Hundreds of families hit by new 'cap' on benefits

Bradford Telegraph and Argus: Hundreds of families hit by new 'cap' on benefits Hundreds of families hit by new 'cap' on benefits

Hundreds of Bradford families have been stripped of some welfare benefits after they were found to be receiving more than most people in the district earn at work, it has been revealed.

The Government’s flagship benefit cap, which limits the total amount any working-age household can claim, came into force last summer.

Shipley MP Philip Davies is now calling for the rules to be tightened further, branding the amount some people had been getting in benefits a “scandal”.

The new maximum overall payout is £26,000 a year for a couple, or a single parent with children – the equivalent of a pre-tax salary of £35,000.

There is a lower cap of £18,200 for single people, the equivalent of a pre-tax income of more than £23,000.

In Bradford, the average salary for someone in full-time work is £22,204, according to Bradford Council figures.

A new report by the Council reveals that about 300 households in the district had so far been hit by the new cap, losing an average of £56 a week, or £2,912 a year.

It also suggests the claimants had a higher-than-average need, as the affected households had an average of five children.

Conservative MP Mr Davies welcomed the change, saying: “Iain Duncan-Smith should be congratulated for making sure people can’t receive more than £26,000 a year in benefits.

“I find that offensive and most people who work hard and are not taking home anywhere near that amount would find it offensive.”

He said he would like to see the cap reduced still further, to less than £20,000.

When asked about the number of larger families affected, Mr Davies said: “People are having children they can’t afford. As far as I’m concerned, people should be able to have as many children as they like, but they should be able to support them themselves.”

Gerry Sutcliffe, Labour MP for Bradford South, said he agreed with the principle of a benefit cap, but accused the Government of “seeking to demonise people on benefits”.

He said: “Tough decisions need to be taken to get the benefits bill down. Labour agrees that there should be a localised benefit cap which takes into account differing housing costs around the country.

“But our first priority would be to get the welfare budget down by getting people back into work. The biggest problem is not that the level of benefits is too high, but that the level of people on benefits is too high.

“While seeking to demonise people on benefits, the Government is giving a tax cut to millionaires and doing nothing to stop the scandal of bankers’ bonuses – the very people who got us into this mess in the first place.”

David Ward, Liberal Democrat MP for Bradford East, said it would be “difficult to argue against” the idea of the benefit cap, which he said had attracted support across the whole of Parliament.

He said: “There have been a number of welfare reforms and changes which I believe have been harsh and I have not supported – the bedroom tax and others – but I think the general public view on the overall benefit cap has been supportive. It’s not something the Labour party has ever opposed and I think the general feeling is that there has to be some level of capping.”

Kris Hopkins, Conservative MP for Keighley, said the benefit cap was designed to make sure work paid, and was linked to the average national wage of £26,000.

He said: “It is notable that the average wage in Bradford district is some way short of this, but the benefit levels are not affected.

“Additionally, those in need of particular support have been exempt from the cap, including disabled people and individuals who are in work and receive Working Tax Credit.”

George Galloway, Respect MP for Bradford West, said the figures showed that the poor were being hardest hit.

He said: “The poor are further impoverished while the Government sanctions 200 per cent bonuses on lavish salaries at the bank it owns, RBS.

“It is no cliche that under this Con-Dem Goverment the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.”

The report on welfare reform will go before the Council’s Governanace and Audit Committee on Friday.

Comments (154)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:59am Wed 29 Jan 14

Albion. says...

Whatever the cap or payment amounts, it has to be seen as worthwhile to go to work (any work) and earn a living, currently it still isn't for some.
Whatever the cap or payment amounts, it has to be seen as worthwhile to go to work (any work) and earn a living, currently it still isn't for some. Albion.
  • Score: 66

7:04am Wed 29 Jan 14

localydocaly says...

good,it should be less than the minimum wage is ,no more !!!
good,it should be less than the minimum wage is ,no more !!! localydocaly
  • Score: 62

7:11am Wed 29 Jan 14

cityofdreams says...

que all the dossers saying there hard done by and struggle to feed there fleet of 6 children ...tip for ya ! wear a rubber and stop making benifits checks !!
que all the dossers saying there hard done by and struggle to feed there fleet of 6 children ...tip for ya ! wear a rubber and stop making benifits checks !! cityofdreams
  • Score: 61

7:17am Wed 29 Jan 14

Lancashire Bantam says...

Just take a look at Benefit Street, Sky tv, I phones, beer all day and sat on there fat backsides thinking the world owes them a living, it makes my blood boil.
Just take a look at Benefit Street, Sky tv, I phones, beer all day and sat on there fat backsides thinking the world owes them a living, it makes my blood boil. Lancashire Bantam
  • Score: 55

7:31am Wed 29 Jan 14

RollandSmoke says...

I would be interested in knowing why these people were qualifying for such sums of money unless someone wants to tell me that the DHSS has just been handing out money to people without checking their eligibility?. Are they getting additional payments due to a severe disability in order to cope with the added demands that this would bring? If so how is removing a chunk of this money going to help them or make the work that they cannot do pay? If someone has been renting a property prior to becoming unemployed what are the limits on the amount of housing benefit that they will be able to receive? Much as some will seek to use this story to make generalisations and claim that all benefit recipients are receiving too much it would be very disigenuous for them to do so, although it's never stopped them before and I doubt today will be any different.. The vast majority receive the legal minimum required for them to live (when not sanctioned). If for the vast majority work does not pay then I would suggest that the problem is not with the benefit system.
I would be interested in knowing why these people were qualifying for such sums of money unless someone wants to tell me that the DHSS has just been handing out money to people without checking their eligibility?. Are they getting additional payments due to a severe disability in order to cope with the added demands that this would bring? If so how is removing a chunk of this money going to help them or make the work that they cannot do pay? If someone has been renting a property prior to becoming unemployed what are the limits on the amount of housing benefit that they will be able to receive? Much as some will seek to use this story to make generalisations and claim that all benefit recipients are receiving too much it would be very disigenuous for them to do so, although it's never stopped them before and I doubt today will be any different.. The vast majority receive the legal minimum required for them to live (when not sanctioned). If for the vast majority work does not pay then I would suggest that the problem is not with the benefit system. RollandSmoke
  • Score: -20

7:56am Wed 29 Jan 14

Simon4567 says...

It's amazing isn't it, if you have kids and don't work you get everything laid on a plate, a decent house, a good income, lots of other freebies such as insulation and gas boilers, pretty much everything you need really.

Those of us who want to work and do work who put in the hard graft get absolutely nothing in return, we get taxed to death so that those who don't want to work can get benefits paid from our taxes and our pensions get raided so the bankers can have nice fat bonuses.

Remind me again why I bother working ?

Benefits should be paid at an absolute minimum level, they should put a roof over your head and nothing more, you shouldn't get gas for heating, after all I didn't have any in my house until I could afford to have it installed and I managed fine without it, you shouldn't get enough benefits paid to the level that you can afford to run a car, anything like big TV's and shiny new games consoles is just an indicator that benefits payments are too high, it should just be enough to be able to feed yourself and your kids and nothing more.

Make it an incentive to get a job by making living on benefits a hard life instead of making it a cushy life.

If it were in my power I would remove all benefits from anyone sufficiently able bodied and mentally capable of working, put them up in a council house to give them a roof over their heads, they wouldn't pay council rates and they could have weekly food stamps but not pay any other bills for them; keep it simple, you want to heat your home, drive a car and have luxury items then go get a job.
It's amazing isn't it, if you have kids and don't work you get everything laid on a plate, a decent house, a good income, lots of other freebies such as insulation and gas boilers, pretty much everything you need really. Those of us who want to work and do work who put in the hard graft get absolutely nothing in return, we get taxed to death so that those who don't want to work can get benefits paid from our taxes and our pensions get raided so the bankers can have nice fat bonuses. Remind me again why I bother working ? Benefits should be paid at an absolute minimum level, they should put a roof over your head and nothing more, you shouldn't get gas for heating, after all I didn't have any in my house until I could afford to have it installed and I managed fine without it, you shouldn't get enough benefits paid to the level that you can afford to run a car, anything like big TV's and shiny new games consoles is just an indicator that benefits payments are too high, it should just be enough to be able to feed yourself and your kids and nothing more. Make it an incentive to get a job by making living on benefits a hard life instead of making it a cushy life. If it were in my power I would remove all benefits from anyone sufficiently able bodied and mentally capable of working, put them up in a council house to give them a roof over their heads, they wouldn't pay council rates and they could have weekly food stamps but not pay any other bills for them; keep it simple, you want to heat your home, drive a car and have luxury items then go get a job. Simon4567
  • Score: 92

8:03am Wed 29 Jan 14

allannicho says...

"The biggest problem is not that the level of benefits is too high, but that the level of people on benefits is too high".
Out of touch Liebour again!
"The biggest problem is not that the level of benefits is too high, but that the level of people on benefits is too high". Out of touch Liebour again! allannicho
  • Score: 15

8:06am Wed 29 Jan 14

RollandSmoke says...

allannicho wrote:
"The biggest problem is not that the level of benefits is too high, but that the level of people on benefits is too high".
Out of touch Liebour again!
Wasn't Cameron claiming that we had the highest number of people working ever just last week? was he talking out of his backside again?
[quote][p][bold]allannicho[/bold] wrote: "The biggest problem is not that the level of benefits is too high, but that the level of people on benefits is too high". Out of touch Liebour again![/p][/quote]Wasn't Cameron claiming that we had the highest number of people working ever just last week? was he talking out of his backside again? RollandSmoke
  • Score: -5

8:37am Wed 29 Jan 14

SinnerSaint says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
allannicho wrote:
"The biggest problem is not that the level of benefits is too high, but that the level of people on benefits is too high".
Out of touch Liebour again!
Wasn't Cameron claiming that we had the highest number of people working ever just last week? was he talking out of his backside again?
I think that one went right over your head Roly. Now get back to repeatedly watching your video of Margaret Thatcher's funeral and be liberal with the Vaseline - you don't want any friction burns, do you?
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]allannicho[/bold] wrote: "The biggest problem is not that the level of benefits is too high, but that the level of people on benefits is too high". Out of touch Liebour again![/p][/quote]Wasn't Cameron claiming that we had the highest number of people working ever just last week? was he talking out of his backside again?[/p][/quote]I think that one went right over your head Roly. Now get back to repeatedly watching your video of Margaret Thatcher's funeral and be liberal with the Vaseline - you don't want any friction burns, do you? SinnerSaint
  • Score: 16

8:39am Wed 29 Jan 14

tyker2 says...

child benefit should be stopped altogether. It was brought in after the war to assist in re population. We are now over populated and people should take responsibility for their own children.

