OK so it is driving other crime but it is obvious as to the reasons behind this and the police will be the last on the list of people to suggest anything that may reduce this crime. If they were paying £10 a pack then they would be paying a higher percentage of tax than most workers do on their income.[/p][/quote]£15 a week? You could buy a a kids uniform for that! And that would last at least a term! Or you could feed them pretty well for £15 a week. So that £15 a week is taking £15 a week out of their kids mouths! Totally selfish! Bone_idle18

2:34pm Wed 11 Dec 13

RollandSmoke says...

I'm beginning to understand the Witch hunt that is currently taking place against people on benefits. It is because some honestly believe that benefit claimants are capable of magic and sit up on an evening casting spells against them. I hate to busts peoples bubbles but this is not the case. If you are in receipt of benefits you don't suddenly acquire the ability to pull money out of a hat (or out of anywhere else for that matter). We don't have the ducking stools today, the modern day equivalent is to remove the means of survival and if they don't starve or get hypothermia then they are indeed a Witch and should be burnt at the stake. It may be that they have read stories of thousands of people being fed on a loaf and two fishes and conclude that this is all anyone should need to sustain life. I say "may" as that is a bit of Bible fiction and the Witch hunters seldom if ever display Christian virtues. Then again they don't display many of the qualities that make people human either. Forget the schools, people learn much more from their families and on that basis we are doomed
I'm beginning to understand the Witch hunt that is currently taking place against people on benefits. It is because some honestly believe that benefit claimants are capable of magic and sit up on an evening casting spells against them. I hate to busts peoples bubbles but this is not the case. If you are in receipt of benefits you don't suddenly acquire the ability to pull money out of a hat (or out of anywhere else for that matter). We don't have the ducking stools today, the modern day equivalent is to remove the means of survival and if they don't starve or get hypothermia then they are indeed a Witch and should be burnt at the stake. It may be that they have read stories of thousands of people being fed on a loaf and two fishes and conclude that this is all anyone should need to sustain life. I say "may" as that is a bit of Bible fiction and the Witch hunters seldom if ever display Christian virtues. Then again they don't display many of the qualities that make people human either. Forget the schools, people learn much more from their families and on that basis we are doomed RollandSmoke

2:35pm Wed 11 Dec 13

justjustice says...

How about all the MPs who claim they should not get their "well deserved" pay rise, donate it all to such schemes in their local council.

£7604 for each MP, £26 vouchers; each MP can help fund the uniforms for 292 children each year!

From news articles, the total cost to taxpayer for this rise will be £4.6million; that's 176,923 schoolchildren who can benefit from new uniforms!

So the question is, do we as a people and a nation want to see 600 individuals, whom we do not trust any more to run this country properly for the people and not corporations and banks; so we want them to benefit from our taxes, or 176,923 children?!
How about all the MPs who claim they should not get their "well deserved" pay rise, donate it all to such schemes in their local council. £7604 for each MP, £26 vouchers; each MP can help fund the uniforms for 292 children each year! From news articles, the total cost to taxpayer for this rise will be £4.6million; that's 176,923 schoolchildren who can benefit from new uniforms! So the question is, do we as a people and a nation want to see 600 individuals, whom we do not trust any more to run this country properly for the people and not corporations and banks; so we want them to benefit from our taxes, or 176,923 children?! justjustice

2:37pm Wed 11 Dec 13

Andy2010 says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
I'm beginning to understand the Witch hunt that is currently taking place against people on benefits. It is because some honestly believe that benefit claimants are capable of magic and sit up on an evening casting spells against them. I hate to busts peoples bubbles but this is not the case. If you are in receipt of benefits you don't suddenly acquire the ability to pull money out of a hat (or out of anywhere else for that matter). We don't have the ducking stools today, the modern day equivalent is to remove the means of survival and if they don't starve or get hypothermia then they are indeed a Witch and should be burnt at the stake. It may be that they have read stories of thousands of people being fed on a loaf and two fishes and conclude that this is all anyone should need to sustain life. I say "may" as that is a bit of Bible fiction and the Witch hunters seldom if ever display Christian virtues. Then again they don't display many of the qualities that make people human either. Forget the schools, people learn much more from their families and on that basis we are doomed
From benefit families I agree...we are doomed....its rinse and repeat with them lot
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: I'm beginning to understand the Witch hunt that is currently taking place against people on benefits. It is because some honestly believe that benefit claimants are capable of magic and sit up on an evening casting spells against them. I hate to busts peoples bubbles but this is not the case. If you are in receipt of benefits you don't suddenly acquire the ability to pull money out of a hat (or out of anywhere else for that matter). We don't have the ducking stools today, the modern day equivalent is to remove the means of survival and if they don't starve or get hypothermia then they are indeed a Witch and should be burnt at the stake. It may be that they have read stories of thousands of people being fed on a loaf and two fishes and conclude that this is all anyone should need to sustain life. I say "may" as that is a bit of Bible fiction and the Witch hunters seldom if ever display Christian virtues. Then again they don't display many of the qualities that make people human either. Forget the schools, people learn much more from their families and on that basis we are doomed[/p][/quote]From benefit families I agree...we are doomed....its rinse and repeat with them lot Andy2010

2:45pm Wed 11 Dec 13

Freddy Elliot says...

Apollo wrote:
allinittogether wrote:
Freddy Elliot wrote: £26. Bet a fair percentage of the 'families' that receive the payment could easily spend over that amount at a Subway/Greggs in one visit.
What on earth has that got to do with school uniforms? And why write families in inverted commas? Grow up you spiteful individual.
Because you can bet at least one 'family' member will be a smoker at nearly £10 per pack and for those families one has no sympathy.
Cheers Apollo, yes point being made that some households that are receiving such benefits could very likely be spending on luxuries like aforementioned Sky, fancy trainers etc. rather than £26 on school uniforms. Families in inverted commas merely hints at the number of single parent families on benefits that we have in modern times as opposed to getting married, mortgage etc.
[quote][p][bold]Apollo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]allinittogether[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Freddy Elliot[/bold] wrote: £26. Bet a fair percentage of the 'families' that receive the payment could easily spend over that amount at a Subway/Greggs in one visit.[/p][/quote]What on earth has that got to do with school uniforms? And why write families in inverted commas? Grow up you spiteful individual.[/p][/quote]Because you can bet at least one 'family' member will be a smoker at nearly £10 per pack and for those families one has no sympathy.[/p][/quote]Cheers Apollo, yes point being made that some households that are receiving such benefits could very likely be spending on luxuries like aforementioned Sky, fancy trainers etc. rather than £26 on school uniforms. Families in inverted commas merely hints at the number of single parent families on benefits that we have in modern times as opposed to getting married, mortgage etc. Freddy Elliot

2:45pm Wed 11 Dec 13

RollandSmoke says...

Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
I'm beginning to understand the Witch hunt that is currently taking place against people on benefits. It is because some honestly believe that benefit claimants are capable of magic and sit up on an evening casting spells against them. I hate to busts peoples bubbles but this is not the case. If you are in receipt of benefits you don't suddenly acquire the ability to pull money out of a hat (or out of anywhere else for that matter). We don't have the ducking stools today, the modern day equivalent is to remove the means of survival and if they don't starve or get hypothermia then they are indeed a Witch and should be burnt at the stake. It may be that they have read stories of thousands of people being fed on a loaf and two fishes and conclude that this is all anyone should need to sustain life. I say "may" as that is a bit of Bible fiction and the Witch hunters seldom if ever display Christian virtues. Then again they don't display many of the qualities that make people human either. Forget the schools, people learn much more from their families and on that basis we are doomed
From benefit families I agree...we are doomed....its rinse and repeat with them lot
No I mean families like yours where the head of the household preaches hate on a daily basis. Look at those people there kids, they are the sh!t on your shoes. Sound familiar?.
[quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: I'm beginning to understand the Witch hunt that is currently taking place against people on benefits. It is because some honestly believe that benefit claimants are capable of magic and sit up on an evening casting spells against them. I hate to busts peoples bubbles but this is not the case. If you are in receipt of benefits you don't suddenly acquire the ability to pull money out of a hat (or out of anywhere else for that matter). We don't have the ducking stools today, the modern day equivalent is to remove the means of survival and if they don't starve or get hypothermia then they are indeed a Witch and should be burnt at the stake. It may be that they have read stories of thousands of people being fed on a loaf and two fishes and conclude that this is all anyone should need to sustain life. I say "may" as that is a bit of Bible fiction and the Witch hunters seldom if ever display Christian virtues. Then again they don't display many of the qualities that make people human either. Forget the schools, people learn much more from their families and on that basis we are doomed[/p][/quote]From benefit families I agree...we are doomed....its rinse and repeat with them lot[/p][/quote]No I mean families like yours where the head of the household preaches hate on a daily basis. Look at those people there kids, they are the sh!t on your shoes. Sound familiar?. RollandSmoke

3:23pm Wed 11 Dec 13

RollandSmoke says...

Freddy Elliot wrote:
Apollo wrote:
allinittogether wrote:
Freddy Elliot wrote: £26. Bet a fair percentage of the 'families' that receive the payment could easily spend over that amount at a Subway/Greggs in one visit.
What on earth has that got to do with school uniforms? And why write families in inverted commas? Grow up you spiteful individual.
Because you can bet at least one 'family' member will be a smoker at nearly £10 per pack and for those families one has no sympathy.
Cheers Apollo, yes point being made that some households that are receiving such benefits could very likely be spending on luxuries like aforementioned Sky, fancy trainers etc. rather than £26 on school uniforms. Families in inverted commas merely hints at the number of single parent families on benefits that we have in modern times as opposed to getting married, mortgage etc.
If you are on benefits take your children out of school. They are learning nothing and are merely being indoctrinated into a system that has no use for them and sees them as worthless. You cannot continue to conform to a system that works against you. If you are working and you do not receive enough to escape the benefits trap withdraw your labour. You are contributing to the sickest system that has existed in most peoples lifetimes. It can only continue with your compliance. They have destroyed the unions in order to strip you of a voice and destroy your working rights. 1 poor person working alone cannot make a difference. 6 million poor people standing together can.
[quote][p][bold]Freddy Elliot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Apollo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]allinittogether[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Freddy Elliot[/bold] wrote: £26. Bet a fair percentage of the 'families' that receive the payment could easily spend over that amount at a Subway/Greggs in one visit.[/p][/quote]What on earth has that got to do with school uniforms? And why write families in inverted commas? Grow up you spiteful individual.[/p][/quote]Because you can bet at least one 'family' member will be a smoker at nearly £10 per pack and for those families one has no sympathy.[/p][/quote]Cheers Apollo, yes point being made that some households that are receiving such benefits could very likely be spending on luxuries like aforementioned Sky, fancy trainers etc. rather than £26 on school uniforms. Families in inverted commas merely hints at the number of single parent families on benefits that we have in modern times as opposed to getting married, mortgage etc.[/p][/quote]If you are on benefits take your children out of school. They are learning nothing and are merely being indoctrinated into a system that has no use for them and sees them as worthless. You cannot continue to conform to a system that works against you. If you are working and you do not receive enough to escape the benefits trap withdraw your labour. You are contributing to the sickest system that has existed in most peoples lifetimes. It can only continue with your compliance. They have destroyed the unions in order to strip you of a voice and destroy your working rights. 1 poor person working alone cannot make a difference. 6 million poor people standing together can. RollandSmoke

3:31pm Wed 11 Dec 13

Andy2010 says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
I'm beginning to understand the Witch hunt that is currently taking place against people on benefits. It is because some honestly believe that benefit claimants are capable of magic and sit up on an evening casting spells against them. I hate to busts peoples bubbles but this is not the case. If you are in receipt of benefits you don't suddenly acquire the ability to pull money out of a hat (or out of anywhere else for that matter). We don't have the ducking stools today, the modern day equivalent is to remove the means of survival and if they don't starve or get hypothermia then they are indeed a Witch and should be burnt at the stake. It may be that they have read stories of thousands of people being fed on a loaf and two fishes and conclude that this is all anyone should need to sustain life. I say "may" as that is a bit of Bible fiction and the Witch hunters seldom if ever display Christian virtues. Then again they don't display many of the qualities that make people human either. Forget the schools, people learn much more from their families and on that basis we are doomed
From benefit families I agree...we are doomed....its rinse and repeat with them lot
No I mean families like yours where the head of the household preaches hate on a daily basis. Look at those people there kids, they are the sh!t on your shoes. Sound familiar?.
Not really. Not the kids fault but a fault of the parents who shouldn't have brought the kids into this world when they have no means of financially supporting them

Its very simple really. You want kids YOU pay for them. Not the state but YOU

Unfortunately with these sort of breeder families they see their own children simply as extra income to support their wasteful pointless lives
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: I'm beginning to understand the Witch hunt that is currently taking place against people on benefits. It is because some honestly believe that benefit claimants are capable of magic and sit up on an evening casting spells against them. I hate to busts peoples bubbles but this is not the case. If you are in receipt of benefits you don't suddenly acquire the ability to pull money out of a hat (or out of anywhere else for that matter). We don't have the ducking stools today, the modern day equivalent is to remove the means of survival and if they don't starve or get hypothermia then they are indeed a Witch and should be burnt at the stake. It may be that they have read stories of thousands of people being fed on a loaf and two fishes and conclude that this is all anyone should need to sustain life. I say "may" as that is a bit of Bible fiction and the Witch hunters seldom if ever display Christian virtues. Then again they don't display many of the qualities that make people human either. Forget the schools, people learn much more from their families and on that basis we are doomed[/p][/quote]From benefit families I agree...we are doomed....its rinse and repeat with them lot[/p][/quote]No I mean families like yours where the head of the household preaches hate on a daily basis. Look at those people there kids, they are the sh!t on your shoes. Sound familiar?.[/p][/quote]Not really. Not the kids fault but a fault of the parents who shouldn't have brought the kids into this world when they have no means of financially supporting them Its very simple really. You want kids YOU pay for them. Not the state but YOU Unfortunately with these sort of breeder families they see their own children simply as extra income to support their wasteful pointless lives Andy2010

3:32pm Wed 11 Dec 13

Andy2010 says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
Freddy Elliot wrote:
Apollo wrote:
allinittogether wrote:
Freddy Elliot wrote: £26. Bet a fair percentage of the 'families' that receive the payment could easily spend over that amount at a Subway/Greggs in one visit.
What on earth has that got to do with school uniforms? And why write families in inverted commas? Grow up you spiteful individual.
Because you can bet at least one 'family' member will be a smoker at nearly £10 per pack and for those families one has no sympathy.
Cheers Apollo, yes point being made that some households that are receiving such benefits could very likely be spending on luxuries like aforementioned Sky, fancy trainers etc. rather than £26 on school uniforms. Families in inverted commas merely hints at the number of single parent families on benefits that we have in modern times as opposed to getting married, mortgage etc.
If you are on benefits take your children out of school. They are learning nothing and are merely being indoctrinated into a system that has no use for them and sees them as worthless. You cannot continue to conform to a system that works against you. If you are working and you do not receive enough to escape the benefits trap withdraw your labour. You are contributing to the sickest system that has existed in most peoples lifetimes. It can only continue with your compliance. They have destroyed the unions in order to strip you of a voice and destroy your working rights. 1 poor person working alone cannot make a difference. 6 million poor people standing together can.
Give you one thing Rollie....you make me laugh

Kudos for that
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Freddy Elliot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Apollo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]allinittogether[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Freddy Elliot[/bold] wrote: £26. Bet a fair percentage of the 'families' that receive the payment could easily spend over that amount at a Subway/Greggs in one visit.[/p][/quote]What on earth has that got to do with school uniforms? And why write families in inverted commas? Grow up you spiteful individual.[/p][/quote]Because you can bet at least one 'family' member will be a smoker at nearly £10 per pack and for those families one has no sympathy.[/p][/quote]Cheers Apollo, yes point being made that some households that are receiving such benefits could very likely be spending on luxuries like aforementioned Sky, fancy trainers etc. rather than £26 on school uniforms. Families in inverted commas merely hints at the number of single parent families on benefits that we have in modern times as opposed to getting married, mortgage etc.[/p][/quote]If you are on benefits take your children out of school. They are learning nothing and are merely being indoctrinated into a system that has no use for them and sees them as worthless. You cannot continue to conform to a system that works against you. If you are working and you do not receive enough to escape the benefits trap withdraw your labour. You are contributing to the sickest system that has existed in most peoples lifetimes. It can only continue with your compliance. They have destroyed the unions in order to strip you of a voice and destroy your working rights. 1 poor person working alone cannot make a difference. 6 million poor people standing together can.[/p][/quote]Give you one thing Rollie....you make me laugh Kudos for that Andy2010

3:40pm Wed 11 Dec 13

RollandSmoke says...

Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
I'm beginning to understand the Witch hunt that is currently taking place against people on benefits. It is because some honestly believe that benefit claimants are capable of magic and sit up on an evening casting spells against them. I hate to busts peoples bubbles but this is not the case. If you are in receipt of benefits you don't suddenly acquire the ability to pull money out of a hat (or out of anywhere else for that matter). We don't have the ducking stools today, the modern day equivalent is to remove the means of survival and if they don't starve or get hypothermia then they are indeed a Witch and should be burnt at the stake. It may be that they have read stories of thousands of people being fed on a loaf and two fishes and conclude that this is all anyone should need to sustain life. I say "may" as that is a bit of Bible fiction and the Witch hunters seldom if ever display Christian virtues. Then again they don't display many of the qualities that make people human either. Forget the schools, people learn much more from their families and on that basis we are doomed
From benefit families I agree...we are doomed....its rinse and repeat with them lot
No I mean families like yours where the head of the household preaches hate on a daily basis. Look at those people there kids, they are the sh!t on your shoes. Sound familiar?.
Not really. Not the kids fault but a fault of the parents who shouldn't have brought the kids into this world when they have no means of financially supporting them

Its very simple really. You want kids YOU pay for them. Not the state but YOU

Unfortunately with these sort of breeder families they see their own children simply as extra income to support their wasteful pointless lives
You really are retarded aren't you? When you have a child they are a child for 18 years. When you have a job there is no knowing whether it will still be there in 6 months time. This is not something they have control over. Bringing up a young child is a full time job in itself. If you want to promote eugenics then lets stop all families having more than a state prescribed number of children, you know, like they do in China.
[quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: I'm beginning to understand the Witch hunt that is currently taking place against people on benefits. It is because some honestly believe that benefit claimants are capable of magic and sit up on an evening casting spells against them. I hate to busts peoples bubbles but this is not the case. If you are in receipt of benefits you don't suddenly acquire the ability to pull money out of a hat (or out of anywhere else for that matter). We don't have the ducking stools today, the modern day equivalent is to remove the means of survival and if they don't starve or get hypothermia then they are indeed a Witch and should be burnt at the stake. It may be that they have read stories of thousands of people being fed on a loaf and two fishes and conclude that this is all anyone should need to sustain life. I say "may" as that is a bit of Bible fiction and the Witch hunters seldom if ever display Christian virtues. Then again they don't display many of the qualities that make people human either. Forget the schools, people learn much more from their families and on that basis we are doomed[/p][/quote]From benefit families I agree...we are doomed....its rinse and repeat with them lot[/p][/quote]No I mean families like yours where the head of the household preaches hate on a daily basis. Look at those people there kids, they are the sh!t on your shoes. Sound familiar?.[/p][/quote]Not really. Not the kids fault but a fault of the parents who shouldn't have brought the kids into this world when they have no means of financially supporting them Its very simple really. You want kids YOU pay for them. Not the state but YOU Unfortunately with these sort of breeder families they see their own children simply as extra income to support their wasteful pointless lives[/p][/quote]You really are retarded aren't you? When you have a child they are a child for 18 years. When you have a job there is no knowing whether it will still be there in 6 months time. This is not something they have control over. Bringing up a young child is a full time job in itself. If you want to promote eugenics then lets stop all families having more than a state prescribed number of children, you know, like they do in China. RollandSmoke

4:01pm Wed 11 Dec 13

Andy2010 says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
I'm beginning to understand the Witch hunt that is currently taking place against people on benefits. It is because some honestly believe that benefit claimants are capable of magic and sit up on an evening casting spells against them. I hate to busts peoples bubbles but this is not the case. If you are in receipt of benefits you don't suddenly acquire the ability to pull money out of a hat (or out of anywhere else for that matter). We don't have the ducking stools today, the modern day equivalent is to remove the means of survival and if they don't starve or get hypothermia then they are indeed a Witch and should be burnt at the stake. It may be that they have read stories of thousands of people being fed on a loaf and two fishes and conclude that this is all anyone should need to sustain life. I say "may" as that is a bit of Bible fiction and the Witch hunters seldom if ever display Christian virtues. Then again they don't display many of the qualities that make people human either. Forget the schools, people learn much more from their families and on that basis we are doomed
From benefit families I agree...we are doomed....its rinse and repeat with them lot
No I mean families like yours where the head of the household preaches hate on a daily basis. Look at those people there kids, they are the sh!t on your shoes. Sound familiar?.
Not really. Not the kids fault but a fault of the parents who shouldn't have brought the kids into this world when they have no means of financially supporting them

Its very simple really. You want kids YOU pay for them. Not the state but YOU

Unfortunately with these sort of breeder families they see their own children simply as extra income to support their wasteful pointless lives
You really are retarded aren't you? When you have a child they are a child for 18 years. When you have a job there is no knowing whether it will still be there in 6 months time. This is not something they have control over. Bringing up a young child is a full time job in itself. If you want to promote eugenics then lets stop all families having more than a state prescribed number of children, you know, like they do in China.
Clearly I must be retarded because I have no idea what you are talking about

What has job security got to do with anything? You have a job you lose a job you get another...simple. I say this from experience after raising five children and being made redundant 8 times through their lives.

Or are you suggesting anyone with children shouldn't work and should stay at home with their children until they are 18 all the time funded by the state?.
[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: I'm beginning to understand the Witch hunt that is currently taking place against people on benefits. It is because some honestly believe that benefit claimants are capable of magic and sit up on an evening casting spells against them. I hate to busts peoples bubbles but this is not the case. If you are in receipt of benefits you don't suddenly acquire the ability to pull money out of a hat (or out of anywhere else for that matter). We don't have the ducking stools today, the modern day equivalent is to remove the means of survival and if they don't starve or get hypothermia then they are indeed a Witch and should be burnt at the stake. It may be that they have read stories of thousands of people being fed on a loaf and two fishes and conclude that this is all anyone should need to sustain life. I say "may" as that is a bit of Bible fiction and the Witch hunters seldom if ever display Christian virtues. Then again they don't display many of the qualities that make people human either. Forget the schools, people learn much more from their families and on that basis we are doomed[/p][/quote]From benefit families I agree...we are doomed....its rinse and repeat with them lot[/p][/quote]No I mean families like yours where the head of the household preaches hate on a daily basis. Look at those people there kids, they are the sh!t on your shoes. Sound familiar?.[/p][/quote]Not really. Not the kids fault but a fault of the parents who shouldn't have brought the kids into this world when they have no means of financially supporting them Its very simple really. You want kids YOU pay for them. Not the state but YOU Unfortunately with these sort of breeder families they see their own children simply as extra income to support their wasteful pointless lives[/p][/quote]You really are retarded aren't you? When you have a child they are a child for 18 years. When you have a job there is no knowing whether it will still be there in 6 months time. This is not something they have control over. Bringing up a young child is a full time job in itself. If you want to promote eugenics then lets stop all families having more than a state prescribed number of children, you know, like they do in China.[/p][/quote]Clearly I must be retarded because I have no idea what you are talking about What has job security got to do with anything? You have a job you lose a job you get another...simple. I say this from experience after raising five children and being made redundant 8 times through their lives. Or are you suggesting anyone with children shouldn't work and should stay at home with their children until they are 18 all the time funded by the state?. Andy2010

4:14pm Wed 11 Dec 13

RollandSmoke says...

Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
I'm beginning to understand the Witch hunt that is currently taking place against people on benefits. It is because some honestly believe that benefit claimants are capable of magic and sit up on an evening casting spells against them. I hate to busts peoples bubbles but this is not the case. If you are in receipt of benefits you don't suddenly acquire the ability to pull money out of a hat (or out of anywhere else for that matter). We don't have the ducking stools today, the modern day equivalent is to remove the means of survival and if they don't starve or get hypothermia then they are indeed a Witch and should be burnt at the stake. It may be that they have read stories of thousands of people being fed on a loaf and two fishes and conclude that this is all anyone should need to sustain life. I say "may" as that is a bit of Bible fiction and the Witch hunters seldom if ever display Christian virtues. Then again they don't display many of the qualities that make people human either. Forget the schools, people learn much more from their families and on that basis we are doomed
From benefit families I agree...we are doomed....its rinse and repeat with them lot
No I mean families like yours where the head of the household preaches hate on a daily basis. Look at those people there kids, they are the sh!t on your shoes. Sound familiar?.
Not really. Not the kids fault but a fault of the parents who shouldn't have brought the kids into this world when they have no means of financially supporting them

Its very simple really. You want kids YOU pay for them. Not the state but YOU

Unfortunately with these sort of breeder families they see their own children simply as extra income to support their wasteful pointless lives
You really are retarded aren't you? When you have a child they are a child for 18 years. When you have a job there is no knowing whether it will still be there in 6 months time. This is not something they have control over. Bringing up a young child is a full time job in itself. If you want to promote eugenics then lets stop all families having more than a state prescribed number of children, you know, like they do in China.
Clearly I must be retarded because I have no idea what you are talking about

What has job security got to do with anything? You have a job you lose a job you get another...simple. I say this from experience after raising five children and being made redundant 8 times through their lives.

Or are you suggesting anyone with children shouldn't work and should stay at home with their children until they are 18 all the time funded by the state?.
So who took care of your 5 children up until they reached school age? If you lost your job and were unable to find another should you sacrifice one or more of your children to avoid the attacks from those lucky enough to still be in work? You have swallowed the myth that people just don't want to work and ignore the fact that time and time again we read about the unavailability of jobs. You also ignore the fact that you read of job losses much more often than you do of jobs being created. You ignore the fact that wages are at a level where for many work is no longer a financially viable option. You Sir are a fool but this is typical of the Tory voting scum and if you were not a fool you would realise that this agenda of driving the poor into the dirt is costing you more in the long run than it would cost to give the poor an acceptable standard of living.
[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: I'm beginning to understand the Witch hunt that is currently taking place against people on benefits. It is because some honestly believe that benefit claimants are capable of magic and sit up on an evening casting spells against them. I hate to busts peoples bubbles but this is not the case. If you are in receipt of benefits you don't suddenly acquire the ability to pull money out of a hat (or out of anywhere else for that matter). We don't have the ducking stools today, the modern day equivalent is to remove the means of survival and if they don't starve or get hypothermia then they are indeed a Witch and should be burnt at the stake. It may be that they have read stories of thousands of people being fed on a loaf and two fishes and conclude that this is all anyone should need to sustain life. I say "may" as that is a bit of Bible fiction and the Witch hunters seldom if ever display Christian virtues. Then again they don't display many of the qualities that make people human either. Forget the schools, people learn much more from their families and on that basis we are doomed[/p][/quote]From benefit families I agree...we are doomed....its rinse and repeat with them lot[/p][/quote]No I mean families like yours where the head of the household preaches hate on a daily basis. Look at those people there kids, they are the sh!t on your shoes. Sound familiar?.[/p][/quote]Not really. Not the kids fault but a fault of the parents who shouldn't have brought the kids into this world when they have no means of financially supporting them Its very simple really. You want kids YOU pay for them. Not the state but YOU Unfortunately with these sort of breeder families they see their own children simply as extra income to support their wasteful pointless lives[/p][/quote]You really are retarded aren't you? When you have a child they are a child for 18 years. When you have a job there is no knowing whether it will still be there in 6 months time. This is not something they have control over. Bringing up a young child is a full time job in itself. If you want to promote eugenics then lets stop all families having more than a state prescribed number of children, you know, like they do in China.[/p][/quote]Clearly I must be retarded because I have no idea what you are talking about What has job security got to do with anything? You have a job you lose a job you get another...simple. I say this from experience after raising five children and being made redundant 8 times through their lives. Or are you suggesting anyone with children shouldn't work and should stay at home with their children until they are 18 all the time funded by the state?.[/p][/quote]So who took care of your 5 children up until they reached school age? If you lost your job and were unable to find another should you sacrifice one or more of your children to avoid the attacks from those lucky enough to still be in work? You have swallowed the myth that people just don't want to work and ignore the fact that time and time again we read about the unavailability of jobs. You also ignore the fact that you read of job losses much more often than you do of jobs being created. You ignore the fact that wages are at a level where for many work is no longer a financially viable option. You Sir are a fool but this is typical of the Tory voting scum and if you were not a fool you would realise that this agenda of driving the poor into the dirt is costing you more in the long run than it would cost to give the poor an acceptable standard of living. RollandSmoke

4:25pm Wed 11 Dec 13

alive and awake says...