This though should be eased in by saying all existing child benefit stays but for all new births after 05.04. 2015 no child benefit will be paid. With each passing the year the total paid out in child benefits will be reduced saving the country millions, maybe billions.
child benefit should be stopped altogether. It was brought in after the war to assist in re population. We are now over populated and people should take responsibility for their own children. This though should be eased in by saying all existing child benefit stays but for all new births after 05.04. 2015 no child benefit will be paid. With each passing the year the total paid out in child benefits will be reduced saving the country millions, maybe billions. tyker2
  • Score: 43

8:40am Wed 29 Jan 14

Thee Voice of Reason says...

One thing that also needs factoring in is the cost to get to and from work. I bet many pay £20 to £30 per week to get to and from work, a cost many sat on their ar$e need not worry about.
One thing that also needs factoring in is the cost to get to and from work. I bet many pay £20 to £30 per week to get to and from work, a cost many sat on their ar$e need not worry about. Thee Voice of Reason
  • Score: 37

8:44am Wed 29 Jan 14

Baildon girl says...

Deffinately agree te cap needs to be even lower. Taken in to account they also dont have to worry about rent or if they do its not full rent, they get help with council tax, school dinners, winter fuel etc etc. Yet low income families on less arent entitled to anything.

I have nothing against benefits as such but it needs to stop been so appealing.. My sister has 4 children and her or her partner dont work and she claims to have around £100 a week spare which goes on luxuries. Im not a bitter person but when my kids ask why they cant have an ipad and their cousins have 2 in their house it does annoy me
Deffinately agree te cap needs to be even lower. Taken in to account they also dont have to worry about rent or if they do its not full rent, they get help with council tax, school dinners, winter fuel etc etc. Yet low income families on less arent entitled to anything. I have nothing against benefits as such but it needs to stop been so appealing.. My sister has 4 children and her or her partner dont work and she claims to have around £100 a week spare which goes on luxuries. Im not a bitter person but when my kids ask why they cant have an ipad and their cousins have 2 in their house it does annoy me Baildon girl
  • Score: 58

9:00am Wed 29 Jan 14

Bacon Bantam says...

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
One thing that also needs factoring in is the cost to get to and from work. I bet many pay £20 to £30 per week to get to and from work, a cost many sat on their ar$e need not worry about.
Agreed, like a Mug I was up at 7 this morning, showered, dressed, breakfast then in a queue of traffic for 40min to work.

I'm guessing we are now getting to the time when some of these job shy slip out of their beds, stick on their 50inch plasma TV's ready to see if any family members have made it on to Jeremy Kyle this morning.
[quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: One thing that also needs factoring in is the cost to get to and from work. I bet many pay £20 to £30 per week to get to and from work, a cost many sat on their ar$e need not worry about.[/p][/quote]Agreed, like a Mug I was up at 7 this morning, showered, dressed, breakfast then in a queue of traffic for 40min to work. I'm guessing we are now getting to the time when some of these job shy slip out of their beds, stick on their 50inch plasma TV's ready to see if any family members have made it on to Jeremy Kyle this morning. Bacon Bantam
  • Score: 54

9:00am Wed 29 Jan 14

Z.Raja says...

Every couple can increase the number of children they like. Why rewarding the peoples who are increasing burden for Taxpayers? Mr Davies said: “People are having children they can't afford and people should be able to have as many children as they like, but they should be able to support them themselves.” I totally agree with him.
Every couple can increase the number of children they like. Why rewarding the peoples who are increasing burden for Taxpayers? Mr Davies said: “People are having children they can't afford and people should be able to have as many children as they like, but they should be able to support them themselves.” I totally agree with him. Z.Raja
  • Score: 49

9:04am Wed 29 Jan 14

Baildon girl says...

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
One thing that also needs factoring in is the cost to get to and from work. I bet many pay £20 to £30 per week to get to and from work, a cost many sat on their ar$e need not worry about.
We dont drive and between us me and my partner costs us nearly £40 a week in bus fairs, just lucky we dont need paid childcare on a daily basis like some people need
[quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: One thing that also needs factoring in is the cost to get to and from work. I bet many pay £20 to £30 per week to get to and from work, a cost many sat on their ar$e need not worry about.[/p][/quote]We dont drive and between us me and my partner costs us nearly £40 a week in bus fairs, just lucky we dont need paid childcare on a daily basis like some people need Baildon girl
  • Score: 25

9:17am Wed 29 Jan 14

Bacon Bantam says...

Baildon girl wrote:
Thee Voice of Reason wrote: One thing that also needs factoring in is the cost to get to and from work. I bet many pay £20 to £30 per week to get to and from work, a cost many sat on their ar$e need not worry about.
We dont drive and between us me and my partner costs us nearly £40 a week in bus fairs, just lucky we dont need paid childcare on a daily basis like some people need
Looks like Rolly is out with the thumbs down votes enmass. Why this would be voted down is anyones guess. Cost of travel to and from work adds up to thousands a year, something those on benefits don't need to worry about.
[quote][p][bold]Baildon girl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: One thing that also needs factoring in is the cost to get to and from work. I bet many pay £20 to £30 per week to get to and from work, a cost many sat on their ar$e need not worry about.[/p][/quote]We dont drive and between us me and my partner costs us nearly £40 a week in bus fairs, just lucky we dont need paid childcare on a daily basis like some people need[/p][/quote]Looks like Rolly is out with the thumbs down votes enmass. Why this would be voted down is anyones guess. Cost of travel to and from work adds up to thousands a year, something those on benefits don't need to worry about. Bacon Bantam
  • Score: 21

9:21am Wed 29 Jan 14

Bacon Bantam says...

Kris Hopkins, Conservative MP for Keighley, said the benefit cap was designed to make sure work paid, and was linked to the average national wage of £26,000.

Firstly that figure will be before tax, the benefit cap is clearly income after tax.

If it was based on £26k the actual benefit cap should be closer to £20k which would be £26k after tax.
Kris Hopkins, Conservative MP for Keighley, said the benefit cap was designed to make sure work paid, and was linked to the average national wage of £26,000. Firstly that figure will be before tax, the benefit cap is clearly income after tax. If it was based on £26k the actual benefit cap should be closer to £20k which would be £26k after tax. Bacon Bantam
  • Score: 19

9:28am Wed 29 Jan 14

bd7 helper says...

Big problems
Big problems bd7 helper
  • Score: 5

9:29am Wed 29 Jan 14

MyBradford says...

If government is ever serious about fixing this mess then leave the poor & vulnerable alone and start to tackle the high end salaries like 50K Plus.
Why would these bankers & high end bosses need to earn absurd salaries when people are struggling to find work & are willing & qualified to do same jobs for half of there salaries.

If you are serious in a real world then bridge the gap between rich & poor & start tackling high salaries before you even touch the poor & vulnerable.
If government is ever serious about fixing this mess then leave the poor & vulnerable alone and start to tackle the high end salaries like 50K Plus. Why would these bankers & high end bosses need to earn absurd salaries when people are struggling to find work & are willing & qualified to do same jobs for half of there salaries. If you are serious in a real world then bridge the gap between rich & poor & start tackling high salaries before you even touch the poor & vulnerable. MyBradford
  • Score: -37

9:36am Wed 29 Jan 14

tinytoonster says...

“While seeking to demonise people on benefits, the Government is giving a tax cut to millionaires and doing nothing to stop the scandal of bankers’ bonuses – the very people who got us into this mess in the first place.”

think you will find labour is the reason we are in this mess.
open door immigration policy, gold selling at a silly low price, benefits for all, thousands of made up jobs which crippled councils, paying union reps in councils.
need i go on?
time to punish people with large families, drop benefits for every child over a permitted amount.
say 3.
“While seeking to demonise people on benefits, the Government is giving a tax cut to millionaires and doing nothing to stop the scandal of bankers’ bonuses – the very people who got us into this mess in the first place.” think you will find labour is the reason we are in this mess. open door immigration policy, gold selling at a silly low price, benefits for all, thousands of made up jobs which crippled councils, paying union reps in councils. need i go on? time to punish people with large families, drop benefits for every child over a permitted amount. say 3. tinytoonster
  • Score: 33

10:11am Wed 29 Jan 14

linebacker2 says...

MyBradford wrote:
If government is ever serious about fixing this mess then leave the poor & vulnerable alone and start to tackle the high end salaries like 50K Plus.
Why would these bankers & high end bosses need to earn absurd salaries when people are struggling to find work & are willing & qualified to do same jobs for half of there salaries.

If you are serious in a real world then bridge the gap between rich & poor & start tackling high salaries before you even touch the poor & vulnerable.
50grand isn't really a high end salary, yet you'll still be in the 40% tax band at this level.

The tax & benefits system is now complex and unwieldy, in affect only the high rate tax payers are net contributers. For basic rate tax payers, the Govt largely takes their money and gives them some of it back, while those on benefits only receive...
[quote][p][bold]MyBradford[/bold] wrote: If government is ever serious about fixing this mess then leave the poor & vulnerable alone and start to tackle the high end salaries like 50K Plus. Why would these bankers & high end bosses need to earn absurd salaries when people are struggling to find work & are willing & qualified to do same jobs for half of there salaries. If you are serious in a real world then bridge the gap between rich & poor & start tackling high salaries before you even touch the poor & vulnerable.[/p][/quote]50grand isn't really a high end salary, yet you'll still be in the 40% tax band at this level. The tax & benefits system is now complex and unwieldy, in affect only the high rate tax payers are net contributers. For basic rate tax payers, the Govt largely takes their money and gives them some of it back, while those on benefits only receive... linebacker2
  • Score: 9

10:16am Wed 29 Jan 14

eurekar says...

There are simply too many scenarios to generalise.
Personally I have always worked albeit part-time when raising the youngest.
When I lost my job I was told I couldn't claim job seekers. I had earned £200 under the threshold for the year prior to my claim.
I rushed into another job as had applied for in excess of 200 others and not been successful even to interview stage.
Sadly the jobs advertised do not specify a salary, exact working hours expected or a responsibility to reply to those who have applied.
Most job vacancies specify 'must be flexible'...basicall
y must not have any other commitments eg children.
If you took the time to analyse jobs available you would realise that at least 30% of them are self employed, catalogue delivering, don't see any commission of note type jobs that in my opinion should be banned from Job Centres!!!
Child care in my area is thin on the ground.
They start early in the morning and end at 6pm.....1/2 an hour is not long enough to get from your workplace to collect them......
My Son goes to 3 different providers to allow me to go to work for minimum wage???!!!
One of the providers will be closing in September due to lack of funding for Childrens Centres - this is his main child care provider.
My employer does not pay us when we are sick or pay out on bonuses promised....we don't even have a contract. If you speak up you are sacked.
It is an employers market at the moment and the government are skewing the figures including poorly paid 0 hour contracts which people have no choice but to take if they want to work.
Tax credits are a sham, their calculations are not transparent and the system unworkable leading to alleged overpayments?!!!
Rant over....I have more non-jobs to apply for to show willing..........
There are simply too many scenarios to generalise. Personally I have always worked albeit part-time when raising the youngest. When I lost my job I was told I couldn't claim job seekers. I had earned £200 under the threshold for the year prior to my claim. I rushed into another job as had applied for in excess of 200 others and not been successful even to interview stage. Sadly the jobs advertised do not specify a salary, exact working hours expected or a responsibility to reply to those who have applied. Most job vacancies specify 'must be flexible'...basicall y must not have any other commitments eg children. If you took the time to analyse jobs available you would realise that at least 30% of them are self employed, catalogue delivering, don't see any commission of note type jobs that in my opinion should be banned from Job Centres!!! Child care in my area is thin on the ground. They start early in the morning and end at 6pm.....1/2 an hour is not long enough to get from your workplace to collect them...... My Son goes to 3 different providers to allow me to go to work for minimum wage???!!! One of the providers will be closing in September due to lack of funding for Childrens Centres - this is his main child care provider. My employer does not pay us when we are sick or pay out on bonuses promised....we don't even have a contract. If you speak up you are sacked. It is an employers market at the moment and the government are skewing the figures including poorly paid 0 hour contracts which people have no choice but to take if they want to work. Tax credits are a sham, their calculations are not transparent and the system unworkable leading to alleged overpayments?!!! Rant over....I have more non-jobs to apply for to show willing.......... eurekar
  • Score: 25

10:35am Wed 29 Jan 14

security man says...

Bacon Bantam wrote:
Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
One thing that also needs factoring in is the cost to get to and from work. I bet many pay £20 to £30 per week to get to and from work, a cost many sat on their ar$e need not worry about.
Agreed, like a Mug I was up at 7 this morning, showered, dressed, breakfast then in a queue of traffic for 40min to work.

I'm guessing we are now getting to the time when some of these job shy slip out of their beds, stick on their 50inch plasma TV's ready to see if any family members have made it on to Jeremy Kyle this morning.
They never struggle or strive, they have totally the wrong mindset. Good on the coalition, at last we see some changes. People claiming benefits of that magnitude should do voluntary work. No excuses, there are jobs available, they should only need 19 k with benefits. Food is cheap, energy bills should be reduced. May be they will stop living the high life and drinking everyday, smoking cannabis and playing the playstation on their plasma's. Some hav £3,000 or £4,000 left over. You wont believe what they do with, yes find the easiest way they can double it!!!.
[quote][p][bold]Bacon Bantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: One thing that also needs factoring in is the cost to get to and from work. I bet many pay £20 to £30 per week to get to and from work, a cost many sat on their ar$e need not worry about.[/p][/quote]Agreed, like a Mug I was up at 7 this morning, showered, dressed, breakfast then in a queue of traffic for 40min to work. I'm guessing we are now getting to the time when some of these job shy slip out of their beds, stick on their 50inch plasma TV's ready to see if any family members have made it on to Jeremy Kyle this morning.[/p][/quote]They never struggle or strive, they have totally the wrong mindset. Good on the coalition, at last we see some changes. People claiming benefits of that magnitude should do voluntary work. No excuses, there are jobs available, they should only need 19 k with benefits. Food is cheap, energy bills should be reduced. May be they will stop living the high life and drinking everyday, smoking cannabis and playing the playstation on their plasma's. Some hav £3,000 or £4,000 left over. You wont believe what they do with, yes find the easiest way they can double it!!!. security man
  • Score: 9

10:39am Wed 29 Jan 14

dellorri says...

Baildon girl wrote:
Deffinately agree te cap needs to be even lower. Taken in to account they also dont have to worry about rent or if they do its not full rent, they get help with council tax, school dinners, winter fuel etc etc. Yet low income families on less arent entitled to anything.

I have nothing against benefits as such but it needs to stop been so appealing.. My sister has 4 children and her or her partner dont work and she claims to have around £100 a week spare which goes on luxuries. Im not a bitter person but when my kids ask why they cant have an ipad and their cousins have 2 in their house it does annoy me
Baildon girl wrote: "Yet low income families on less aren't entitled to anything."
Where do you get that idea from then? Are you totally unaware of the fact that 78% of the people claiming housing benefit are people in FULL time work on a LOW INCOME. Plus the fact that if you are working for 24 hours or more and on a low income you can claim WORKING TAX CREDITS, this in turn if you have children of pre-school age allows you to claim up to £75 per week for child care per child. Oh and while we're at it, you might also like to know that ANYONE working or not who is in receipt of housing benefit automatically becomes entitled to school uniform vouchers for their children, and to free school meals.
EVERY YEAR £16 BILLION goes unclaimed in benefits, because people don't know they can claim them, just like you obviously didn't.
The DWP and HMRC don't make that public though because that figure kind of dwarves the £1.2 billion lost through the 0.7% fraud and 0.9% ERROR on their behalf. So why don't you see if you're eligible, you may well be surprised, and you won't be a scrounger, you'll get what you're paying in for, and what you're ENTITLED to.
[quote][p][bold]Baildon girl[/bold] wrote: Deffinately agree te cap needs to be even lower. Taken in to account they also dont have to worry about rent or if they do its not full rent, they get help with council tax, school dinners, winter fuel etc etc. Yet low income families on less arent entitled to anything. I have nothing against benefits as such but it needs to stop been so appealing.. My sister has 4 children and her or her partner dont work and she claims to have around £100 a week spare which goes on luxuries. Im not a bitter person but when my kids ask why they cant have an ipad and their cousins have 2 in their house it does annoy me[/p][/quote]Baildon girl wrote: "Yet low income families on less aren't entitled to anything." Where do you get that idea from then? Are you totally unaware of the fact that 78% of the people claiming housing benefit are people in FULL time work on a LOW INCOME. Plus the fact that if you are working for 24 hours or more and on a low income you can claim WORKING TAX CREDITS, this in turn if you have children of pre-school age allows you to claim up to £75 per week for child care per child. Oh and while we're at it, you might also like to know that ANYONE working or not who is in receipt of housing benefit automatically becomes entitled to school uniform vouchers for their children, and to free school meals. EVERY YEAR £16 BILLION goes unclaimed in benefits, because people don't know they can claim them, just like you obviously didn't. The DWP and HMRC don't make that public though because that figure kind of dwarves the £1.2 billion lost through the 0.7% fraud and 0.9% ERROR on their behalf. So why don't you see if you're eligible, you may well be surprised, and you won't be a scrounger, you'll get what you're paying in for, and what you're ENTITLED to. dellorri
  • Score: 9

11:09am Wed 29 Jan 14

tinytoonster says...

ENTITLED.
the key word for any scrounger.
Benefits are meant to be a last resort not a lifestyle.
Lets see if the syrians we are giving "refuge" to claim benefits!
Supposed to be actively seeking work!
Yeah right!!
ENTITLED. the key word for any scrounger. Benefits are meant to be a last resort not a lifestyle. Lets see if the syrians we are giving "refuge" to claim benefits! Supposed to be actively seeking work! Yeah right!! tinytoonster
  • Score: 9

11:09am Wed 29 Jan 14

RollandSmoke says...

It seems a lot of people are complaining that they've got up at the crack of dawn and sat in rush hour traffic to do a job they hate which is suprising as I would have thought if they were working reading and commenting on stories in the T&A would not be in many job descriptions. Why do you do it you ask? Well there's only you that can answer that but I presume it's because you don't fancy struggling by on job seekers allowance which even with housing benefit and council tax benefit wouldn't take you to £10k let alone £26k. So I ask again why are the claimants that Davies has chosen for his political point scoring excersize getting these sums. If no-one can answer due to the fact that they don't know the circumstances I suggest they shut up especially if their name is Philip Davies.
It seems a lot of people are complaining that they've got up at the crack of dawn and sat in rush hour traffic to do a job they hate which is suprising as I would have thought if they were working reading and commenting on stories in the T&A would not be in many job descriptions. Why do you do it you ask? Well there's only you that can answer that but I presume it's because you don't fancy struggling by on job seekers allowance which even with housing benefit and council tax benefit wouldn't take you to £10k let alone £26k. So I ask again why are the claimants that Davies has chosen for his political point scoring excersize getting these sums. If no-one can answer due to the fact that they don't know the circumstances I suggest they shut up especially if their name is Philip Davies. RollandSmoke
  • Score: -20

11:12am Wed 29 Jan 14

RollandSmoke says...

tinytoonster wrote:
“While seeking to demonise people on benefits, the Government is giving a tax cut to millionaires and doing nothing to stop the scandal of bankers’ bonuses – the very people who got us into this mess in the first place.”