Imagine a Labour Council coming up with such an idea, what would, Blair, Brown, Balls, and the Rev. Flowers make of it all.
Imagine a Labour Council coming up with such an idea, what would, Blair, Brown, Balls, and the Rev. Flowers make of it all. alive and awake

4:34pm Wed 11 Dec 13

Andy2010 says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
I'm beginning to understand the Witch hunt that is currently taking place against people on benefits. It is because some honestly believe that benefit claimants are capable of magic and sit up on an evening casting spells against them. I hate to busts peoples bubbles but this is not the case. If you are in receipt of benefits you don't suddenly acquire the ability to pull money out of a hat (or out of anywhere else for that matter). We don't have the ducking stools today, the modern day equivalent is to remove the means of survival and if they don't starve or get hypothermia then they are indeed a Witch and should be burnt at the stake. It may be that they have read stories of thousands of people being fed on a loaf and two fishes and conclude that this is all anyone should need to sustain life. I say "may" as that is a bit of Bible fiction and the Witch hunters seldom if ever display Christian virtues. Then again they don't display many of the qualities that make people human either. Forget the schools, people learn much more from their families and on that basis we are doomed
From benefit families I agree...we are doomed....its rinse and repeat with them lot
No I mean families like yours where the head of the household preaches hate on a daily basis. Look at those people there kids, they are the sh!t on your shoes. Sound familiar?.
Not really. Not the kids fault but a fault of the parents who shouldn't have brought the kids into this world when they have no means of financially supporting them

Its very simple really. You want kids YOU pay for them. Not the state but YOU

Unfortunately with these sort of breeder families they see their own children simply as extra income to support their wasteful pointless lives
You really are retarded aren't you? When you have a child they are a child for 18 years. When you have a job there is no knowing whether it will still be there in 6 months time. This is not something they have control over. Bringing up a young child is a full time job in itself. If you want to promote eugenics then lets stop all families having more than a state prescribed number of children, you know, like they do in China.
Clearly I must be retarded because I have no idea what you are talking about

What has job security got to do with anything? You have a job you lose a job you get another...simple. I say this from experience after raising five children and being made redundant 8 times through their lives.

Or are you suggesting anyone with children shouldn't work and should stay at home with their children until they are 18 all the time funded by the state?.
So who took care of your 5 children up until they reached school age? If you lost your job and were unable to find another should you sacrifice one or more of your children to avoid the attacks from those lucky enough to still be in work? You have swallowed the myth that people just don't want to work and ignore the fact that time and time again we read about the unavailability of jobs. You also ignore the fact that you read of job losses much more often than you do of jobs being created. You ignore the fact that wages are at a level where for many work is no longer a financially viable option. You Sir are a fool but this is typical of the Tory voting scum and if you were not a fool you would realise that this agenda of driving the poor into the dirt is costing you more in the long run than it would cost to give the poor an acceptable standard of living.
I'd get help for that paranoia if I was you.

Who took care of my children? I did along with their mother and with paid for childcare....Your point?

and sorry but you Sir are the fool. You believe stupid and unrealistic conspiracies about "divide and rule" and "them and us". Fact of the matter is and which I know for a fact there are actually more jobs out there as each month passes by. Sure the competition is fierce but if you or others like you got their heads out of their ar5es and bothered to spend all day everyday searching for work you would come up trumps. Still its easier to sit there and just moan about no jobs isn't it.

Always an excuse and never a solution....that's you that 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: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: I'm beginning to understand the Witch hunt that is currently taking place against people on benefits. It is because some honestly believe that benefit claimants are capable of magic and sit up on an evening casting spells against them. I hate to busts peoples bubbles but this is not the case. If you are in receipt of benefits you don't suddenly acquire the ability to pull money out of a hat (or out of anywhere else for that matter). We don't have the ducking stools today, the modern day equivalent is to remove the means of survival and if they don't starve or get hypothermia then they are indeed a Witch and should be burnt at the stake. It may be that they have read stories of thousands of people being fed on a loaf and two fishes and conclude that this is all anyone should need to sustain life. I say "may" as that is a bit of Bible fiction and the Witch hunters seldom if ever display Christian virtues. Then again they don't display many of the qualities that make people human either. Forget the schools, people learn much more from their families and on that basis we are doomed[/p][/quote]From benefit families I agree...we are doomed....its rinse and repeat with them lot[/p][/quote]No I mean families like yours where the head of the household preaches hate on a daily basis. Look at those people there kids, they are the sh!t on your shoes. Sound familiar?.[/p][/quote]Not really. Not the kids fault but a fault of the parents who shouldn't have brought the kids into this world when they have no means of financially supporting them Its very simple really. You want kids YOU pay for them. Not the state but YOU Unfortunately with these sort of breeder families they see their own children simply as extra income to support their wasteful pointless lives[/p][/quote]You really are retarded aren't you? When you have a child they are a child for 18 years. When you have a job there is no knowing whether it will still be there in 6 months time. This is not something they have control over. Bringing up a young child is a full time job in itself. If you want to promote eugenics then lets stop all families having more than a state prescribed number of children, you know, like they do in China.[/p][/quote]Clearly I must be retarded because I have no idea what you are talking about What has job security got to do with anything? You have a job you lose a job you get another...simple. I say this from experience after raising five children and being made redundant 8 times through their lives. Or are you suggesting anyone with children shouldn't work and should stay at home with their children until they are 18 all the time funded by the state?.[/p][/quote]So who took care of your 5 children up until they reached school age? If you lost your job and were unable to find another should you sacrifice one or more of your children to avoid the attacks from those lucky enough to still be in work? You have swallowed the myth that people just don't want to work and ignore the fact that time and time again we read about the unavailability of jobs. You also ignore the fact that you read of job losses much more often than you do of jobs being created. You ignore the fact that wages are at a level where for many work is no longer a financially viable option. You Sir are a fool but this is typical of the Tory voting scum and if you were not a fool you would realise that this agenda of driving the poor into the dirt is costing you more in the long run than it would cost to give the poor an acceptable standard of living.[/p][/quote]I'd get help for that paranoia if I was you. Who took care of my children? I did along with their mother and with paid for childcare....Your point? and sorry but you Sir are the fool. You believe stupid and unrealistic conspiracies about "divide and rule" and "them and us". Fact of the matter is and which I know for a fact there are actually more jobs out there as each month passes by. Sure the competition is fierce but if you or others like you got their heads out of their ar5es and bothered to spend all day everyday searching for work you would come up trumps. Still its easier to sit there and just moan about no jobs isn't it. Always an excuse and never a solution....that's you that is Andy2010

4:37pm Wed 11 Dec 13

RollandSmoke says...

alive and awake wrote:
Imagine a Labour Council coming up with such an idea, what would, Blair, Brown, Balls, and the Rev. Flowers make of it all.
I've no idea but given the quality of our political representatives on all sides I wouldn't p!ss on any of them if they were on fire. I'd add some petrol if I could afford to or if I could syphon some out of their nice flashy cars. You can quote me on that if you like. It will save you having to think of something to write as it always ends up making you look stupid.
[quote][p][bold]alive and awake[/bold] wrote: Imagine a Labour Council coming up with such an idea, what would, Blair, Brown, Balls, and the Rev. Flowers make of it all.[/p][/quote]I've no idea but given the quality of our political representatives on all sides I wouldn't p!ss on any of them if they were on fire. I'd add some petrol if I could afford to or if I could syphon some out of their nice flashy cars. You can quote me on that if you like. It will save you having to think of something to write as it always ends up making you look stupid. RollandSmoke

4:51pm Wed 11 Dec 13

RollandSmoke says...

Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
I'm beginning to understand the Witch hunt that is currently taking place against people on benefits. It is because some honestly believe that benefit claimants are capable of magic and sit up on an evening casting spells against them. I hate to busts peoples bubbles but this is not the case. If you are in receipt of benefits you don't suddenly acquire the ability to pull money out of a hat (or out of anywhere else for that matter). We don't have the ducking stools today, the modern day equivalent is to remove the means of survival and if they don't starve or get hypothermia then they are indeed a Witch and should be burnt at the stake. It may be that they have read stories of thousands of people being fed on a loaf and two fishes and conclude that this is all anyone should need to sustain life. I say "may" as that is a bit of Bible fiction and the Witch hunters seldom if ever display Christian virtues. Then again they don't display many of the qualities that make people human either. Forget the schools, people learn much more from their families and on that basis we are doomed
From benefit families I agree...we are doomed....its rinse and repeat with them lot
No I mean families like yours where the head of the household preaches hate on a daily basis. Look at those people there kids, they are the sh!t on your shoes. Sound familiar?.
Not really. Not the kids fault but a fault of the parents who shouldn't have brought the kids into this world when they have no means of financially supporting them

Its very simple really. You want kids YOU pay for them. Not the state but YOU

Unfortunately with these sort of breeder families they see their own children simply as extra income to support their wasteful pointless lives
You really are retarded aren't you? When you have a child they are a child for 18 years. When you have a job there is no knowing whether it will still be there in 6 months time. This is not something they have control over. Bringing up a young child is a full time job in itself. If you want to promote eugenics then lets stop all families having more than a state prescribed number of children, you know, like they do in China.
Clearly I must be retarded because I have no idea what you are talking about

What has job security got to do with anything? You have a job you lose a job you get another...simple. I say this from experience after raising five children and being made redundant 8 times through their lives.

Or are you suggesting anyone with children shouldn't work and should stay at home with their children until they are 18 all the time funded by the state?.
So who took care of your 5 children up until they reached school age? If you lost your job and were unable to find another should you sacrifice one or more of your children to avoid the attacks from those lucky enough to still be in work? You have swallowed the myth that people just don't want to work and ignore the fact that time and time again we read about the unavailability of jobs. You also ignore the fact that you read of job losses much more often than you do of jobs being created. You ignore the fact that wages are at a level where for many work is no longer a financially viable option. You Sir are a fool but this is typical of the Tory voting scum and if you were not a fool you would realise that this agenda of driving the poor into the dirt is costing you more in the long run than it would cost to give the poor an acceptable standard of living.
I'd get help for that paranoia if I was you.

Who took care of my children? I did along with their mother and with paid for childcare....Your point?

and sorry but you Sir are the fool. You believe stupid and unrealistic conspiracies about "divide and rule" and "them and us". Fact of the matter is and which I know for a fact there are actually more jobs out there as each month passes by. Sure the competition is fierce but if you or others like you got their heads out of their ar5es and bothered to spend all day everyday searching for work you would come up trumps. Still its easier to sit there and just moan about no jobs isn't it.

Always an excuse and never a solution....that's you that is
If you reflect the attitude of employers then I would retain my dignity and tell you to stick your job no matter what wage you were to offer. Divide and rule is a conspiracy theory is it? I imagine you and your scummy ilk posting your hateful crap day in day out do I? As you are aware of these "Facts" that there are jobs available for all you will of course provide proof of this so as those desperate for work know where to apply? Or should I add lying barstuard to my ever growing lists of names for you? We are looking for thousands of jobs mind, not just a company who may be looking for a tea boy. Also if you could give some idea of the wages on offer so as people can gauge whether or not it is financially viable (sorry if I'm using big words that you don't understand again) after expenditure such as transportation costs have been taken into account.
[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: I'm beginning to understand the Witch hunt that is currently taking place against people on benefits. It is because some honestly believe that benefit claimants are capable of magic and sit up on an evening casting spells against them. I hate to busts peoples bubbles but this is not the case. If you are in receipt of benefits you don't suddenly acquire the ability to pull money out of a hat (or out of anywhere else for that matter). We don't have the ducking stools today, the modern day equivalent is to remove the means of survival and if they don't starve or get hypothermia then they are indeed a Witch and should be burnt at the stake. It may be that they have read stories of thousands of people being fed on a loaf and two fishes and conclude that this is all anyone should need to sustain life. I say "may" as that is a bit of Bible fiction and the Witch hunters seldom if ever display Christian virtues. Then again they don't display many of the qualities that make people human either. Forget the schools, people learn much more from their families and on that basis we are doomed[/p][/quote]From benefit families I agree...we are doomed....its rinse and repeat with them lot[/p][/quote]No I mean families like yours where the head of the household preaches hate on a daily basis. Look at those people there kids, they are the sh!t on your shoes. Sound familiar?.[/p][/quote]Not really. Not the kids fault but a fault of the parents who shouldn't have brought the kids into this world when they have no means of financially supporting them Its very simple really. You want kids YOU pay for them. Not the state but YOU Unfortunately with these sort of breeder families they see their own children simply as extra income to support their wasteful pointless lives[/p][/quote]You really are retarded aren't you? When you have a child they are a child for 18 years. When you have a job there is no knowing whether it will still be there in 6 months time. This is not something they have control over. Bringing up a young child is a full time job in itself. If you want to promote eugenics then lets stop all families having more than a state prescribed number of children, you know, like they do in China.[/p][/quote]Clearly I must be retarded because I have no idea what you are talking about What has job security got to do with anything? You have a job you lose a job you get another...simple. I say this from experience after raising five children and being made redundant 8 times through their lives. Or are you suggesting anyone with children shouldn't work and should stay at home with their children until they are 18 all the time funded by the state?.[/p][/quote]So who took care of your 5 children up until they reached school age? If you lost your job and were unable to find another should you sacrifice one or more of your children to avoid the attacks from those lucky enough to still be in work? You have swallowed the myth that people just don't want to work and ignore the fact that time and time again we read about the unavailability of jobs. You also ignore the fact that you read of job losses much more often than you do of jobs being created. You ignore the fact that wages are at a level where for many work is no longer a financially viable option. You Sir are a fool but this is typical of the Tory voting scum and if you were not a fool you would realise that this agenda of driving the poor into the dirt is costing you more in the long run than it would cost to give the poor an acceptable standard of living.[/p][/quote]I'd get help for that paranoia if I was you. Who took care of my children? I did along with their mother and with paid for childcare....Your point? and sorry but you Sir are the fool. You believe stupid and unrealistic conspiracies about "divide and rule" and "them and us". Fact of the matter is and which I know for a fact there are actually more jobs out there as each month passes by. Sure the competition is fierce but if you or others like you got their heads out of their ar5es and bothered to spend all day everyday searching for work you would come up trumps. Still its easier to sit there and just moan about no jobs isn't it. Always an excuse and never a solution....that's you that is[/p][/quote]If you reflect the attitude of employers then I would retain my dignity and tell you to stick your job no matter what wage you were to offer. Divide and rule is a conspiracy theory is it? I imagine you and your scummy ilk posting your hateful crap day in day out do I? As you are aware of these "Facts" that there are jobs available for all you will of course provide proof of this so as those desperate for work know where to apply? Or should I add lying barstuard to my ever growing lists of names for you? We are looking for thousands of jobs mind, not just a company who may be looking for a tea boy. Also if you could give some idea of the wages on offer so as people can gauge whether or not it is financially viable (sorry if I'm using big words that you don't understand again) after expenditure such as transportation costs have been taken into account. RollandSmoke

4:52pm Wed 11 Dec 13

alive and awake says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
alive and awake wrote:
Imagine a Labour Council coming up with such an idea, what would, Blair, Brown, Balls, and the Rev. Flowers make of it all.
I've no idea but given the quality of our political representatives on all sides I wouldn't p!ss on any of them if they were on fire. I'd add some petrol if I could afford to or if I could syphon some out of their nice flashy cars. You can quote me on that if you like. It will save you having to think of something to write as it always ends up making you look stupid.
Youv'e no idea! I thought you had ideas and opinions on every subject.