think you will find labour is the reason we are in this mess.
open door immigration policy, gold selling at a silly low price, benefits for all, thousands of made up jobs which crippled councils, paying union reps in councils.
need i go on?
time to punish people with large families, drop benefits for every child over a permitted amount.
say 3.
If they have large families will punishing them make their families smaller? Why do you want to "punish" people? Are you psychologically unbalanced? I have had my suspicions for some time.
[quote][p][bold]tinytoonster[/bold] wrote: “While seeking to demonise people on benefits, the Government is giving a tax cut to millionaires and doing nothing to stop the scandal of bankers’ bonuses – the very people who got us into this mess in the first place.” think you will find labour is the reason we are in this mess. open door immigration policy, gold selling at a silly low price, benefits for all, thousands of made up jobs which crippled councils, paying union reps in councils. need i go on? time to punish people with large families, drop benefits for every child over a permitted amount. say 3.[/p][/quote]If they have large families will punishing them make their families smaller? Why do you want to "punish" people? Are you psychologically unbalanced? I have had my suspicions for some time. RollandSmoke
  • Score: -21

11:25am Wed 29 Jan 14

Parz says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
tinytoonster wrote: “While seeking to demonise people on benefits, the Government is giving a tax cut to millionaires and doing nothing to stop the scandal of bankers’ bonuses – the very people who got us into this mess in the first place.” think you will find labour is the reason we are in this mess. open door immigration policy, gold selling at a silly low price, benefits for all, thousands of made up jobs which crippled councils, paying union reps in councils. need i go on? time to punish people with large families, drop benefits for every child over a permitted amount. say 3.
If they have large families will punishing them make their families smaller? Why do you want to "punish" people? Are you psychologically unbalanced? I have had my suspicions for some time.
Maybe not. But then the state should not be expected to pick up the tab for families having children they cannot afford to provide for. Benefits (in my opinion) should stop increasing beyond your first 2 children. If you have any more that's up to you, nobody can tell you not to. But finacially, you're on your own.
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tinytoonster[/bold] wrote: “While seeking to demonise people on benefits, the Government is giving a tax cut to millionaires and doing nothing to stop the scandal of bankers’ bonuses – the very people who got us into this mess in the first place.” think you will find labour is the reason we are in this mess. open door immigration policy, gold selling at a silly low price, benefits for all, thousands of made up jobs which crippled councils, paying union reps in councils. need i go on? time to punish people with large families, drop benefits for every child over a permitted amount. say 3.[/p][/quote]If they have large families will punishing them make their families smaller? Why do you want to "punish" people? Are you psychologically unbalanced? I have had my suspicions for some time.[/p][/quote]Maybe not. But then the state should not be expected to pick up the tab for families having children they cannot afford to provide for. Benefits (in my opinion) should stop increasing beyond your first 2 children. If you have any more that's up to you, nobody can tell you not to. But finacially, you're on your own. Parz
  • Score: 26

11:26am Wed 29 Jan 14

dellorri says...

So this cap hit 300 families in Bradford, has anyone got the slightest idea what a tiny percentage of the population that really is? As there is a population of 485,000 here according to the last census, if you half that figure as only one person in a household can make a claim assuming they are ALL families. the percentage works out at somewhere around .001% of the population. It's staggeringly low, yet here we are as usual, with people banging on about 50" plasma screens, beer swilling pot smoking drug taking layabouts, sitting on their fat @rses, while they're out hard at work all day daily mail moaners.
Tell you what people, there may be 300 families who go those amounts, But I bet the majority of it went to PRIVATE LANDLORDS, as rent, straight into their grubby little pockets. Why don't you complain about the exorbitant rents that they charge for ex-council houses, bought on the cheap and then let out at two or three times the rent of social housing. Especially when it was proven that Mrs. Thatchers son Mark and a consortium of 40 of her cabinet colleagues bought ex-council stock when it was sold off cheaply and still own it now.
More to the point, Why is it, you're all quick to point out, the VERY FEW (comparatively) cases where people do go over the benefit cap, But you never mention people who live on such a small amount of money they don't even exist, they SUBSIST, young single people on £53 a week, Which IDS said he could live on, and when a petiton signed by 430,000 people challenged him to do it, he seemed to be unaware of it, just like everything else. In fact you're all so gung ho about benefits, You live on £53 a week,
I don't just mean for food, I mean pay ALL your bills, pay for your transport, pay for your clothes, your home, your heating, everything. Then if you have got the guts to try it, the following week, imagine you've been sanctioned, and you've got NO MONEY to live on, What then eh?
Better still imagine you're a stroke victim, laid up in bed at home just having left hospital, while you were in hospital you received an ESA50 form from ATOS asking you attend an assessment for ESA, but of course you couldn't, so you phoned and told them, And in their usual efficient manner, they marked you down as "DID NOT ATTEND", All your benefits are immediately stopped, no ESA, no DLA nothing, So there you are, desperately ill, stuck in your bed, with no income, not only that, the minute your benefits stop, your housing benefit automatically stops, so you fall into rent arrears, possibly leading to eviction.
What did you do to deserve that? you became ill.......
Yes it can happen to anyone, and it happens to people EVERY DAY.
So this cap hit 300 families in Bradford, has anyone got the slightest idea what a tiny percentage of the population that really is? As there is a population of 485,000 here according to the last census, if you half that figure as only one person in a household can make a claim assuming they are ALL families. the percentage works out at somewhere around .001% of the population. It's staggeringly low, yet here we are as usual, with people banging on about 50" plasma screens, beer swilling pot smoking drug taking layabouts, sitting on their fat @rses, while they're out hard at work all day daily mail moaners. Tell you what people, there may be 300 families who go those amounts, But I bet the majority of it went to PRIVATE LANDLORDS, as rent, straight into their grubby little pockets. Why don't you complain about the exorbitant rents that they charge for ex-council houses, bought on the cheap and then let out at two or three times the rent of social housing. Especially when it was proven that Mrs. Thatchers son Mark and a consortium of 40 of her cabinet colleagues bought ex-council stock when it was sold off cheaply and still own it now. More to the point, Why is it, you're all quick to point out, the VERY FEW (comparatively) cases where people do go over the benefit cap, But you never mention people who live on such a small amount of money they don't even exist, they SUBSIST, young single people on £53 a week, Which IDS said he could live on, and when a petiton signed by 430,000 people challenged him to do it, he seemed to be unaware of it, just like everything else. In fact you're all so gung ho about benefits, You live on £53 a week, I don't just mean for food, I mean pay ALL your bills, pay for your transport, pay for your clothes, your home, your heating, everything. Then if you have got the guts to try it, the following week, imagine you've been sanctioned, and you've got NO MONEY to live on, What then eh? Better still imagine you're a stroke victim, laid up in bed at home just having left hospital, while you were in hospital you received an ESA50 form from ATOS asking you attend an assessment for ESA, but of course you couldn't, so you phoned and told them, And in their usual efficient manner, they marked you down as "DID NOT ATTEND", All your benefits are immediately stopped, no ESA, no DLA nothing, So there you are, desperately ill, stuck in your bed, with no income, not only that, the minute your benefits stop, your housing benefit automatically stops, so you fall into rent arrears, possibly leading to eviction. What did you do to deserve that? you became ill....... Yes it can happen to anyone, and it happens to people EVERY DAY. dellorri
  • Score: 10

11:29am Wed 29 Jan 14

dellorri says...

tinytoonster wrote:
ENTITLED.
the key word for any scrounger.
Benefits are meant to be a last resort not a lifestyle.
Lets see if the syrians we are giving "refuge" to claim benefits!
Supposed to be actively seeking work!
Yeah right!!
Listen TOONster, entitled in this sense means someone who is PAYING TAX AND NI for doing a FULL TIME JOB, READ THE POST before making your usual "SCROUNGER" comments.
[quote][p][bold]tinytoonster[/bold] wrote: ENTITLED. the key word for any scrounger. Benefits are meant to be a last resort not a lifestyle. Lets see if the syrians we are giving "refuge" to claim benefits! Supposed to be actively seeking work! Yeah right!![/p][/quote]Listen TOONster, entitled in this sense means someone who is PAYING TAX AND NI for doing a FULL TIME JOB, READ THE POST before making your usual "SCROUNGER" comments. dellorri
  • Score: -7

11:34am Wed 29 Jan 14

webshow says...

George Galloway - YOU GOT THIS WRONG!
People on benefits should not see this as their lifestyle.
It should be viewed as a temporary setback until they get employment.
Getting the same pay as people employed is a disincentive for them to work.
I wish the govt lowered the cap even more.
There are jobs out there, whether you like them or not but there are jobs.
As they used to say in the 80's "Get on your bike and work".
George Galloway - YOU GOT THIS WRONG! People on benefits should not see this as their lifestyle. It should be viewed as a temporary setback until they get employment. Getting the same pay as people employed is a disincentive for them to work. I wish the govt lowered the cap even more. There are jobs out there, whether you like them or not but there are jobs. As they used to say in the 80's "Get on your bike and work". webshow
  • Score: 19

11:36am Wed 29 Jan 14

RollandSmoke says...

Parz wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
tinytoonster wrote: “While seeking to demonise people on benefits, the Government is giving a tax cut to millionaires and doing nothing to stop the scandal of bankers’ bonuses – the very people who got us into this mess in the first place.” think you will find labour is the reason we are in this mess. open door immigration policy, gold selling at a silly low price, benefits for all, thousands of made up jobs which crippled councils, paying union reps in councils. need i go on? time to punish people with large families, drop benefits for every child over a permitted amount. say 3.
If they have large families will punishing them make their families smaller? Why do you want to "punish" people? Are you psychologically unbalanced? I have had my suspicions for some time.
Maybe not. But then the state should not be expected to pick up the tab for families having children they cannot afford to provide for. Benefits (in my opinion) should stop increasing beyond your first 2 children. If you have any more that's up to you, nobody can tell you not to. But finacially, you're on your own.
Here's a scenario for you. A man has a well paid job, four kids and rents a nice home in a leafy suberb. He looses his job. Does he start his quest to find a new job by taking a couple of the kids out the back and disposing of them or by packing up all his belongings to move home? He could be back in work in a month, six months or maybe it could take longer. Would loosing his home and stressing out over how to keep his children help or hinder his job search? If there were people crying out for employees I could understand the venom aimed at the benefit claimants but this is Bradford and the jobs are not there.
[quote][p][bold]Parz[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tinytoonster[/bold] wrote: “While seeking to demonise people on benefits, the Government is giving a tax cut to millionaires and doing nothing to stop the scandal of bankers’ bonuses – the very people who got us into this mess in the first place.” think you will find labour is the reason we are in this mess. open door immigration policy, gold selling at a silly low price, benefits for all, thousands of made up jobs which crippled councils, paying union reps in councils. need i go on? time to punish people with large families, drop benefits for every child over a permitted amount. say 3.[/p][/quote]If they have large families will punishing them make their families smaller? Why do you want to "punish" people? Are you psychologically unbalanced? I have had my suspicions for some time.[/p][/quote]Maybe not. But then the state should not be expected to pick up the tab for families having children they cannot afford to provide for. Benefits (in my opinion) should stop increasing beyond your first 2 children. If you have any more that's up to you, nobody can tell you not to. But finacially, you're on your own.[/p][/quote]Here's a scenario for you. A man has a well paid job, four kids and rents a nice home in a leafy suberb. He looses his job. Does he start his quest to find a new job by taking a couple of the kids out the back and disposing of them or by packing up all his belongings to move home? He could be back in work in a month, six months or maybe it could take longer. Would loosing his home and stressing out over how to keep his children help or hinder his job search? If there were people crying out for employees I could understand the venom aimed at the benefit claimants but this is Bradford and the jobs are not there. RollandSmoke
  • Score: -15

11:39am Wed 29 Jan 14

webshow says...

dellorri wrote:
So this cap hit 300 families in Bradford, has anyone got the slightest idea what a tiny percentage of the population that really is? As there is a population of 485,000 here according to the last census, if you half that figure as only one person in a household can make a claim assuming they are ALL families. the percentage works out at somewhere around .001% of the population. It's staggeringly low, yet here we are as usual, with people banging on about 50" plasma screens, beer swilling pot smoking drug taking layabouts, sitting on their fat @rses, while they're out hard at work all day daily mail moaners.
Tell you what people, there may be 300 families who go those amounts, But I bet the majority of it went to PRIVATE LANDLORDS, as rent, straight into their grubby little pockets. Why don't you complain about the exorbitant rents that they charge for ex-council houses, bought on the cheap and then let out at two or three times the rent of social housing. Especially when it was proven that Mrs. Thatchers son Mark and a consortium of 40 of her cabinet colleagues bought ex-council stock when it was sold off cheaply and still own it now.
More to the point, Why is it, you're all quick to point out, the VERY FEW (comparatively) cases where people do go over the benefit cap, But you never mention people who live on such a small amount of money they don't even exist, they SUBSIST, young single people on £53 a week, Which IDS said he could live on, and when a petiton signed by 430,000 people challenged him to do it, he seemed to be unaware of it, just like everything else. In fact you're all so gung ho about benefits, You live on £53 a week,
I don't just mean for food, I mean pay ALL your bills, pay for your transport, pay for your clothes, your home, your heating, everything. Then if you have got the guts to try it, the following week, imagine you've been sanctioned, and you've got NO MONEY to live on, What then eh?
Better still imagine you're a stroke victim, laid up in bed at home just having left hospital, while you were in hospital you received an ESA50 form from ATOS asking you attend an assessment for ESA, but of course you couldn't, so you phoned and told them, And in their usual efficient manner, they marked you down as "DID NOT ATTEND", All your benefits are immediately stopped, no ESA, no DLA nothing, So there you are, desperately ill, stuck in your bed, with no income, not only that, the minute your benefits stop, your housing benefit automatically stops, so you fall into rent arrears, possibly leading to eviction.
What did you do to deserve that? you became ill.......
Yes it can happen to anyone, and it happens to people EVERY DAY.
Single people living on £53 a week live a subsistence life. That amount realistically will only last you 2 days but most of these are also living with families where someone else is paying the bills. Would these people take food vouchers and vouchers for other essentials rather than cash? No I didn't think so. Look in the T & A or any other newspaper or job sites online there are jobs whether menial or not which pay a minimum wage. Even cleaners on a minimum wage part time will get more than £53 a week. So get a job.
[quote][p][bold]dellorri[/bold] wrote: So this cap hit 300 families in Bradford, has anyone got the slightest idea what a tiny percentage of the population that really is? As there is a population of 485,000 here according to the last census, if you half that figure as only one person in a household can make a claim assuming they are ALL families. the percentage works out at somewhere around .001% of the population. It's staggeringly low, yet here we are as usual, with people banging on about 50" plasma screens, beer swilling pot smoking drug taking layabouts, sitting on their fat @rses, while they're out hard at work all day daily mail moaners. Tell you what people, there may be 300 families who go those amounts, But I bet the majority of it went to PRIVATE LANDLORDS, as rent, straight into their grubby little pockets. Why don't you complain about the exorbitant rents that they charge for ex-council houses, bought on the cheap and then let out at two or three times the rent of social housing. Especially when it was proven that Mrs. Thatchers son Mark and a consortium of 40 of her cabinet colleagues bought ex-council stock when it was sold off cheaply and still own it now. More to the point, Why is it, you're all quick to point out, the VERY FEW (comparatively) cases where people do go over the benefit cap, But you never mention people who live on such a small amount of money they don't even exist, they SUBSIST, young single people on £53 a week, Which IDS said he could live on, and when a petiton signed by 430,000 people challenged him to do it, he seemed to be unaware of it, just like everything else. In fact you're all so gung ho about benefits, You live on £53 a week, I don't just mean for food, I mean pay ALL your bills, pay for your transport, pay for your clothes, your home, your heating, everything. Then if you have got the guts to try it, the following week, imagine you've been sanctioned, and you've got NO MONEY to live on, What then eh? Better still imagine you're a stroke victim, laid up in bed at home just having left hospital, while you were in hospital you received an ESA50 form from ATOS asking you attend an assessment for ESA, but of course you couldn't, so you phoned and told them, And in their usual efficient manner, they marked you down as "DID NOT ATTEND", All your benefits are immediately stopped, no ESA, no DLA nothing, So there you are, desperately ill, stuck in your bed, with no income, not only that, the minute your benefits stop, your housing benefit automatically stops, so you fall into rent arrears, possibly leading to eviction. What did you do to deserve that? you became ill....... Yes it can happen to anyone, and it happens to people EVERY DAY.[/p][/quote]Single people living on £53 a week live a subsistence life. That amount realistically will only last you 2 days but most of these are also living with families where someone else is paying the bills. Would these people take food vouchers and vouchers for other essentials rather than cash? No I didn't think so. Look in the T & A or any other newspaper or job sites online there are jobs whether menial or not which pay a minimum wage. Even cleaners on a minimum wage part time will get more than £53 a week. So get a job. webshow
  • Score: 9

11:44am Wed 29 Jan 14

Grumpygirl says...

Suppose we all stop running and rerunning the Daily Mail editorials and Tory hate-speak and look at the practicalities.

Almost by definition, people on benefits spend all of their income, so the first effect of cutting benefits on this scale will be to take millions out of the Bradford economy. We all suffer when this happens.

On the other hand, the extra money the Tories keep giving to millionaires doesn't end up being spent, it just gets salted away in some offshore tax haven. We all lose from this too.

The best way to make work pay is for the bosses to pay themselves less and pay the workers more.
Suppose we all stop running and rerunning the Daily Mail editorials and Tory hate-speak and look at the practicalities. Almost by definition, people on benefits spend all of their income, so the first effect of cutting benefits on this scale will be to take millions out of the Bradford economy. We all suffer when this happens. On the other hand, the extra money the Tories keep giving to millionaires doesn't end up being spent, it just gets salted away in some offshore tax haven. We all lose from this too. The best way to make work pay is for the bosses to pay themselves less and pay the workers more. Grumpygirl
  • Score: -4

11:47am Wed 29 Jan 14

allinittogether says...

"The best way to make work pay is for the bosses to pay themselves less and pay the workers more."

Hear bl00dy hear!!!
"The best way to make work pay is for the bosses to pay themselves less and pay the workers more." Hear bl00dy hear!!! allinittogether
  • Score: 2

11:59am Wed 29 Jan 14

dellorri says...