I'll tell you what they'll make of it. They will be impressed that a Labour Council could have such gonads to come up with such a scrooge idea, they then will be watching very closely to see if Labour can hold on to their seats in the next election. If they do (they won't) they will encourage other Councils to follow suit.
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alive and awake[/bold] wrote: Imagine a Labour Council coming up with such an idea, what would, Blair, Brown, Balls, and the Rev. Flowers make of it all.[/p][/quote]I've no idea but given the quality of our political representatives on all sides I wouldn't p!ss on any of them if they were on fire. I'd add some petrol if I could afford to or if I could syphon some out of their nice flashy cars. You can quote me on that if you like. It will save you having to think of something to write as it always ends up making you look stupid.[/p][/quote]Youv'e no idea! I thought you had ideas and opinions on every subject. I'll tell you what they'll make of it. They will be impressed that a Labour Council could have such gonads to come up with such a scrooge idea, they then will be watching very closely to see if Labour can hold on to their seats in the next election. If they do (they won't) they will encourage other Councils to follow suit. alive and awake

5:03pm Wed 11 Dec 13

RollandSmoke says...

alive and awake wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
alive and awake wrote:
Imagine a Labour Council coming up with such an idea, what would, Blair, Brown, Balls, and the Rev. Flowers make of it all.
I've no idea but given the quality of our political representatives on all sides I wouldn't p!ss on any of them if they were on fire. I'd add some petrol if I could afford to or if I could syphon some out of their nice flashy cars. You can quote me on that if you like. It will save you having to think of something to write as it always ends up making you look stupid.
Youv'e no idea! I thought you had ideas and opinions on every subject.

I'll tell you what they'll make of it. They will be impressed that a Labour Council could have such gonads to come up with such a scrooge idea, they then will be watching very closely to see if Labour can hold on to their seats in the next election. If they do (they won't) they will encourage other Councils to follow suit.
And prey tell who has imposed the budget restrictions that have required them to come up with such a "scrooge idea"? It wouldn't be the same Tory scum that is imposing much less restrictions on the Tory councils down south would it? Clap your fins together and bark like a seal. You make about as much sense as one.
[quote][p][bold]alive and awake[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alive and awake[/bold] wrote: Imagine a Labour Council coming up with such an idea, what would, Blair, Brown, Balls, and the Rev. Flowers make of it all.[/p][/quote]I've no idea but given the quality of our political representatives on all sides I wouldn't p!ss on any of them if they were on fire. I'd add some petrol if I could afford to or if I could syphon some out of their nice flashy cars. You can quote me on that if you like. It will save you having to think of something to write as it always ends up making you look stupid.[/p][/quote]Youv'e no idea! I thought you had ideas and opinions on every subject. I'll tell you what they'll make of it. They will be impressed that a Labour Council could have such gonads to come up with such a scrooge idea, they then will be watching very closely to see if Labour can hold on to their seats in the next election. If they do (they won't) they will encourage other Councils to follow suit.[/p][/quote]And prey tell who has imposed the budget restrictions that have required them to come up with such a "scrooge idea"? It wouldn't be the same Tory scum that is imposing much less restrictions on the Tory councils down south would it? Clap your fins together and bark like a seal. You make about as much sense as one. RollandSmoke

5:15pm Wed 11 Dec 13

alive and awake says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
alive and awake wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
alive and awake wrote:
Imagine a Labour Council coming up with such an idea, what would, Blair, Brown, Balls, and the Rev. Flowers make of it all.
I've no idea but given the quality of our political representatives on all sides I wouldn't p!ss on any of them if they were on fire. I'd add some petrol if I could afford to or if I could syphon some out of their nice flashy cars. You can quote me on that if you like. It will save you having to think of something to write as it always ends up making you look stupid.
Youv'e no idea! I thought you had ideas and opinions on every subject.

I'll tell you what they'll make of it. They will be impressed that a Labour Council could have such gonads to come up with such a scrooge idea, they then will be watching very closely to see if Labour can hold on to their seats in the next election. If they do (they won't) they will encourage other Councils to follow suit.
And prey tell who has imposed the budget restrictions that have required them to come up with such a "scrooge idea"? It wouldn't be the same Tory scum that is imposing much less restrictions on the Tory councils down south would it? Clap your fins together and bark like a seal. You make about as much sense as one.
tut tut. as bitter as ever.

What is the Council doing with the £129,000,000 they are sat on?, Shoud be at least £133m by now, unless they have invested it in some Greek Island or other. Why are there so many properties exempt from rates, why is there so much waste? How many Religious properties have we got in Bradford not paying rates? and on and on and on.
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alive and awake[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alive and awake[/bold] wrote: Imagine a Labour Council coming up with such an idea, what would, Blair, Brown, Balls, and the Rev. Flowers make of it all.[/p][/quote]I've no idea but given the quality of our political representatives on all sides I wouldn't p!ss on any of them if they were on fire. I'd add some petrol if I could afford to or if I could syphon some out of their nice flashy cars. You can quote me on that if you like. It will save you having to think of something to write as it always ends up making you look stupid.[/p][/quote]Youv'e no idea! I thought you had ideas and opinions on every subject. I'll tell you what they'll make of it. They will be impressed that a Labour Council could have such gonads to come up with such a scrooge idea, they then will be watching very closely to see if Labour can hold on to their seats in the next election. If they do (they won't) they will encourage other Councils to follow suit.[/p][/quote]And prey tell who has imposed the budget restrictions that have required them to come up with such a "scrooge idea"? It wouldn't be the same Tory scum that is imposing much less restrictions on the Tory councils down south would it? Clap your fins together and bark like a seal. You make about as much sense as one.[/p][/quote]tut tut. as bitter as ever. What is the Council doing with the £129,000,000 they are sat on?, Shoud be at least £133m by now, unless they have invested it in some Greek Island or other. Why are there so many properties exempt from rates, why is there so much waste? How many Religious properties have we got in Bradford not paying rates? and on and on and on. alive and awake

5:16pm Wed 11 Dec 13

Ted Evans says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
I've read of schools having RFID chips sewn into the logos. What does this add to the cost?. Also it is becoming common practice for children to be biometrically scanned in order to get their school dinners. While education costs are becoming a problem I think it is worth considering exactly how much is being spent on treating the pupils like prisoners and what value this adds to their indoctrination?
Well that's the biggest load of BS I've heard from you for a long time Rolly....lol
In other news.....Have you booked your one way ticket to Uruguay yet?

For those who have not heard, Uruguay has become the first country to legalise the growing, sale and smoking of marijuana.
Our resident pot head would be able to talk bullocks with other brain dead no-marks 'till the cows come home.
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: I've read of schools having RFID chips sewn into the logos. What does this add to the cost?. Also it is becoming common practice for children to be biometrically scanned in order to get their school dinners. While education costs are becoming a problem I think it is worth considering exactly how much is being spent on treating the pupils like prisoners and what value this adds to their indoctrination?[/p][/quote]Well that's the biggest load of BS I've heard from you for a long time Rolly....lol In other news.....Have you booked your one way ticket to Uruguay yet? For those who have not heard, Uruguay has become the first country to legalise the growing, sale and smoking of marijuana. Our resident pot head would be able to talk bullocks with other brain dead no-marks 'till the cows come home. Ted Evans

5:22pm Wed 11 Dec 13

RollandSmoke says...

alive and awake wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
alive and awake wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
alive and awake wrote:
Imagine a Labour Council coming up with such an idea, what would, Blair, Brown, Balls, and the Rev. Flowers make of it all.
I've no idea but given the quality of our political representatives on all sides I wouldn't p!ss on any of them if they were on fire. I'd add some petrol if I could afford to or if I could syphon some out of their nice flashy cars. You can quote me on that if you like. It will save you having to think of something to write as it always ends up making you look stupid.
Youv'e no idea! I thought you had ideas and opinions on every subject.

I'll tell you what they'll make of it. They will be impressed that a Labour Council could have such gonads to come up with such a scrooge idea, they then will be watching very closely to see if Labour can hold on to their seats in the next election. If they do (they won't) they will encourage other Councils to follow suit.
And prey tell who has imposed the budget restrictions that have required them to come up with such a "scrooge idea"? It wouldn't be the same Tory scum that is imposing much less restrictions on the Tory councils down south would it? Clap your fins together and bark like a seal. You make about as much sense as one.
tut tut. as bitter as ever.

What is the Council doing with the £129,000,000 they are sat on?, Shoud be at least £133m by now, unless they have invested it in some Greek Island or other. Why are there so many properties exempt from rates, why is there so much waste? How many Religious properties have we got in Bradford not paying rates? and on and on and on.
Are properties exempt from rates on religious or other grounds in Tory areas? Strangely enough I am not briefed on what the council do with any assets they may have. You however seem to know more than most members of the public. Is there anything you would like to declare? An interest of some sort?
[quote][p][bold]alive and awake[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alive and awake[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alive and awake[/bold] wrote: Imagine a Labour Council coming up with such an idea, what would, Blair, Brown, Balls, and the Rev. Flowers make of it all.[/p][/quote]I've no idea but given the quality of our political representatives on all sides I wouldn't p!ss on any of them if they were on fire. I'd add some petrol if I could afford to or if I could syphon some out of their nice flashy cars. You can quote me on that if you like. It will save you having to think of something to write as it always ends up making you look stupid.[/p][/quote]Youv'e no idea! I thought you had ideas and opinions on every subject. I'll tell you what they'll make of it. They will be impressed that a Labour Council could have such gonads to come up with such a scrooge idea, they then will be watching very closely to see if Labour can hold on to their seats in the next election. If they do (they won't) they will encourage other Councils to follow suit.[/p][/quote]And prey tell who has imposed the budget restrictions that have required them to come up with such a "scrooge idea"? It wouldn't be the same Tory scum that is imposing much less restrictions on the Tory councils down south would it? Clap your fins together and bark like a seal. You make about as much sense as one.[/p][/quote]tut tut. as bitter as ever. What is the Council doing with the £129,000,000 they are sat on?, Shoud be at least £133m by now, unless they have invested it in some Greek Island or other. Why are there so many properties exempt from rates, why is there so much waste? How many Religious properties have we got in Bradford not paying rates? and on and on and on.[/p][/quote]Are properties exempt from rates on religious or other grounds in Tory areas? Strangely enough I am not briefed on what the council do with any assets they may have. You however seem to know more than most members of the public. Is there anything you would like to declare? An interest of some sort? RollandSmoke

5:29pm Wed 11 Dec 13

RollandSmoke says...

Ted Evans wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
I've read of schools having RFID chips sewn into the logos. What does this add to the cost?. Also it is becoming common practice for children to be biometrically scanned in order to get their school dinners. While education costs are becoming a problem I think it is worth considering exactly how much is being spent on treating the pupils like prisoners and what value this adds to their indoctrination?
Well that's the biggest load of BS I've heard from you for a long time Rolly....lol
In other news.....Have you booked your one way ticket to Uruguay yet?

For those who have not heard, Uruguay has become the first country to legalise the growing, sale and smoking of marijuana.
Our resident pot head would be able to talk bullocks with other brain dead no-marks 'till the cows come home.
http://www.theguardi
an.com/technology/20
13/nov/19/college-rf
id-chip-tracking-pup
ils-invasion-privacy
[quote][p][bold]Ted Evans[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: I've read of schools having RFID chips sewn into the logos. What does this add to the cost?. Also it is becoming common practice for children to be biometrically scanned in order to get their school dinners. While education costs are becoming a problem I think it is worth considering exactly how much is being spent on treating the pupils like prisoners and what value this adds to their indoctrination?[/p][/quote]Well that's the biggest load of BS I've heard from you for a long time Rolly....lol In other news.....Have you booked your one way ticket to Uruguay yet? For those who have not heard, Uruguay has become the first country to legalise the growing, sale and smoking of marijuana. Our resident pot head would be able to talk bullocks with other brain dead no-marks 'till the cows come home.[/p][/quote]http://www.theguardi an.com/technology/20 13/nov/19/college-rf id-chip-tracking-pup ils-invasion-privacy RollandSmoke

5:35pm Wed 11 Dec 13

Andy2010 says...

Ted Evans wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
I've read of schools having RFID chips sewn into the logos. What does this add to the cost?. Also it is becoming common practice for children to be biometrically scanned in order to get their school dinners. While education costs are becoming a problem I think it is worth considering exactly how much is being spent on treating the pupils like prisoners and what value this adds to their indoctrination?
Well that's the biggest load of BS I've heard from you for a long time Rolly....lol
In other news.....Have you booked your one way ticket to Uruguay yet?

For those who have not heard, Uruguay has become the first country to legalise the growing, sale and smoking of marijuana.
Our resident pot head would be able to talk bullocks with other brain dead no-marks 'till the cows come home.
Without sounding all Jeremy Kyle

Whats the biggest side effect of smoking weed?

Go on Rollie admit it.,.....your just paranoid as ****

In a stoned voice "The big bad evil state is coming to get me and keeping us down...man....its all plan they have to keep us under control..man...fight the power...man"

So that explains your paranoia....now you laziness....oh...als
o what another side effect of weed....lethargy....
.which you clearly have bundles of.