webshow wrote:
dellorri wrote:
So this cap hit 300 families in Bradford, has anyone got the slightest idea what a tiny percentage of the population that really is? As there is a population of 485,000 here according to the last census, if you half that figure as only one person in a household can make a claim assuming they are ALL families. the percentage works out at somewhere around .001% of the population. It's staggeringly low, yet here we are as usual, with people banging on about 50" plasma screens, beer swilling pot smoking drug taking layabouts, sitting on their fat @rses, while they're out hard at work all day daily mail moaners.
Tell you what people, there may be 300 families who go those amounts, But I bet the majority of it went to PRIVATE LANDLORDS, as rent, straight into their grubby little pockets. Why don't you complain about the exorbitant rents that they charge for ex-council houses, bought on the cheap and then let out at two or three times the rent of social housing. Especially when it was proven that Mrs. Thatchers son Mark and a consortium of 40 of her cabinet colleagues bought ex-council stock when it was sold off cheaply and still own it now.
More to the point, Why is it, you're all quick to point out, the VERY FEW (comparatively) cases where people do go over the benefit cap, But you never mention people who live on such a small amount of money they don't even exist, they SUBSIST, young single people on £53 a week, Which IDS said he could live on, and when a petiton signed by 430,000 people challenged him to do it, he seemed to be unaware of it, just like everything else. In fact you're all so gung ho about benefits, You live on £53 a week,
I don't just mean for food, I mean pay ALL your bills, pay for your transport, pay for your clothes, your home, your heating, everything. Then if you have got the guts to try it, the following week, imagine you've been sanctioned, and you've got NO MONEY to live on, What then eh?
Better still imagine you're a stroke victim, laid up in bed at home just having left hospital, while you were in hospital you received an ESA50 form from ATOS asking you attend an assessment for ESA, but of course you couldn't, so you phoned and told them, And in their usual efficient manner, they marked you down as "DID NOT ATTEND", All your benefits are immediately stopped, no ESA, no DLA nothing, So there you are, desperately ill, stuck in your bed, with no income, not only that, the minute your benefits stop, your housing benefit automatically stops, so you fall into rent arrears, possibly leading to eviction.
What did you do to deserve that? you became ill.......
Yes it can happen to anyone, and it happens to people EVERY DAY.
Single people living on £53 a week live a subsistence life. That amount realistically will only last you 2 days but most of these are also living with families where someone else is paying the bills. Would these people take food vouchers and vouchers for other essentials rather than cash? No I didn't think so. Look in the T & A or any other newspaper or job sites online there are jobs whether menial or not which pay a minimum wage. Even cleaners on a minimum wage part time will get more than £53 a week. So get a job.
Young persons under the age of 25 receive JSA of £53.80 per week, If they have their own place to live in they will receive the LHA rate of £69.95 per week towards their rent, this is the SHARED ROOM RATE and is payable to a single person UP UNTIL the age of 35. So IIf a single person has a bedsit or studio flat the cheapest that I've seen is around £75 a week, he/she has to make up the difference out of his/her JSA. the balance of their JSA is ALL they have to live on, they do NOT receive anything else.
Source: DWP.GOV.UK and BDMC housing benefit office rates and entitlement figures April 2013-2014.
[quote][p][bold]webshow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dellorri[/bold] wrote: So this cap hit 300 families in Bradford, has anyone got the slightest idea what a tiny percentage of the population that really is? As there is a population of 485,000 here according to the last census, if you half that figure as only one person in a household can make a claim assuming they are ALL families. the percentage works out at somewhere around .001% of the population. It's staggeringly low, yet here we are as usual, with people banging on about 50" plasma screens, beer swilling pot smoking drug taking layabouts, sitting on their fat @rses, while they're out hard at work all day daily mail moaners. Tell you what people, there may be 300 families who go those amounts, But I bet the majority of it went to PRIVATE LANDLORDS, as rent, straight into their grubby little pockets. Why don't you complain about the exorbitant rents that they charge for ex-council houses, bought on the cheap and then let out at two or three times the rent of social housing. Especially when it was proven that Mrs. Thatchers son Mark and a consortium of 40 of her cabinet colleagues bought ex-council stock when it was sold off cheaply and still own it now. More to the point, Why is it, you're all quick to point out, the VERY FEW (comparatively) cases where people do go over the benefit cap, But you never mention people who live on such a small amount of money they don't even exist, they SUBSIST, young single people on £53 a week, Which IDS said he could live on, and when a petiton signed by 430,000 people challenged him to do it, he seemed to be unaware of it, just like everything else. In fact you're all so gung ho about benefits, You live on £53 a week, I don't just mean for food, I mean pay ALL your bills, pay for your transport, pay for your clothes, your home, your heating, everything. Then if you have got the guts to try it, the following week, imagine you've been sanctioned, and you've got NO MONEY to live on, What then eh? Better still imagine you're a stroke victim, laid up in bed at home just having left hospital, while you were in hospital you received an ESA50 form from ATOS asking you attend an assessment for ESA, but of course you couldn't, so you phoned and told them, And in their usual efficient manner, they marked you down as "DID NOT ATTEND", All your benefits are immediately stopped, no ESA, no DLA nothing, So there you are, desperately ill, stuck in your bed, with no income, not only that, the minute your benefits stop, your housing benefit automatically stops, so you fall into rent arrears, possibly leading to eviction. What did you do to deserve that? you became ill....... Yes it can happen to anyone, and it happens to people EVERY DAY.[/p][/quote]Single people living on £53 a week live a subsistence life. That amount realistically will only last you 2 days but most of these are also living with families where someone else is paying the bills. Would these people take food vouchers and vouchers for other essentials rather than cash? No I didn't think so. Look in the T & A or any other newspaper or job sites online there are jobs whether menial or not which pay a minimum wage. Even cleaners on a minimum wage part time will get more than £53 a week. So get a job.[/p][/quote]Young persons under the age of 25 receive JSA of £53.80 per week, If they have their own place to live in they will receive the LHA rate of £69.95 per week towards their rent, this is the SHARED ROOM RATE and is payable to a single person UP UNTIL the age of 35. So IIf a single person has a bedsit or studio flat the cheapest that I've seen is around £75 a week, he/she has to make up the difference out of his/her JSA. the balance of their JSA is ALL they have to live on, they do NOT receive anything else. Source: DWP.GOV.UK and BDMC housing benefit office rates and entitlement figures April 2013-2014. dellorri
  • Score: 7

12:01pm Wed 29 Jan 14

SinnerSaint says...

The number of times Thatcher gets mentioned by some of you communists is incredible. She was last in power nearly 30 years ago and yet you lot are still soiling tissues while complaining about her. It's laughable.

There's a couple of big fat red reasons why the country is in the state it's in right now and they both begin with B.

Want something for nothing? You're a ****.

Want to live off the state your whole life? You're a scrounging ****.

Want to have loads of kids and then moan about how hard done by you are? You're a stupid ****.

Simple.
The number of times Thatcher gets mentioned by some of you communists is incredible. She was last in power nearly 30 years ago and yet you lot are still soiling tissues while complaining about her. It's laughable. There's a couple of big fat red reasons why the country is in the state it's in right now and they both begin with B. Want something for nothing? You're a ****. Want to live off the state your whole life? You're a scrounging ****. Want to have loads of kids and then moan about how hard done by you are? You're a stupid ****. Simple. SinnerSaint
  • Score: 19

12:04pm Wed 29 Jan 14

allinittogether says...

SinnerSaint wrote:
The number of times Thatcher gets mentioned by some of you communists is incredible. She was last in power nearly 30 years ago and yet you lot are still soiling tissues while complaining about her. It's laughable.

There's a couple of big fat red reasons why the country is in the state it's in right now and they both begin with B.

Want something for nothing? You're a ****.

Want to live off the state your whole life? You're a scrounging ****.

Want to have loads of kids and then moan about how hard done by you are? You're a stupid ****.

Simple.
Bankers & bonuses?
[quote][p][bold]SinnerSaint[/bold] wrote: The number of times Thatcher gets mentioned by some of you communists is incredible. She was last in power nearly 30 years ago and yet you lot are still soiling tissues while complaining about her. It's laughable. There's a couple of big fat red reasons why the country is in the state it's in right now and they both begin with B. Want something for nothing? You're a ****. Want to live off the state your whole life? You're a scrounging ****. Want to have loads of kids and then moan about how hard done by you are? You're a stupid ****. Simple.[/p][/quote]Bankers & bonuses? allinittogether
  • Score: 0

12:05pm Wed 29 Jan 14

dellorri says...

Oh and actually Webshow a lot of those young people no longer live with their families, because from October last year the government decided in it's wisdom, that they should be classed as NON_DEPENDENTS, and therefore if living in the parents home, then the parents would be charged as if the young person were paying them full rent.
But if they weren't living at home, I.E. leaving a bedroom empty, then a parent on housing benefit, would be penalised by the "spare room subsidy" penalty,
or if you prefer "the bedroom tax."
So you see, the government win, either way. Kind and compassionate aren't they?
Oh and actually Webshow a lot of those young people no longer live with their families, because from October last year the government decided in it's wisdom, that they should be classed as NON_DEPENDENTS, and therefore if living in the parents home, then the parents would be charged as if the young person were paying them full rent. But if they weren't living at home, I.E. leaving a bedroom empty, then a parent on housing benefit, would be penalised by the "spare room subsidy" penalty, or if you prefer "the bedroom tax." So you see, the government win, either way. Kind and compassionate aren't they? dellorri
  • Score: 2

12:05pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Parz says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
Parz wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
tinytoonster wrote: “While seeking to demonise people on benefits, the Government is giving a tax cut to millionaires and doing nothing to stop the scandal of bankers’ bonuses – the very people who got us into this mess in the first place.” think you will find labour is the reason we are in this mess. open door immigration policy, gold selling at a silly low price, benefits for all, thousands of made up jobs which crippled councils, paying union reps in councils. need i go on? time to punish people with large families, drop benefits for every child over a permitted amount. say 3.
If they have large families will punishing them make their families smaller? Why do you want to "punish" people? Are you psychologically unbalanced? I have had my suspicions for some time.
Maybe not. But then the state should not be expected to pick up the tab for families having children they cannot afford to provide for. Benefits (in my opinion) should stop increasing beyond your first 2 children. If you have any more that's up to you, nobody can tell you not to. But finacially, you're on your own.
Here's a scenario for you. A man has a well paid job, four kids and rents a nice home in a leafy suberb. He looses his job. Does he start his quest to find a new job by taking a couple of the kids out the back and disposing of them or by packing up all his belongings to move home? He could be back in work in a month, six months or maybe it could take longer. Would loosing his home and stressing out over how to keep his children help or hinder his job search? If there were people crying out for employees I could understand the venom aimed at the benefit claimants but this is Bradford and the jobs are not there.
No, of course not, don't be riduculous. And I'm not arguing that benefits shouldn't be there to support people in thier time of need, of course he should receive something. However, Mr Leafy Suburb (who if he's had a decent enough job that he's been able to afford his nice house in his nice area, you would hope he's enough financial sense to have money set aside incase of a "rainy day", but that another matter) has at some point, chosen to have 4 children, presumably because his decent job allowed him the finance to do so. Whilst his situation is unfortunate, the fact is he chose to have however many children, and it is now something he will have to deal with financially. It was up to him to consider when he was chosing to continue having children, the consequences should something like this happen and whether or not that was a risk he was willing to take. I'm not saying the state shouldn't support people in need, but if they have chosen to have however many children, they need to meet the state part way. The state should not be expected to cover the consequences of each individual's choices.