You really need to stop smoking and sort your life out sat there typing away on your state funded internet.....WHICH ALL THE WORKING POPULATION PAY FOR
[quote][p][bold]Ted Evans[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: I've read of schools having RFID chips sewn into the logos. What does this add to the cost?. Also it is becoming common practice for children to be biometrically scanned in order to get their school dinners. While education costs are becoming a problem I think it is worth considering exactly how much is being spent on treating the pupils like prisoners and what value this adds to their indoctrination?[/p][/quote]Well that's the biggest load of BS I've heard from you for a long time Rolly....lol In other news.....Have you booked your one way ticket to Uruguay yet? For those who have not heard, Uruguay has become the first country to legalise the growing, sale and smoking of marijuana. Our resident pot head would be able to talk bullocks with other brain dead no-marks 'till the cows come home.[/p][/quote]Without sounding all Jeremy Kyle Whats the biggest side effect of smoking weed? Go on Rollie admit it.,.....your just paranoid as **** In a stoned voice "The big bad evil state is coming to get me and keeping us down...man....its all plan they have to keep us under control..man...fight the power...man" So that explains your paranoia....now you laziness....oh...als o what another side effect of weed....lethargy.... .which you clearly have bundles of. You really need to stop smoking and sort your life out sat there typing away on your state funded internet.....WHICH ALL THE WORKING POPULATION PAY FOR Andy2010

5:36pm Wed 11 Dec 13

Andy2010 says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
Ted Evans wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
I've read of schools having RFID chips sewn into the logos. What does this add to the cost?. Also it is becoming common practice for children to be biometrically scanned in order to get their school dinners. While education costs are becoming a problem I think it is worth considering exactly how much is being spent on treating the pupils like prisoners and what value this adds to their indoctrination?
Well that's the biggest load of BS I've heard from you for a long time Rolly....lol
In other news.....Have you booked your one way ticket to Uruguay yet?

For those who have not heard, Uruguay has become the first country to legalise the growing, sale and smoking of marijuana.
Our resident pot head would be able to talk bullocks with other brain dead no-marks 'till the cows come home.
http://www.theguardi

an.com/technology/20

13/nov/19/college-rf

id-chip-tracking-pup

ils-invasion-privacy
Quick Rollie.....wallpaper your house in foil and make a hat out of some leftover to stop them reading your thoughts..

You make me smiles I'll give you that but also quite sad that you havent sought help for your clearly mental problems you are incurring
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ted Evans[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: I've read of schools having RFID chips sewn into the logos. What does this add to the cost?. Also it is becoming common practice for children to be biometrically scanned in order to get their school dinners. While education costs are becoming a problem I think it is worth considering exactly how much is being spent on treating the pupils like prisoners and what value this adds to their indoctrination?[/p][/quote]Well that's the biggest load of BS I've heard from you for a long time Rolly....lol In other news.....Have you booked your one way ticket to Uruguay yet? For those who have not heard, Uruguay has become the first country to legalise the growing, sale and smoking of marijuana. Our resident pot head would be able to talk bullocks with other brain dead no-marks 'till the cows come home.[/p][/quote]http://www.theguardi an.com/technology/20 13/nov/19/college-rf id-chip-tracking-pup ils-invasion-privacy[/p][/quote]Quick Rollie.....wallpaper your house in foil and make a hat out of some leftover to stop them reading your thoughts.. You make me smiles I'll give you that but also quite sad that you havent sought help for your clearly mental problems you are incurring Andy2010

5:37pm Wed 11 Dec 13

RollandSmoke says...

Andy2010 wrote:
Ted Evans wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
I've read of schools having RFID chips sewn into the logos. What does this add to the cost?. Also it is becoming common practice for children to be biometrically scanned in order to get their school dinners. While education costs are becoming a problem I think it is worth considering exactly how much is being spent on treating the pupils like prisoners and what value this adds to their indoctrination?
Well that's the biggest load of BS I've heard from you for a long time Rolly....lol
In other news.....Have you booked your one way ticket to Uruguay yet?

For those who have not heard, Uruguay has become the first country to legalise the growing, sale and smoking of marijuana.
Our resident pot head would be able to talk bullocks with other brain dead no-marks 'till the cows come home.
Without sounding all Jeremy Kyle

Whats the biggest side effect of smoking weed?

Go on Rollie admit it.,.....your just paranoid as ****

In a stoned voice "The big bad evil state is coming to get me and keeping us down...man....its all plan they have to keep us under control..man...fight the power...man"

So that explains your paranoia....now you laziness....oh...als

o what another side effect of weed....lethargy....

.which you clearly have bundles of.

You really need to stop smoking and sort your life out sat there typing away on your state funded internet.....WHICH ALL THE WORKING POPULATION PAY FOR
I thought you were finding evidence to back up your lies Andy? Are we to assume you couldn't find any?
[quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ted Evans[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: I've read of schools having RFID chips sewn into the logos. What does this add to the cost?. Also it is becoming common practice for children to be biometrically scanned in order to get their school dinners. While education costs are becoming a problem I think it is worth considering exactly how much is being spent on treating the pupils like prisoners and what value this adds to their indoctrination?[/p][/quote]Well that's the biggest load of BS I've heard from you for a long time Rolly....lol In other news.....Have you booked your one way ticket to Uruguay yet? For those who have not heard, Uruguay has become the first country to legalise the growing, sale and smoking of marijuana. Our resident pot head would be able to talk bullocks with other brain dead no-marks 'till the cows come home.[/p][/quote]Without sounding all Jeremy Kyle Whats the biggest side effect of smoking weed? Go on Rollie admit it.,.....your just paranoid as **** In a stoned voice "The big bad evil state is coming to get me and keeping us down...man....its all plan they have to keep us under control..man...fight the power...man" So that explains your paranoia....now you laziness....oh...als o what another side effect of weed....lethargy.... .which you clearly have bundles of. You really need to stop smoking and sort your life out sat there typing away on your state funded internet.....WHICH ALL THE WORKING POPULATION PAY FOR[/p][/quote]I thought you were finding evidence to back up your lies Andy? Are we to assume you couldn't find any? RollandSmoke

5:45pm Wed 11 Dec 13

tinytoonster says...

RollandSmoke,
you are obviously just a bone idle pot smoking idiot!
always find excuses to defend not working.
every person who as 5 kids while on benefits will then see them grow up on benefits and have kids who do likewise...
vicious circle which just gets worse.
if you think i'm wrong try going out of your dreamland and walking round the streets and see all the teenagers pushing prams.
£200 prams we pay for by the way!
i lost my job once, couldn't afford to smoke so gave up.
hard but i did it.
best thing i ever did.
anything is possible if you try, but you won't even try.
don't bother replying, spend the time job hunting!
RollandSmoke, you are obviously just a bone idle pot smoking idiot! always find excuses to defend not working. every person who as 5 kids while on benefits will then see them grow up on benefits and have kids who do likewise... vicious circle which just gets worse. if you think i'm wrong try going out of your dreamland and walking round the streets and see all the teenagers pushing prams. £200 prams we pay for by the way! i lost my job once, couldn't afford to smoke so gave up. hard but i did it. best thing i ever did. anything is possible if you try, but you won't even try. don't bother replying, spend the time job hunting! tinytoonster

5:47pm Wed 11 Dec 13

alive and awake says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
alive and awake wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
alive and awake wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
alive and awake wrote:
Imagine a Labour Council coming up with such an idea, what would, Blair, Brown, Balls, and the Rev. Flowers make of it all.
I've no idea but given the quality of our political representatives on all sides I wouldn't p!ss on any of them if they were on fire. I'd add some petrol if I could afford to or if I could syphon some out of their nice flashy cars. You can quote me on that if you like. It will save you having to think of something to write as it always ends up making you look stupid.
Youv'e no idea! I thought you had ideas and opinions on every subject.

I'll tell you what they'll make of it. They will be impressed that a Labour Council could have such gonads to come up with such a scrooge idea, they then will be watching very closely to see if Labour can hold on to their seats in the next election. If they do (they won't) they will encourage other Councils to follow suit.
And prey tell who has imposed the budget restrictions that have required them to come up with such a "scrooge idea"? It wouldn't be the same Tory scum that is imposing much less restrictions on the Tory councils down south would it? Clap your fins together and bark like a seal. You make about as much sense as one.
tut tut. as bitter as ever.

What is the Council doing with the £129,000,000 they are sat on?, Shoud be at least £133m by now, unless they have invested it in some Greek Island or other. Why are there so many properties exempt from rates, why is there so much waste? How many Religious properties have we got in Bradford not paying rates? and on and on and on.
Are properties exempt from rates on religious or other grounds in Tory areas? Strangely enough I am not briefed on what the council do with any assets they may have. You however seem to know more than most members of the public. Is there anything you would like to declare? An interest of some sort?
You have far too much to say for someone not briefed on any subject.

I most certainly have an interest, in this Town, in this County, in this Country.
I believe 100% in the right to free speech, but only if a right to reply is permitted. However in your case, I can understand why some Regimes don't allow the right of free speech. You pedal uneducated nonsense. Thankfully most people on here know about you and avoid you or make allowances, but there might be some vulnerable souls out there who might be taken in be your c**p
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alive and awake[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alive and awake[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alive and awake[/bold] wrote: Imagine a Labour Council coming up with such an idea, what would, Blair, Brown, Balls, and the Rev. Flowers make of it all.[/p][/quote]I've no idea but given the quality of our political representatives on all sides I wouldn't p!ss on any of them if they were on fire. I'd add some petrol if I could afford to or if I could syphon some out of their nice flashy cars. You can quote me on that if you like. It will save you having to think of something to write as it always ends up making you look stupid.[/p][/quote]Youv'e no idea! I thought you had ideas and opinions on every subject. I'll tell you what they'll make of it. They will be impressed that a Labour Council could have such gonads to come up with such a scrooge idea, they then will be watching very closely to see if Labour can hold on to their seats in the next election. If they do (they won't) they will encourage other Councils to follow suit.[/p][/quote]And prey tell who has imposed the budget restrictions that have required them to come up with such a "scrooge idea"? It wouldn't be the same Tory scum that is imposing much less restrictions on the Tory councils down south would it? Clap your fins together and bark like a seal. You make about as much sense as one.[/p][/quote]tut tut. as bitter as ever. What is the Council doing with the £129,000,000 they are sat on?, Shoud be at least £133m by now, unless they have invested it in some Greek Island or other. Why are there so many properties exempt from rates, why is there so much waste? How many Religious properties have we got in Bradford not paying rates? and on and on and on.[/p][/quote]Are properties exempt from rates on religious or other grounds in Tory areas? Strangely enough I am not briefed on what the council do with any assets they may have. You however seem to know more than most members of the public. Is there anything you would like to declare? An interest of some sort?[/p][/quote]You have far too much to say for someone not briefed on any subject. I most certainly have an interest, in this Town, in this County, in this Country. I believe 100% in the right to free speech, but only if a right to reply is permitted. However in your case, I can understand why some Regimes don't allow the right of free speech. You pedal uneducated nonsense. Thankfully most people on here know about you and avoid you or make allowances, but there might be some vulnerable souls out there who might be taken in be your c**p alive and awake

5:47pm Wed 11 Dec 13

Andy2010 says...

tinytoonster wrote:
RollandSmoke,
you are obviously just a bone idle pot smoking idiot!
always find excuses to defend not working.
every person who as 5 kids while on benefits will then see them grow up on benefits and have kids who do likewise...
vicious circle which just gets worse.
if you think i'm wrong try going out of your dreamland and walking round the streets and see all the teenagers pushing prams.
£200 prams we pay for by the way!
i lost my job once, couldn't afford to smoke so gave up.
hard but i did it.
best thing i ever did.
anything is possible if you try, but you won't even try.
don't bother replying, spend the time job hunting!
lol job hunting

Why work when mugs like us pay for everything for him.

Lets just hope further cuts are made and cut even deeper than before.
[quote][p][bold]tinytoonster[/bold] wrote: RollandSmoke, you are obviously just a bone idle pot smoking idiot! always find excuses to defend not working. every person who as 5 kids while on benefits will then see them grow up on benefits and have kids who do likewise... vicious circle which just gets worse. if you think i'm wrong try going out of your dreamland and walking round the streets and see all the teenagers pushing prams. £200 prams we pay for by the way! i lost my job once, couldn't afford to smoke so gave up. hard but i did it. best thing i ever did. anything is possible if you try, but you won't even try. don't bother replying, spend the time job hunting![/p][/quote]lol job hunting Why work when mugs like us pay for everything for him. Lets just hope further cuts are made and cut even deeper than before. Andy2010

5:49pm Wed 11 Dec 13

tinytoonster says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
Apollo wrote:
allinittogether wrote:
Freddy Elliot wrote: £26. Bet a fair percentage of the 'families' that receive the payment could easily spend over that amount at a Subway/Greggs in one visit.
What on earth has that got to do with school uniforms? And why write families in inverted commas? Grow up you spiteful individual.
Because you can bet at least one 'family' member will be a smoker at nearly £10 per pack and for those families one has no sympathy.
You will find that smokers on benefits smoke roll ups which takes the cost down to under £15 a week and still they will find this a struggle so they will seek out imported tobacco which will take the cost down to under £10 a week. OK so it is driving other crime but it is obvious as to the reasons behind this and the police will be the last on the list of people to suggest anything that may reduce this crime. If they were paying £10 a pack then they would be paying a higher percentage of tax than most workers do on their income.
cant afford something, do without.
simple as that.
you get free patches if you ask for them.
no excuses required if you want something.
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Apollo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]allinittogether[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Freddy Elliot[/bold] wrote: £26. Bet a fair percentage of the 'families' that receive the payment could easily spend over that amount at a Subway/Greggs in one visit.[/p][/quote]What on earth has that got to do with school uniforms? And why write families in inverted commas? Grow up you spiteful individual.[/p][/quote]Because you can bet at least one 'family' member will be a smoker at nearly £10 per pack and for those families one has no sympathy.[/p][/quote]You will find that smokers on benefits smoke roll ups which takes the cost down to under £15 a week and still they will find this a struggle so they will seek out imported tobacco which will take the cost down to under £10 a week. OK so it is driving other crime but it is obvious as to the reasons behind this and the police will be the last on the list of people to suggest anything that may reduce this crime. If they were paying £10 a pack then they would be paying a higher percentage of tax than most workers do on their income.[/p][/quote]cant afford something, do without. simple as that. you get free patches if you ask for them. no excuses required if you want something. tinytoonster

5:52pm Wed 11 Dec 13

RollandSmoke says...

Oh don't listen to me I smoke a bit of weed now and again rather than going out on the p!ss and getting all abusive in front of my wife and kids. What exactly it has to do with the discussion we are having I'm not sure? Could it be that some people are incapable of rational debate so therefore look for a reason to attack the person that they have no reasoned response to? It could be. I mean, can you honestly see these abusive posters reigning it in in front of their families? Add alcohol and watch the fireworks.
Oh don't listen to me I smoke a bit of weed now and again rather than going out on the p!ss and getting all abusive in front of my wife and kids. What exactly it has to do with the discussion we are having I'm not sure? Could it be that some people are incapable of rational debate so therefore look for a reason to attack the person that they have no reasoned response to? It could be. I mean, can you honestly see these abusive posters reigning it in in front of their families? Add alcohol and watch the fireworks. RollandSmoke

5:55pm Wed 11 Dec 13

RollandSmoke says...

tinytoonster wrote:
RollandSmoke,
you are obviously just a bone idle pot smoking idiot!
always find excuses to defend not working.
every person who as 5 kids while on benefits will then see them grow up on benefits and have kids who do likewise...
vicious circle which just gets worse.
if you think i'm wrong try going out of your dreamland and walking round the streets and see all the teenagers pushing prams.
£200 prams we pay for by the way!
i lost my job once, couldn't afford to smoke so gave up.
hard but i did it.
best thing i ever did.
anything is possible if you try, but you won't even try.
don't bother replying, spend the time job hunting!
Who employs you with your difficulty reading?. Maybe if you attack me enough my illness that prevents me from working will go away?
[quote][p][bold]tinytoonster[/bold] wrote: RollandSmoke, you are obviously just a bone idle pot smoking idiot! always find excuses to defend not working. every person who as 5 kids while on benefits will then see them grow up on benefits and have kids who do likewise... vicious circle which just gets worse. if you think i'm wrong try going out of your dreamland and walking round the streets and see all the teenagers pushing prams. £200 prams we pay for by the way! i lost my job once, couldn't afford to smoke so gave up. hard but i did it. best thing i ever did. anything is possible if you try, but you won't even try. don't bother replying, spend the time job hunting![/p][/quote]Who employs you with your difficulty reading?. Maybe if you attack me enough my illness that prevents me from working will go away? RollandSmoke

6:34pm Wed 11 Dec 13

RollandSmoke says...

alive and awake wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
alive and awake wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
alive and awake wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
alive and awake wrote:
Imagine a Labour Council coming up with such an idea, what would, Blair, Brown, Balls, and the Rev. Flowers make of it all.
I've no idea but given the quality of our political representatives on all sides I wouldn't p!ss on any of them if they were on fire. I'd add some petrol if I could afford to or if I could syphon some out of their nice flashy cars. You can quote me on that if you like. It will save you having to think of something to write as it always ends up making you look stupid.
Youv'e no idea! I thought you had ideas and opinions on every subject.

I'll tell you what they'll make of it. They will be impressed that a Labour Council could have such gonads to come up with such a scrooge idea, they then will be watching very closely to see if Labour can hold on to their seats in the next election. If they do (they won't) they will encourage other Councils to follow suit.
And prey tell who has imposed the budget restrictions that have required them to come up with such a "scrooge idea"? It wouldn't be the same Tory scum that is imposing much less restrictions on the Tory councils down south would it? Clap your fins together and bark like a seal. You make about as much sense as one.
tut tut. as bitter as ever.

What is the Council doing with the £129,000,000 they are sat on?, Shoud be at least £133m by now, unless they have invested it in some Greek Island or other. Why are there so many properties exempt from rates, why is there so much waste? How many Religious properties have we got in Bradford not paying rates? and on and on and on.
Are properties exempt from rates on religious or other grounds in Tory areas? Strangely enough I am not briefed on what the council do with any assets they may have. You however seem to know more than most members of the public. Is there anything you would like to declare? An interest of some sort?
You have far too much to say for someone not briefed on any subject.

I most certainly have an interest, in this Town, in this County, in this Country.
I believe 100% in the right to free speech, but only if a right to reply is permitted. However in your case, I can understand why some Regimes don't allow the right of free speech. You pedal uneducated nonsense. Thankfully most people on here know about you and avoid you or make allowances, but there might be some vulnerable souls out there who might be taken in be your c**p
Who has imposed the budget restrictions?
Are properties exempt from rates on religious or other grounds in Tory areas?
?
[quote][p][bold]alive and awake[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alive and awake[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alive and awake[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alive and awake[/bold] wrote: Imagine a Labour Council coming up with such an idea, what would, Blair, Brown, Balls, and the Rev. Flowers make of it all.[/p][/quote]I've no idea but given the quality of our political representatives on all sides I wouldn't p!ss on any of them if they were on fire. I'd add some petrol if I could afford to or if I could syphon some out of their nice flashy cars. You can quote me on that if you like. It will save you having to think of something to write as it always ends up making you look stupid.[/p][/quote]Youv'e no idea! I thought you had ideas and opinions on every subject. I'll tell you what they'll make of it. They will be impressed that a Labour Council could have such gonads to come up with such a scrooge idea, they then will be watching very closely to see if Labour can hold on to their seats in the next election. If they do (they won't) they will encourage other Councils to follow suit.[/p][/quote]And prey tell who has imposed the budget restrictions that have required them to come up with such a "scrooge idea"? It wouldn't be the same Tory scum that is imposing much less restrictions on the Tory councils down south would it? Clap your fins together and bark like a seal. You make about as much sense as one.[/p][/quote]tut tut. as bitter as ever. What is the Council doing with the £129,000,000 they are sat on?, Shoud be at least £133m by now, unless they have invested it in some Greek Island or other. Why are there so many properties exempt from rates, why is there so much waste? How many Religious properties have we got in Bradford not paying rates? and on and on and on.[/p][/quote]Are properties exempt from rates on religious or other grounds in Tory areas? Strangely enough I am not briefed on what the council do with any assets they may have. You however seem to know more than most members of the public. Is there anything you would like to declare? An interest of some sort?[/p][/quote]You have far too much to say for someone not briefed on any subject. I most certainly have an interest, in this Town, in this County, in this Country. I believe 100% in the right to free speech, but only if a right to reply is permitted. However in your case, I can understand why some Regimes don't allow the right of free speech. You pedal uneducated nonsense. Thankfully most people on here know about you and avoid you or make allowances, but there might be some vulnerable souls out there who might be taken in be your c**p[/p][/quote]Who has imposed the budget restrictions? Are properties exempt from rates on religious or other grounds in Tory areas? ? RollandSmoke

6:46pm Wed 11 Dec 13

alive and awake says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
alive and awake wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
alive and awake wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
alive and awake wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
alive and awake wrote:
Imagine a Labour Council coming up with such an idea, what would, Blair, Brown, Balls, and the Rev. Flowers make of it all.
I've no idea but given the quality of our political representatives on all sides I wouldn't p!ss on any of them if they were on fire. I'd add some petrol if I could afford to or if I could syphon some out of their nice flashy cars. You can quote me on that if you like. It will save you having to think of something to write as it always ends up making you look stupid.
Youv'e no idea! I thought you had ideas and opinions on every subject.

I'll tell you what they'll make of it. They will be impressed that a Labour Council could have such gonads to come up with such a scrooge idea, they then will be watching very closely to see if Labour can hold on to their seats in the next election. If they do (they won't) they will encourage other Councils to follow suit.
And prey tell who has imposed the budget restrictions that have required them to come up with such a "scrooge idea"? It wouldn't be the same Tory scum that is imposing much less restrictions on the Tory councils down south would it? Clap your fins together and bark like a seal. You make about as much sense as one.
tut tut. as bitter as ever.

What is the Council doing with the £129,000,000 they are sat on?, Shoud be at least £133m by now, unless they have invested it in some Greek Island or other. Why are there so many properties exempt from rates, why is there so much waste? How many Religious properties have we got in Bradford not paying rates? and on and on and on.
Are properties exempt from rates on religious or other grounds in Tory areas? Strangely enough I am not briefed on what the council do with any assets they may have. You however seem to know more than most members of the public. Is there anything you would like to declare? An interest of some sort?
You have far too much to say for someone not briefed on any subject.

I most certainly have an interest, in this Town, in this County, in this Country.
I believe 100% in the right to free speech, but only if a right to reply is permitted. However in your case, I can understand why some Regimes don't allow the right of free speech. You pedal uneducated nonsense. Thankfully most people on here know about you and avoid you or make allowances, but there might be some vulnerable souls out there who might be taken in be your c**p
Who has imposed the budget restrictions?
Are properties exempt from rates on religious or other grounds in Tory areas?
?
Of course the Coalition imposed budget restrictions, and thank God they did.
You called me a shill other day, but the way you go fishing for poor easily led souls, you must be the shill. I am happy to shout it from the roof tops.

THE COALITION IMPOSED BUDGET RESTRICTIONS. SO STOP ASKING THE SAME BORING QUESTIONS. or are you too stoned to think of any thing else to say?
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alive and awake[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alive and awake[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alive and awake[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alive and awake[/bold] wrote: Imagine a Labour Council coming up with such an idea, what would, Blair, Brown, Balls, and the Rev. Flowers make of it all.[/p][/quote]I've no idea but given the quality of our political representatives on all sides I wouldn't p!ss on any of them if they were on fire. I'd add some petrol if I could afford to or if I could syphon some out of their nice flashy cars. You can quote me on that if you like. It will save you having to think of something to write as it always ends up making you look stupid.[/p][/quote]Youv'e no idea! I thought you had ideas and opinions on every subject. I'll tell you what they'll make of it. They will be impressed that a Labour Council could have such gonads to come up with such a scrooge idea, they then will be watching very closely to see if Labour can hold on to their seats in the next election. If they do (they won't) they will encourage other Councils to follow suit.[/p][/quote]And prey tell who has imposed the budget restrictions that have required them to come up with such a "scrooge idea"? It wouldn't be the same Tory scum that is imposing much less restrictions on the Tory councils down south would it? Clap your fins together and bark like a seal. You make about as much sense as one.[/p][/quote]tut tut. as bitter as ever. What is the Council doing with the £129,000,000 they are sat on?, Shoud be at least £133m by now, unless they have invested it in some Greek Island or other. Why are there so many properties exempt from rates, why is there so much waste? How many Religious properties have we got in Bradford not paying rates? and on and on and on.[/p][/quote]Are properties exempt from rates on religious or other grounds in Tory areas? Strangely enough I am not briefed on what the council do with any assets they may have. You however seem to know more than most members of the public. Is there anything you would like to declare? An interest of some sort?[/p][/quote]You have far too much to say for someone not briefed on any subject. I most certainly have an interest, in this Town, in this County, in this Country. I believe 100% in the right to free speech, but only if a right to reply is permitted. However in your case, I can understand why some Regimes don't allow the right of free speech. You pedal uneducated nonsense. Thankfully most people on here know about you and avoid you or make allowances, but there might be some vulnerable souls out there who might be taken in be your c**p[/p][/quote]Who has imposed the budget restrictions? Are properties exempt from rates on religious or other grounds in Tory areas? ?[/p][/quote]Of course the Coalition imposed budget restrictions, and thank God they did. You called me a shill other day, but the way you go fishing for poor easily led souls, you must be the shill. I am happy to shout it from the roof tops. THE COALITION IMPOSED BUDGET RESTRICTIONS. SO STOP ASKING THE SAME BORING QUESTIONS. or are you too stoned to think of any thing else to say? alive and awake

7:01pm Wed 11 Dec 13

RollandSmoke says...

alive and awake wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
alive and awake wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
alive and awake wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
alive and awake wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
alive and awake wrote:
Imagine a Labour Council coming up with such an idea, what would, Blair, Brown, Balls, and the Rev. Flowers make of it all.
I've no idea but given the quality of our political representatives on all sides I wouldn't p!ss on any of them if they were on fire. I'd add some petrol if I could afford to or if I could syphon some out of their nice flashy cars. You can quote me on that if you like. It will save you having to think of something to write as it always ends up making you look stupid.
Youv'e no idea! I thought you had ideas and opinions on every subject.

I'll tell you what they'll make of it. They will be impressed that a Labour Council could have such gonads to come up with such a scrooge idea, they then will be watching very closely to see if Labour can hold on to their seats in the next election. If they do (they won't) they will encourage other Councils to follow suit.
And prey tell who has imposed the budget restrictions that have required them to come up with such a "scrooge idea"? It wouldn't be the same Tory scum that is imposing much less restrictions on the Tory councils down south would it? Clap your fins together and bark like a seal. You make about as much sense as one.
tut tut. as bitter as ever.

What is the Council doing with the £129,000,000 they are sat on?, Shoud be at least £133m by now, unless they have invested it in some Greek Island or other. Why are there so many properties exempt from rates, why is there so much waste? How many Religious properties have we got in Bradford not paying rates? and on and on and on.
Are properties exempt from rates on religious or other grounds in Tory areas? Strangely enough I am not briefed on what the council do with any assets they may have. You however seem to know more than most members of the public. Is there anything you would like to declare? An interest of some sort?
You have far too much to say for someone not briefed on any subject.

I most certainly have an interest, in this Town, in this County, in this Country.
I believe 100% in the right to free speech, but only if a right to reply is permitted. However in your case, I can understand why some Regimes don't allow the right of free speech. You pedal uneducated nonsense. Thankfully most people on here know about you and avoid you or make allowances, but there might be some vulnerable souls out there who might be taken in be your c**p
Who has imposed the budget restrictions?
Are properties exempt from rates on religious or other grounds in Tory areas?
?
Of course the Coalition imposed budget restrictions, and thank God they did.
You called me a shill other day, but the way you go fishing for poor easily led souls, you must be the shill. I am happy to shout it from the roof tops.