That's just my opinion anyway. I'm sure there'll be plenty who both agree and disagree.
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parz[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tinytoonster[/bold] wrote: “While seeking to demonise people on benefits, the Government is giving a tax cut to millionaires and doing nothing to stop the scandal of bankers’ bonuses – the very people who got us into this mess in the first place.” think you will find labour is the reason we are in this mess. open door immigration policy, gold selling at a silly low price, benefits for all, thousands of made up jobs which crippled councils, paying union reps in councils. need i go on? time to punish people with large families, drop benefits for every child over a permitted amount. say 3.[/p][/quote]If they have large families will punishing them make their families smaller? Why do you want to "punish" people? Are you psychologically unbalanced? I have had my suspicions for some time.[/p][/quote]Maybe not. But then the state should not be expected to pick up the tab for families having children they cannot afford to provide for. Benefits (in my opinion) should stop increasing beyond your first 2 children. If you have any more that's up to you, nobody can tell you not to. But finacially, you're on your own.[/p][/quote]Here's a scenario for you. A man has a well paid job, four kids and rents a nice home in a leafy suberb. He looses his job. Does he start his quest to find a new job by taking a couple of the kids out the back and disposing of them or by packing up all his belongings to move home? He could be back in work in a month, six months or maybe it could take longer. Would loosing his home and stressing out over how to keep his children help or hinder his job search? If there were people crying out for employees I could understand the venom aimed at the benefit claimants but this is Bradford and the jobs are not there.[/p][/quote]No, of course not, don't be riduculous. And I'm not arguing that benefits shouldn't be there to support people in thier time of need, of course he should receive something. However, Mr Leafy Suburb (who if he's had a decent enough job that he's been able to afford his nice house in his nice area, you would hope he's enough financial sense to have money set aside incase of a "rainy day", but that another matter) has at some point, chosen to have 4 children, presumably because his decent job allowed him the finance to do so. Whilst his situation is unfortunate, the fact is he chose to have however many children, and it is now something he will have to deal with financially. It was up to him to consider when he was chosing to continue having children, the consequences should something like this happen and whether or not that was a risk he was willing to take. I'm not saying the state shouldn't support people in need, but if they have chosen to have however many children, they need to meet the state part way. The state should not be expected to cover the consequences of each individual's choices. That's just my opinion anyway. I'm sure there'll be plenty who both agree and disagree. Parz
  • Score: 5

12:08pm Wed 29 Jan 14

SinnerSaint says...

allinittogether wrote:
SinnerSaint wrote:
The number of times Thatcher gets mentioned by some of you communists is incredible. She was last in power nearly 30 years ago and yet you lot are still soiling tissues while complaining about her. It's laughable.

There's a couple of big fat red reasons why the country is in the state it's in right now and they both begin with B.

Want something for nothing? You're a ****.

Want to live off the state your whole life? You're a scrounging ****.

Want to have loads of kids and then moan about how hard done by you are? You're a stupid ****.

Simple.
Bankers & bonuses?
Yes of course! The reasons why we have a large benefits dependency in this country is because of bankers and bonuses!

There was no poverty, disease, famine or war in the world before the banking crisis was there? What a godsend it was for the commies to blame for the world's ills.
[quote][p][bold]allinittogether[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SinnerSaint[/bold] wrote: The number of times Thatcher gets mentioned by some of you communists is incredible. She was last in power nearly 30 years ago and yet you lot are still soiling tissues while complaining about her. It's laughable. There's a couple of big fat red reasons why the country is in the state it's in right now and they both begin with B. Want something for nothing? You're a ****. Want to live off the state your whole life? You're a scrounging ****. Want to have loads of kids and then moan about how hard done by you are? You're a stupid ****. Simple.[/p][/quote]Bankers & bonuses?[/p][/quote]Yes of course! The reasons why we have a large benefits dependency in this country is because of bankers and bonuses! There was no poverty, disease, famine or war in the world before the banking crisis was there? What a godsend it was for the commies to blame for the world's ills. SinnerSaint
  • Score: 3

12:32pm Wed 29 Jan 14

allinittogether says...

SinnerSaint wrote:
allinittogether wrote:
SinnerSaint wrote:
The number of times Thatcher gets mentioned by some of you communists is incredible. She was last in power nearly 30 years ago and yet you lot are still soiling tissues while complaining about her. It's laughable.

There's a couple of big fat red reasons why the country is in the state it's in right now and they both begin with B.

Want something for nothing? You're a ****.

Want to live off the state your whole life? You're a scrounging ****.

Want to have loads of kids and then moan about how hard done by you are? You're a stupid ****.

Simple.
Bankers & bonuses?
Yes of course! The reasons why we have a large benefits dependency in this country is because of bankers and bonuses!

There was no poverty, disease, famine or war in the world before the banking crisis was there? What a godsend it was for the commies to blame for the world's ills.
I'm not blaming bankers and bonuses for poverty, disease, famine or war, though there is a very good case for doing so, I'm blaming them for a global financial crisis.
Wasn't the poor that caused it was it?
[quote][p][bold]SinnerSaint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]allinittogether[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SinnerSaint[/bold] wrote: The number of times Thatcher gets mentioned by some of you communists is incredible. She was last in power nearly 30 years ago and yet you lot are still soiling tissues while complaining about her. It's laughable. There's a couple of big fat red reasons why the country is in the state it's in right now and they both begin with B. Want something for nothing? You're a ****. Want to live off the state your whole life? You're a scrounging ****. Want to have loads of kids and then moan about how hard done by you are? You're a stupid ****. Simple.[/p][/quote]Bankers & bonuses?[/p][/quote]Yes of course! The reasons why we have a large benefits dependency in this country is because of bankers and bonuses! There was no poverty, disease, famine or war in the world before the banking crisis was there? What a godsend it was for the commies to blame for the world's ills.[/p][/quote]I'm not blaming bankers and bonuses for poverty, disease, famine or war, though there is a very good case for doing so, I'm blaming them for a global financial crisis. Wasn't the poor that caused it was it? allinittogether
  • Score: 1

12:34pm Wed 29 Jan 14

dellorri says...

SinnerSaint wrote:
allinittogether wrote:
SinnerSaint wrote:
The number of times Thatcher gets mentioned by some of you communists is incredible. She was last in power nearly 30 years ago and yet you lot are still soiling tissues while complaining about her. It's laughable.

There's a couple of big fat red reasons why the country is in the state it's in right now and they both begin with B.

Want something for nothing? You're a ****.

Want to live off the state your whole life? You're a scrounging ****.

Want to have loads of kids and then moan about how hard done by you are? You're a stupid ****.

Simple.
Bankers & bonuses?
Yes of course! The reasons why we have a large benefits dependency in this country is because of bankers and bonuses!

There was no poverty, disease, famine or war in the world before the banking crisis was there? What a godsend it was for the commies to blame for the world's ills.
Oh boy isn't this wonderful, here you are, complaining about people on benefits, and at the same time it seems, if not defending bankers, then certainly not blaming them for the part they played in this financial catastrophe we find ourselves in.
You are obviously very secure in your employment, or at least I hope you are,
To sit there and virtually say, you are happy with bankers bonuses.
Banks like RBS, which is 80% owned by THE PUBLIC, and reported yesterday to be over £8 BILLION in the red, Yet they STILL want to give their staff a 200% of salary BONUS?
Are you really happy about that? how much will you earn this year? Will you gat a bonus that size? For running up debts with other people's money. with your money? Are you happy about it?
Tell me how great the banks are, USING YOUR MONEY, running up debts with YOUR MONEY, paying out 200% of salary bonuses with YOUR MONEY.
How good are they again? Oh I forgot, it's just commies who complain about banks isn't it..................
........
[quote][p][bold]SinnerSaint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]allinittogether[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SinnerSaint[/bold] wrote: The number of times Thatcher gets mentioned by some of you communists is incredible. She was last in power nearly 30 years ago and yet you lot are still soiling tissues while complaining about her. It's laughable. There's a couple of big fat red reasons why the country is in the state it's in right now and they both begin with B. Want something for nothing? You're a ****. Want to live off the state your whole life? You're a scrounging ****. Want to have loads of kids and then moan about how hard done by you are? You're a stupid ****. Simple.[/p][/quote]Bankers & bonuses?[/p][/quote]Yes of course! The reasons why we have a large benefits dependency in this country is because of bankers and bonuses! There was no poverty, disease, famine or war in the world before the banking crisis was there? What a godsend it was for the commies to blame for the world's ills.[/p][/quote]Oh boy isn't this wonderful, here you are, complaining about people on benefits, and at the same time it seems, if not defending bankers, then certainly not blaming them for the part they played in this financial catastrophe we find ourselves in. You are obviously very secure in your employment, or at least I hope you are, To sit there and virtually say, you are happy with bankers bonuses. Banks like RBS, which is 80% owned by THE PUBLIC, and reported yesterday to be over £8 BILLION in the red, Yet they STILL want to give their staff a 200% of salary BONUS? Are you really happy about that? how much will you earn this year? Will you gat a bonus that size? For running up debts with other people's money. with your money? Are you happy about it? Tell me how great the banks are, USING YOUR MONEY, running up debts with YOUR MONEY, paying out 200% of salary bonuses with YOUR MONEY. How good are they again? Oh I forgot, it's just commies who complain about banks isn't it.................. ........ dellorri
  • Score: 1

12:35pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Andy2010 says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
Parz wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
tinytoonster wrote: “While seeking to demonise people on benefits, the Government is giving a tax cut to millionaires and doing nothing to stop the scandal of bankers’ bonuses – the very people who got us into this mess in the first place.” think you will find labour is the reason we are in this mess. open door immigration policy, gold selling at a silly low price, benefits for all, thousands of made up jobs which crippled councils, paying union reps in councils. need i go on? time to punish people with large families, drop benefits for every child over a permitted amount. say 3.
If they have large families will punishing them make their families smaller? Why do you want to "punish" people? Are you psychologically unbalanced? I have had my suspicions for some time.
Maybe not. But then the state should not be expected to pick up the tab for families having children they cannot afford to provide for. Benefits (in my opinion) should stop increasing beyond your first 2 children. If you have any more that's up to you, nobody can tell you not to. But finacially, you're on your own.
Here's a scenario for you. A man has a well paid job, four kids and rents a nice home in a leafy suberb. He looses his job. Does he start his quest to find a new job by taking a couple of the kids out the back and disposing of them or by packing up all his belongings to move home? He could be back in work in a month, six months or maybe it could take longer. Would loosing his home and stressing out over how to keep his children help or hinder his job search? If there were people crying out for employees I could understand the venom aimed at the benefit claimants but this is Bradford and the jobs are not there.
Reed have 4907 jobs in Bradford

http://www.reed.co.u
k/jobs?keywords=&job
titleonly=false&loca
tion=bradford&salary
From=&salaryTo=&perh
our=false