THE COALITION IMPOSED BUDGET RESTRICTIONS. SO STOP ASKING THE SAME BORING QUESTIONS. or are you too stoned to think of any thing else to say?
I can think of plenty of things to say thanks it's just that when I ask a question I do so in expectation of an answer no matter how inconvenient it may be for you to give one. Unlike yourself I have an interest in people and geographical boundaries are slightly lower in my list of priorities. Are people even on your list? What is a person to you?
[quote][p][bold]alive and awake[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alive and awake[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alive and awake[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alive and awake[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alive and awake[/bold] wrote: Imagine a Labour Council coming up with such an idea, what would, Blair, Brown, Balls, and the Rev. Flowers make of it all.[/p][/quote]I've no idea but given the quality of our political representatives on all sides I wouldn't p!ss on any of them if they were on fire. I'd add some petrol if I could afford to or if I could syphon some out of their nice flashy cars. You can quote me on that if you like. It will save you having to think of something to write as it always ends up making you look stupid.[/p][/quote]Youv'e no idea! I thought you had ideas and opinions on every subject. I'll tell you what they'll make of it. They will be impressed that a Labour Council could have such gonads to come up with such a scrooge idea, they then will be watching very closely to see if Labour can hold on to their seats in the next election. If they do (they won't) they will encourage other Councils to follow suit.[/p][/quote]And prey tell who has imposed the budget restrictions that have required them to come up with such a "scrooge idea"? It wouldn't be the same Tory scum that is imposing much less restrictions on the Tory councils down south would it? Clap your fins together and bark like a seal. You make about as much sense as one.[/p][/quote]tut tut. as bitter as ever. What is the Council doing with the £129,000,000 they are sat on?, Shoud be at least £133m by now, unless they have invested it in some Greek Island or other. Why are there so many properties exempt from rates, why is there so much waste? How many Religious properties have we got in Bradford not paying rates? and on and on and on.[/p][/quote]Are properties exempt from rates on religious or other grounds in Tory areas? Strangely enough I am not briefed on what the council do with any assets they may have. You however seem to know more than most members of the public. Is there anything you would like to declare? An interest of some sort?[/p][/quote]You have far too much to say for someone not briefed on any subject. I most certainly have an interest, in this Town, in this County, in this Country. I believe 100% in the right to free speech, but only if a right to reply is permitted. However in your case, I can understand why some Regimes don't allow the right of free speech. You pedal uneducated nonsense. Thankfully most people on here know about you and avoid you or make allowances, but there might be some vulnerable souls out there who might be taken in be your c**p[/p][/quote]Who has imposed the budget restrictions? Are properties exempt from rates on religious or other grounds in Tory areas? ?[/p][/quote]Of course the Coalition imposed budget restrictions, and thank God they did. You called me a shill other day, but the way you go fishing for poor easily led souls, you must be the shill. I am happy to shout it from the roof tops. THE COALITION IMPOSED BUDGET RESTRICTIONS. SO STOP ASKING THE SAME BORING QUESTIONS. or are you too stoned to think of any thing else to say?[/p][/quote]I can think of plenty of things to say thanks it's just that when I ask a question I do so in expectation of an answer no matter how inconvenient it may be for you to give one. Unlike yourself I have an interest in people and geographical boundaries are slightly lower in my list of priorities. Are people even on your list? What is a person to you? RollandSmoke

7:10pm Wed 11 Dec 13

alive and awake says...

all people are either givers or takers.
all people are either givers or takers. alive and awake

7:20pm Wed 11 Dec 13

RollandSmoke says...

alive and awake wrote:
all people are either givers or takers.
Who creates jobs in order to turn a taker into a giver? I presume it must be the givers as the takers wouldn't be taking if they had a means of earning rather than taking. But we know that no-one wants to make the investments. Remind me, which of those two groups is in a position to invest? That therefore leads to more takers and the givers don't like it. I realise that the Tory scum don't want to take any responsibility but that does not mean they are not responsible.
[quote][p][bold]alive and awake[/bold] wrote: all people are either givers or takers.[/p][/quote]Who creates jobs in order to turn a taker into a giver? I presume it must be the givers as the takers wouldn't be taking if they had a means of earning rather than taking. But we know that no-one wants to make the investments. Remind me, which of those two groups is in a position to invest? That therefore leads to more takers and the givers don't like it. I realise that the Tory scum don't want to take any responsibility but that does not mean they are not responsible. RollandSmoke

7:41pm Wed 11 Dec 13

alive and awake says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
alive and awake wrote:
all people are either givers or takers.
Who creates jobs in order to turn a taker into a giver? I presume it must be the givers as the takers wouldn't be taking if they had a means of earning rather than taking. But we know that no-one wants to make the investments. Remind me, which of those two groups is in a position to invest? That therefore leads to more takers and the givers don't like it. I realise that the Tory scum don't want to take any responsibility but that does not mean they are not responsible.
I'ts simple, the wise and sensible taker, saves a bit and invests it and becomes a giver. the thick taker however, keeps taking, spends it all, complains, takes more, ad infinitum.

we are all born takers.

Now even you must understand that.
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alive and awake[/bold] wrote: all people are either givers or takers.[/p][/quote]Who creates jobs in order to turn a taker into a giver? I presume it must be the givers as the takers wouldn't be taking if they had a means of earning rather than taking. But we know that no-one wants to make the investments. Remind me, which of those two groups is in a position to invest? That therefore leads to more takers and the givers don't like it. I realise that the Tory scum don't want to take any responsibility but that does not mean they are not responsible.[/p][/quote]I'ts simple, the wise and sensible taker, saves a bit and invests it and becomes a giver. the thick taker however, keeps taking, spends it all, complains, takes more, ad infinitum. we are all born takers. Now even you must understand that. alive and awake

7:48pm Wed 11 Dec 13

alive and awake says...

alive and awake wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
alive and awake wrote:
all people are either givers or takers.
Who creates jobs in order to turn a taker into a giver? I presume it must be the givers as the takers wouldn't be taking if they had a means of earning rather than taking. But we know that no-one wants to make the investments. Remind me, which of those two groups is in a position to invest? That therefore leads to more takers and the givers don't like it. I realise that the Tory scum don't want to take any responsibility but that does not mean they are not responsible.
I'ts simple, the wise and sensible taker, saves a bit and invests it and becomes a giver. the thick taker however, keeps taking, spends it all, complains, takes more, ad infinitum.

we are all born takers.

Now even you must understand that.
ps. you have lost the plot, this article is about Labour stopping giving. LOL
[quote][p][bold]alive and awake[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alive and awake[/bold] wrote: all people are either givers or takers.[/p][/quote]Who creates jobs in order to turn a taker into a giver? I presume it must be the givers as the takers wouldn't be taking if they had a means of earning rather than taking. But we know that no-one wants to make the investments. Remind me, which of those two groups is in a position to invest? That therefore leads to more takers and the givers don't like it. I realise that the Tory scum don't want to take any responsibility but that does not mean they are not responsible.[/p][/quote]I'ts simple, the wise and sensible taker, saves a bit and invests it and becomes a giver. the thick taker however, keeps taking, spends it all, complains, takes more, ad infinitum. we are all born takers. Now even you must understand that.[/p][/quote]ps. you have lost the plot, this article is about Labour stopping giving. LOL alive and awake

8:58pm Wed 11 Dec 13

RollandSmoke says...

alive and awake wrote:
alive and awake wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
alive and awake wrote:
all people are either givers or takers.
Who creates jobs in order to turn a taker into a giver? I presume it must be the givers as the takers wouldn't be taking if they had a means of earning rather than taking. But we know that no-one wants to make the investments. Remind me, which of those two groups is in a position to invest? That therefore leads to more takers and the givers don't like it. I realise that the Tory scum don't want to take any responsibility but that does not mean they are not responsible.
I'ts simple, the wise and sensible taker, saves a bit and invests it and becomes a giver. the thick taker however, keeps taking, spends it all, complains, takes more, ad infinitum.

we are all born takers.

Now even you must understand that.
ps. you have lost the plot, this article is about Labour stopping giving. LOL
What? you mean that the so called "takers" are getting even less chance of being able to save anything, which, as they were on the minimum legal requirement to live on before this started, was already a snowballs chance in hell anyway? How do the Tories who have imposed these cuts on Labour councils think that this is going to help? In fact don't bother as while we are playing tennis with the responsibilty people are suffering and there is being jack sh!t done about it. You have no answers, your party has no answers, the opposition has no answers. The buck has to stop somewhere?
[quote][p][bold]alive and awake[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alive and awake[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alive and awake[/bold] wrote: all people are either givers or takers.[/p][/quote]Who creates jobs in order to turn a taker into a giver? I presume it must be the givers as the takers wouldn't be taking if they had a means of earning rather than taking. But we know that no-one wants to make the investments. Remind me, which of those two groups is in a position to invest? That therefore leads to more takers and the givers don't like it. I realise that the Tory scum don't want to take any responsibility but that does not mean they are not responsible.[/p][/quote]I'ts simple, the wise and sensible taker, saves a bit and invests it and becomes a giver. the thick taker however, keeps taking, spends it all, complains, takes more, ad infinitum. we are all born takers. Now even you must understand that.[/p][/quote]ps. you have lost the plot, this article is about Labour stopping giving. LOL[/p][/quote]What? you mean that the so called "takers" are getting even less chance of being able to save anything, which, as they were on the minimum legal requirement to live on before this started, was already a snowballs chance in hell anyway? How do the Tories who have imposed these cuts on Labour councils think that this is going to help? In fact don't bother as while we are playing tennis with the responsibilty people are suffering and there is being jack sh!t done about it. You have no answers, your party has no answers, the opposition has no answers. The buck has to stop somewhere? RollandSmoke

9:23pm Wed 11 Dec 13

tinytoonster says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
alive and awake wrote:
alive and awake wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
alive and awake wrote:
all people are either givers or takers.
Who creates jobs in order to turn a taker into a giver? I presume it must be the givers as the takers wouldn't be taking if they had a means of earning rather than taking. But we know that no-one wants to make the investments. Remind me, which of those two groups is in a position to invest? That therefore leads to more takers and the givers don't like it. I realise that the Tory scum don't want to take any responsibility but that does not mean they are not responsible.
I'ts simple, the wise and sensible taker, saves a bit and invests it and becomes a giver. the thick taker however, keeps taking, spends it all, complains, takes more, ad infinitum.

we are all born takers.

Now even you must understand that.
ps. you have lost the plot, this article is about Labour stopping giving. LOL
What? you mean that the so called "takers" are getting even less chance of being able to save anything, which, as they were on the minimum legal requirement to live on before this started, was already a snowballs chance in hell anyway? How do the Tories who have imposed these cuts on Labour councils think that this is going to help? In fact don't bother as while we are playing tennis with the responsibilty people are suffering and there is being jack sh!t done about it. You have no answers, your party has no answers, the opposition has no answers. The buck has to stop somewhere?
you really are a fool if you believe that councils cannot save money without making front line cuts!
they choose to do it to make the opposition look guilty and also save having to lose their own jobs and the made up jobs which labour created while in power.
its called trimming the fat and trust me bradford council as plenty!
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alive and awake[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alive and awake[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alive and awake[/bold] wrote: all people are either givers or takers.[/p][/quote]Who creates jobs in order to turn a taker into a giver? I presume it must be the givers as the takers wouldn't be taking if they had a means of earning rather than taking. But we know that no-one wants to make the investments. Remind me, which of those two groups is in a position to invest? That therefore leads to more takers and the givers don't like it. I realise that the Tory scum don't want to take any responsibility but that does not mean they are not responsible.[/p][/quote]I'ts simple, the wise and sensible taker, saves a bit and invests it and becomes a giver. the thick taker however, keeps taking, spends it all, complains, takes more, ad infinitum. we are all born takers. Now even you must understand that.[/p][/quote]ps. you have lost the plot, this article is about Labour stopping giving. LOL[/p][/quote]What? you mean that the so called "takers" are getting even less chance of being able to save anything, which, as they were on the minimum legal requirement to live on before this started, was already a snowballs chance in hell anyway? How do the Tories who have imposed these cuts on Labour councils think that this is going to help? In fact don't bother as while we are playing tennis with the responsibilty people are suffering and there is being jack sh!t done about it. You have no answers, your party has no answers, the opposition has no answers. The buck has to stop somewhere?[/p][/quote]you really are a fool if you believe that councils cannot save money without making front line cuts! they choose to do it to make the opposition look guilty and also save having to lose their own jobs and the made up jobs which labour created while in power. its called trimming the fat and trust me bradford council as plenty! tinytoonster

9:28pm Wed 11 Dec 13

tinytoonster says...

Councillor Susan Hinchcliffe, portfolio holder for Employment, Skills and Culture.
thats one for starters!
if you can explain what that means and what she actually does she can justify her job!!
we should have a challenge to see who can find the most made up job title at the council!!
Councillor Susan Hinchcliffe, portfolio holder for Employment, Skills and Culture. thats one for starters! if you can explain what that means and what she actually does she can justify her job!! we should have a challenge to see who can find the most made up job title at the council!! tinytoonster

9:51pm Wed 11 Dec 13

RollandSmoke says...

tinytoonster wrote:
Councillor Susan Hinchcliffe, portfolio holder for Employment, Skills and Culture.
thats one for starters!
if you can explain what that means and what she actually does she can justify her job!!
we should have a challenge to see who can find the most made up job title at the council!!
It's not for me to justify anyone's job however a job is what she has and I was under the impression that you wanted people to be working? The fact of the matter is that our political system is not fit for purpose and while we have such entrenchment along party lines more time will be spent on bickering between the parties than will be spent addressing the problems. Consensus is the only way of achieving anything remotely resembling democratic government and party politics is by definition a barrier to this. SACK THE LOT OF THEM, IT ISN'T WORKING.
[quote][p][bold]tinytoonster[/bold] wrote: Councillor Susan Hinchcliffe, portfolio holder for Employment, Skills and Culture. thats one for starters! if you can explain what that means and what she actually does she can justify her job!! we should have a challenge to see who can find the most made up job title at the council!![/p][/quote]It's not for me to justify anyone's job however a job is what she has and I was under the impression that you wanted people to be working? The fact of the matter is that our political system is not fit for purpose and while we have such entrenchment along party lines more time will be spent on bickering between the parties than will be spent addressing the problems. Consensus is the only way of achieving anything remotely resembling democratic government and party politics is by definition a barrier to this. SACK THE LOT OF THEM, IT ISN'T WORKING. RollandSmoke

7:07am Thu 12 Dec 13

davidh66 says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
Apollo wrote:
allinittogether wrote:
Freddy Elliot wrote: £26. Bet a fair percentage of the 'families' that receive the payment could easily spend over that amount at a Subway/Greggs in one visit.
What on earth has that got to do with school uniforms? And why write families in inverted commas? Grow up you spiteful individual.
Because you can bet at least one 'family' member will be a smoker at nearly £10 per pack and for those families one has no sympathy.
You will find that smokers on benefits smoke roll ups which takes the cost down to under £15 a week and still they will find this a struggle so they will seek out imported tobacco which will take the cost down to under £10 a week. OK so it is driving other crime but it is obvious as to the reasons behind this and the police will be the last on the list of people to suggest anything that may reduce this crime. If they were paying £10 a pack then they would be paying a higher percentage of tax than most workers do on their income.
If you are on benefits and can afford £10 per week that's £520 per year to spend on tobacco. You should not be receiving £26 worth of vouchers . Stop smoking and pay your own way.
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Apollo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]allinittogether[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Freddy Elliot[/bold] wrote: £26. Bet a fair percentage of the 'families' that receive the payment could easily spend over that amount at a Subway/Greggs in one visit.[/p][/quote]What on earth has that got to do with school uniforms? And why write families in inverted commas? Grow up you spiteful individual.[/p][/quote]Because you can bet at least one 'family' member will be a smoker at nearly £10 per pack and for those families one has no sympathy.[/p][/quote]You will find that smokers on benefits smoke roll ups which takes the cost down to under £15 a week and still they will find this a struggle so they will seek out imported tobacco which will take the cost down to under £10 a week. OK so it is driving other crime but it is obvious as to the reasons behind this and the police will be the last on the list of people to suggest anything that may reduce this crime. If they were paying £10 a pack then they would be paying a higher percentage of tax than most workers do on their income.[/p][/quote]If you are on benefits and can afford £10 per week that's £520 per year to spend on tobacco. You should not be receiving £26 worth of vouchers . Stop smoking and pay your own way. davidh66

4:43pm Thu 12 Dec 13

RollandSmoke says...

davidh66 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Apollo wrote:
allinittogether wrote:
Freddy Elliot wrote: £26. Bet a fair percentage of the 'families' that receive the payment could easily spend over that amount at a Subway/Greggs in one visit.
What on earth has that got to do with school uniforms? And why write families in inverted commas? Grow up you spiteful individual.
Because you can bet at least one 'family' member will be a smoker at nearly £10 per pack and for those families one has no sympathy.
You will find that smokers on benefits smoke roll ups which takes the cost down to under £15 a week and still they will find this a struggle so they will seek out imported tobacco which will take the cost down to under £10 a week. OK so it is driving other crime but it is obvious as to the reasons behind this and the police will be the last on the list of people to suggest anything that may reduce this crime. If they were paying £10 a pack then they would be paying a higher percentage of tax than most workers do on their income.
If you are on benefits and can afford £10 per week that's £520 per year to spend on tobacco. You should not be receiving £26 worth of vouchers . Stop smoking and pay your own way.
Who are you David? Do you know me? Do you know my circumstances?. I don't receive anything that I'm not fully entitled to and what I spend that money on is absolutely non of your business. Strangely enough I was in full time employment when I became addicted to this government sanctioned drug. Do you understand what addiction means David? Please respond to this comment as you seem like just the sort of blinkered arsewipe I like to debate with. P.S. I don't receive any vouchers so you can breath a sigh of relief there can't you?
[quote][p][bold]davidh66[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Apollo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]allinittogether[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Freddy Elliot[/bold] wrote: £26. Bet a fair percentage of the 'families' that receive the payment could easily spend over that amount at a Subway/Greggs in one visit.[/p][/quote]What on earth has that got to do with school uniforms? And why write families in inverted commas? Grow up you spiteful individual.[/p][/quote]Because you can bet at least one 'family' member will be a smoker at nearly £10 per pack and for those families one has no sympathy.[/p][/quote]You will find that smokers on benefits smoke roll ups which takes the cost down to under £15 a week and still they will find this a struggle so they will seek out imported tobacco which will take the cost down to under £10 a week. OK so it is driving other crime but it is obvious as to the reasons behind this and the police will be the last on the list of people to suggest anything that may reduce this crime. If they were paying £10 a pack then they would be paying a higher percentage of tax than most workers do on their income.[/p][/quote]If you are on benefits and can afford £10 per week that's £520 per year to spend on tobacco. You should not be receiving £26 worth of vouchers . Stop smoking and pay your own way.[/p][/quote]Who are you David? Do you know me? Do you know my circumstances?. I don't receive anything that I'm not fully entitled to and what I spend that money on is absolutely non of your business. Strangely enough I was in full time employment when I became addicted to this government sanctioned drug. Do you understand what addiction means David? Please respond to this comment as you seem like just the sort of blinkered arsewipe I like to debate with. P.S. I don't receive any vouchers so you can breath a sigh of relief there can't you? RollandSmoke

9:26pm Thu 12 Dec 13

madzippy says...

Albion. wrote:
You can get school clothes much cheaper at supermarkets and large chains, they should be considered adequate, rather than the expensive badged items from specialist outlets.
You can for primary school kids and the prices are fantastic but secondary school uniform is really expensive and can't be bought in Asda or Tescos
[quote][p][bold]Albion.[/bold] wrote: You can get school clothes much cheaper at supermarkets and large chains, they should be considered adequate, rather than the expensive badged items from specialist outlets.[/p][/quote]You can for primary school kids and the prices are fantastic but secondary school uniform is really expensive and can't be bought in Asda or Tescos madzippy

7:48am Fri 13 Dec 13

davidh66 says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
davidh66 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Apollo wrote:
allinittogether wrote:
Freddy Elliot wrote: £26. Bet a fair percentage of the 'families' that receive the payment could easily spend over that amount at a Subway/Greggs in one visit.
What on earth has that got to do with school uniforms? And why write families in inverted commas? Grow up you spiteful individual.
Because you can bet at least one 'family' member will be a smoker at nearly £10 per pack and for those families one has no sympathy.
You will find that smokers on benefits smoke roll ups which takes the cost down to under £15 a week and still they will find this a struggle so they will seek out imported tobacco which will take the cost down to under £10 a week. OK so it is driving other crime but it is obvious as to the reasons behind this and the police will be the last on the list of people to suggest anything that may reduce this crime. If they were paying £10 a pack then they would be paying a higher percentage of tax than most workers do on their income.
If you are on benefits and can afford £10 per week that's £520 per year to spend on tobacco. You should not be receiving £26 worth of vouchers . Stop smoking and pay your own way.
Who are you David? Do you know me? Do you know my circumstances?. I don't receive anything that I'm not fully entitled to and what I spend that money on is absolutely non of your business. Strangely enough I was in full time employment when I became addicted to this government sanctioned drug. Do you understand what addiction means David? Please respond to this comment as you seem like just the sort of blinkered arsewipe I like to debate with. P.S. I don't receive any vouchers so you can breath a sigh of relief there can't you?
No I don't know you , who am i ? I'm one of those people who go out to work pay lots of PAYE and national insurance to help fund bone idle people who can't be bothered to get out of bed and earn a living .
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]davidh66[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Apollo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]allinittogether[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Freddy Elliot[/bold] wrote: £26. Bet a fair percentage of the 'families' that receive the payment could easily spend over that amount at a Subway/Greggs in one visit.[/p][/quote]What on earth has that got to do with school uniforms? And why write families in inverted commas? Grow up you spiteful individual.[/p][/quote]Because you can bet at least one 'family' member will be a smoker at nearly £10 per pack and for those families one has no sympathy.[/p][/quote]You will find that smokers on benefits smoke roll ups which takes the cost down to under £15 a week and still they will find this a struggle so they will seek out imported tobacco which will take the cost down to under £10 a week. OK so it is driving other crime but it is obvious as to the reasons behind this and the police will be the last on the list of people to suggest anything that may reduce this crime. If they were paying £10 a pack then they would be paying a higher percentage of tax than most workers do on their income.[/p][/quote]If you are on benefits and can afford £10 per week that's £520 per year to spend on tobacco. You should not be receiving £26 worth of vouchers . Stop smoking and pay your own way.[/p][/quote]Who are you David? Do you know me? Do you know my circumstances?. I don't receive anything that I'm not fully entitled to and what I spend that money on is absolutely non of your business. Strangely enough I was in full time employment when I became addicted to this government sanctioned drug. Do you understand what addiction means David? Please respond to this comment as you seem like just the sort of blinkered arsewipe I like to debate with. P.S. I don't receive any vouchers so you can breath a sigh of relief there can't you?[/p][/quote]No I don't know you , who am i ? I'm one of those people who go out to work pay lots of PAYE and national insurance to help fund bone idle people who can't be bothered to get out of bed and earn a living . davidh66

1:55pm Fri 13 Dec 13

RollandSmoke says...

davidh66 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
davidh66 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Apollo wrote:
allinittogether wrote:
Freddy Elliot wrote: £26. Bet a fair percentage of the 'families' that receive the payment could easily spend over that amount at a Subway/Greggs in one visit.
What on earth has that got to do with school uniforms? And why write families in inverted commas? Grow up you spiteful individual.
Because you can bet at least one 'family' member will be a smoker at nearly £10 per pack and for those families one has no sympathy.
You will find that smokers on benefits smoke roll ups which takes the cost down to under £15 a week and still they will find this a struggle so they will seek out imported tobacco which will take the cost down to under £10 a week. OK so it is driving other crime but it is obvious as to the reasons behind this and the police will be the last on the list of people to suggest anything that may reduce this crime. If they were paying £10 a pack then they would be paying a higher percentage of tax than most workers do on their income.
If you are on benefits and can afford £10 per week that's £520 per year to spend on tobacco. You should not be receiving £26 worth of vouchers . Stop smoking and pay your own way.
Who are you David? Do you know me? Do you know my circumstances?. I don't receive anything that I'm not fully entitled to and what I spend that money on is absolutely non of your business. Strangely enough I was in full time employment when I became addicted to this government sanctioned drug. Do you understand what addiction means David? Please respond to this comment as you seem like just the sort of blinkered arsewipe I like to debate with. P.S. I don't receive any vouchers so you can breath a sigh of relief there can't you?
No I don't know you , who am i ? I'm one of those people who go out to work pay lots of PAYE and national insurance to help fund bone idle people who can't be bothered to get out of bed and earn a living .
Oh is that who you are? well you don't have to be such a knob end about it. What do you pay national insurance for? Is it so as if you become unable to work due to sickness you qualify for state help? That was certainly the understanding I had in the many many years I was paying it. I would love to tell you to stick your taxes where the sun doesn't shine but unfortunately this wouldn't result in you paying a penny less. You're a bitter twisted fool David and you are attacking the wrong people. Why have I not seen any comments from you regarding the failure to create jobs? Are you another of those idiots who believes that benefit claimants should be setting up in business themselves whilst begrudging them the resources to buy a school uniform or a packet of cheap tobacco?
[quote][p][bold]davidh66[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]davidh66[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Apollo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]allinittogether[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Freddy Elliot[/bold] wrote: £26. Bet a fair percentage of the 'families' that receive the payment could easily spend over that amount at a Subway/Greggs in one visit.[/p][/quote]What on earth has that got to do with school uniforms? And why write families in inverted commas? Grow up you spiteful individual.[/p][/quote]Because you can bet at least one 'family' member will be a smoker at nearly £10 per pack and for those families one has no sympathy.[/p][/quote]You will find that smokers on benefits smoke roll ups which takes the cost down to under £15 a week and still they will find this a struggle so they will seek out imported tobacco which will take the cost down to under £10 a week. OK so it is driving other crime but it is obvious as to the reasons behind this and the police will be the last on the list of people to suggest anything that may reduce this crime. If they were paying £10 a pack then they would be paying a higher percentage of tax than most workers do on their income.[/p][/quote]If you are on benefits and can afford £10 per week that's £520 per year to spend on tobacco. You should not be receiving £26 worth of vouchers . Stop smoking and pay your own way.[/p][/quote]Who are you David? Do you know me? Do you know my circumstances?. I don't receive anything that I'm not fully entitled to and what I spend that money on is absolutely non of your business. Strangely enough I was in full time employment when I became addicted to this government sanctioned drug. Do you understand what addiction means David? Please respond to this comment as you seem like just the sort of blinkered arsewipe I like to debate with. P.S. I don't receive any vouchers so you can breath a sigh of relief there can't you?[/p][/quote]No I don't know you , who am i ? I'm one of those people who go out to work pay lots of PAYE and national insurance to help fund bone idle people who can't be bothered to get out of bed and earn a living .[/p][/quote]Oh is that who you are? well you don't have to be such a knob end about it. What do you pay national insurance for? Is it so as if you become unable to work due to sickness you qualify for state help? That was certainly the understanding I had in the many many years I was paying it. I would love to tell you to stick your taxes where the sun doesn't shine but unfortunately this wouldn't result in you paying a penny less. You're a bitter twisted fool David and you are attacking the wrong people. Why have I not seen any comments from you regarding the failure to create jobs? Are you another of those idiots who believes that benefit claimants should be setting up in business themselves whilst begrudging them the resources to buy a school uniform or a packet of cheap tobacco? RollandSmoke

3:31pm Mon 16 Dec 13

undercliffebantam says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
Freddy Elliot wrote:
Apollo wrote:
allinittogether wrote:
Freddy Elliot wrote: £26. Bet a fair percentage of the 'families' that receive the payment could easily spend over that amount at a Subway/Greggs in one visit.
What on earth has that got to do with school uniforms? And why write families in inverted commas? Grow up you spiteful individual.
Because you can bet at least one 'family' member will be a smoker at nearly £10 per pack and for those families one has no sympathy.
Cheers Apollo, yes point being made that some households that are receiving such benefits could very likely be spending on luxuries like aforementioned Sky, fancy trainers etc. rather than £26 on school uniforms. Families in inverted commas merely hints at the number of single parent families on benefits that we have in modern times as opposed to getting married, mortgage etc.
If you are on benefits take your children out of school. They are learning nothing and are merely being indoctrinated into a system that has no use for them and sees them as worthless. You cannot continue to conform to a system that works against you. If you are working and you do not receive enough to escape the benefits trap withdraw your labour. You are contributing to the sickest system that has existed in most peoples lifetimes. It can only continue with your compliance. They have destroyed the unions in order to strip you of a voice and destroy your working rights. 1 poor person working alone cannot make a difference. 6 million poor people standing together can.
1 poor person working alone cannot make a difference. 6 million poor people standing together can.

Well said, its time the working class stood up for themselves. All the tories do is stigmatise the people claiming welfare benefits. There are more crooks in parliament, thinking up every excuse to claim expenses and employing their families to screw more money out of the system.
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Freddy Elliot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Apollo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]allinittogether[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Freddy Elliot[/bold] wrote: £26. Bet a fair percentage of the 'families' that receive the payment could easily spend over that amount at a Subway/Greggs in one visit.[/p][/quote]What on earth has that got to do with school uniforms? And why write families in inverted commas? Grow up you spiteful individual.[/p][/quote]Because you can bet at least one 'family' member will be a smoker at nearly £10 per pack and for those families one has no sympathy.[/p][/quote]Cheers Apollo, yes point being made that some households that are receiving such benefits could very likely be spending on luxuries like aforementioned Sky, fancy trainers etc. rather than £26 on school uniforms. Families in inverted commas merely hints at the number of single parent families on benefits that we have in modern times as opposed to getting married, mortgage etc.[/p][/quote]If you are on benefits take your children out of school. They are learning nothing and are merely being indoctrinated into a system that has no use for them and sees them as worthless. You cannot continue to conform to a system that works against you. If you are working and you do not receive enough to escape the benefits trap withdraw your labour. You are contributing to the sickest system that has existed in most peoples lifetimes. It can only continue with your compliance. They have destroyed the unions in order to strip you of a voice and destroy your working rights. 1 poor person working alone cannot make a difference. 6 million poor people standing together can.[/p][/quote]1 poor person working alone cannot make a difference. 6 million poor people standing together can. Well said, its time the working class stood up for themselves. All the tories do is stigmatise the people claiming welfare benefits. There are more crooks in parliament, thinking up every excuse to claim expenses and employing their families to screw more money out of the system. undercliffebantam

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