And Monster 1000 plus

http://jobsearch.mon
ster.co.uk/jobs/?cy=
uk&where=Bradford__2
C-Yorkshire

Thats just two sites and doesnt take Leeds into account

There are jobs is people can bothered going out and looking for them

I'll await your usual responses
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parz[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tinytoonster[/bold] wrote: “While seeking to demonise people on benefits, the Government is giving a tax cut to millionaires and doing nothing to stop the scandal of bankers’ bonuses – the very people who got us into this mess in the first place.” think you will find labour is the reason we are in this mess. open door immigration policy, gold selling at a silly low price, benefits for all, thousands of made up jobs which crippled councils, paying union reps in councils. need i go on? time to punish people with large families, drop benefits for every child over a permitted amount. say 3.[/p][/quote]If they have large families will punishing them make their families smaller? Why do you want to "punish" people? Are you psychologically unbalanced? I have had my suspicions for some time.[/p][/quote]Maybe not. But then the state should not be expected to pick up the tab for families having children they cannot afford to provide for. Benefits (in my opinion) should stop increasing beyond your first 2 children. If you have any more that's up to you, nobody can tell you not to. But finacially, you're on your own.[/p][/quote]Here's a scenario for you. A man has a well paid job, four kids and rents a nice home in a leafy suberb. He looses his job. Does he start his quest to find a new job by taking a couple of the kids out the back and disposing of them or by packing up all his belongings to move home? He could be back in work in a month, six months or maybe it could take longer. Would loosing his home and stressing out over how to keep his children help or hinder his job search? If there were people crying out for employees I could understand the venom aimed at the benefit claimants but this is Bradford and the jobs are not there.[/p][/quote]Reed have 4907 jobs in Bradford http://www.reed.co.u k/jobs?keywords=&job titleonly=false&loca tion=bradford&salary From=&salaryTo=&perh our=false And Monster 1000 plus http://jobsearch.mon ster.co.uk/jobs/?cy= uk&where=Bradford__2 C-Yorkshire Thats just two sites and doesnt take Leeds into account There are jobs is people can bothered going out and looking for them I'll await your usual responses Andy2010
  • Score: 3

12:38pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Andy2010 says...

Grumpygirl wrote:
Suppose we all stop running and rerunning the Daily Mail editorials and Tory hate-speak and look at the practicalities.

Almost by definition, people on benefits spend all of their income, so the first effect of cutting benefits on this scale will be to take millions out of the Bradford economy. We all suffer when this happens.

On the other hand, the extra money the Tories keep giving to millionaires doesn't end up being spent, it just gets salted away in some offshore tax haven. We all lose from this too.

The best way to make work pay is for the bosses to pay themselves less and pay the workers more.
What complete gibberish

The best way to way work pay is for people to get their heads down and work extremely hard. Sometimes 2 or 3 jobs might be required but with hard work and ambition they too can become the "overpaid bosses"
[quote][p][bold]Grumpygirl[/bold] wrote: Suppose we all stop running and rerunning the Daily Mail editorials and Tory hate-speak and look at the practicalities. Almost by definition, people on benefits spend all of their income, so the first effect of cutting benefits on this scale will be to take millions out of the Bradford economy. We all suffer when this happens. On the other hand, the extra money the Tories keep giving to millionaires doesn't end up being spent, it just gets salted away in some offshore tax haven. We all lose from this too. The best way to make work pay is for the bosses to pay themselves less and pay the workers more.[/p][/quote]What complete gibberish The best way to way work pay is for people to get their heads down and work extremely hard. Sometimes 2 or 3 jobs might be required but with hard work and ambition they too can become the "overpaid bosses" Andy2010
  • Score: 2

12:39pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Apollo says...

Working should always provide more financial incentive than any packages of benefits.

Otherwise why would anyone work? Oh! just remembered - millions in this country do not work vwho could and should. They rely on benefits paid for by the rest of us.

No more it seems and that is a good thing.

Choosing not to work should no longer be an acceptable lifestyle choice - if it ever was.
Working should always provide more financial incentive than any packages of benefits. Otherwise why would anyone work? Oh! just remembered - millions in this country do not work vwho could and should. They rely on benefits paid for by the rest of us. No more it seems and that is a good thing. Choosing not to work should no longer be an acceptable lifestyle choice - if it ever was. Apollo
  • Score: 14

12:45pm Wed 29 Jan 14

RollandSmoke says...

Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Parz wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
tinytoonster wrote: “While seeking to demonise people on benefits, the Government is giving a tax cut to millionaires and doing nothing to stop the scandal of bankers’ bonuses – the very people who got us into this mess in the first place.” think you will find labour is the reason we are in this mess. open door immigration policy, gold selling at a silly low price, benefits for all, thousands of made up jobs which crippled councils, paying union reps in councils. need i go on? time to punish people with large families, drop benefits for every child over a permitted amount. say 3.
If they have large families will punishing them make their families smaller? Why do you want to "punish" people? Are you psychologically unbalanced? I have had my suspicions for some time.
Maybe not. But then the state should not be expected to pick up the tab for families having children they cannot afford to provide for. Benefits (in my opinion) should stop increasing beyond your first 2 children. If you have any more that's up to you, nobody can tell you not to. But finacially, you're on your own.
Here's a scenario for you. A man has a well paid job, four kids and rents a nice home in a leafy suberb. He looses his job. Does he start his quest to find a new job by taking a couple of the kids out the back and disposing of them or by packing up all his belongings to move home? He could be back in work in a month, six months or maybe it could take longer. Would loosing his home and stressing out over how to keep his children help or hinder his job search? If there were people crying out for employees I could understand the venom aimed at the benefit claimants but this is Bradford and the jobs are not there.
Reed have 4907 jobs in Bradford

http://www.reed.co.u

k/jobs?keywords=&amp
;job
titleonly=false&
loca
tion=bradford&sa
lary
From=&salaryTo=&
amp;perh
our=false

And Monster 1000 plus

http://jobsearch.mon

ster.co.uk/jobs/?cy=

uk&where=Bradfor
d__2
C-Yorkshire

Thats just two sites and doesnt take Leeds into account

There are jobs is people can bothered going out and looking for them

I'll await your usual responses
So why have they got all these jobs on their books that haven't been filled despite the job seekers facing sanctions if they refuse them? Is it because the agencies in question are run by obnoxious parasites that expect people to sign off and sit waiting for phone calls to tell them when the work is available? How long are they expected to wait for this phone call with no money coming in to pay their bills? The agencies are scam artists.
[quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parz[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tinytoonster[/bold] wrote: “While seeking to demonise people on benefits, the Government is giving a tax cut to millionaires and doing nothing to stop the scandal of bankers’ bonuses – the very people who got us into this mess in the first place.” think you will find labour is the reason we are in this mess. open door immigration policy, gold selling at a silly low price, benefits for all, thousands of made up jobs which crippled councils, paying union reps in councils. need i go on? time to punish people with large families, drop benefits for every child over a permitted amount. say 3.[/p][/quote]If they have large families will punishing them make their families smaller? Why do you want to "punish" people? Are you psychologically unbalanced? I have had my suspicions for some time.[/p][/quote]Maybe not. But then the state should not be expected to pick up the tab for families having children they cannot afford to provide for. Benefits (in my opinion) should stop increasing beyond your first 2 children. If you have any more that's up to you, nobody can tell you not to. But finacially, you're on your own.[/p][/quote]Here's a scenario for you. A man has a well paid job, four kids and rents a nice home in a leafy suberb. He looses his job. Does he start his quest to find a new job by taking a couple of the kids out the back and disposing of them or by packing up all his belongings to move home? He could be back in work in a month, six months or maybe it could take longer. Would loosing his home and stressing out over how to keep his children help or hinder his job search? If there were people crying out for employees I could understand the venom aimed at the benefit claimants but this is Bradford and the jobs are not there.[/p][/quote]Reed have 4907 jobs in Bradford http://www.reed.co.u k/jobs?keywords=& ;job titleonly=false& loca tion=bradford&sa lary From=&salaryTo=& amp;perh our=false And Monster 1000 plus http://jobsearch.mon ster.co.uk/jobs/?cy= uk&where=Bradfor d__2 C-Yorkshire Thats just two sites and doesnt take Leeds into account There are jobs is people can bothered going out and looking for them I'll await your usual responses[/p][/quote]So why have they got all these jobs on their books that haven't been filled despite the job seekers facing sanctions if they refuse them? Is it because the agencies in question are run by obnoxious parasites that expect people to sign off and sit waiting for phone calls to tell them when the work is available? How long are they expected to wait for this phone call with no money coming in to pay their bills? The agencies are scam artists. RollandSmoke
  • Score: -3

12:48pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Andy2010 says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Parz wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
tinytoonster wrote: “While seeking to demonise people on benefits, the Government is giving a tax cut to millionaires and doing nothing to stop the scandal of bankers’ bonuses – the very people who got us into this mess in the first place.” think you will find labour is the reason we are in this mess. open door immigration policy, gold selling at a silly low price, benefits for all, thousands of made up jobs which crippled councils, paying union reps in councils. need i go on? time to punish people with large families, drop benefits for every child over a permitted amount. say 3.
If they have large families will punishing them make their families smaller? Why do you want to "punish" people? Are you psychologically unbalanced? I have had my suspicions for some time.
Maybe not. But then the state should not be expected to pick up the tab for families having children they cannot afford to provide for. Benefits (in my opinion) should stop increasing beyond your first 2 children. If you have any more that's up to you, nobody can tell you not to. But finacially, you're on your own.
Here's a scenario for you. A man has a well paid job, four kids and rents a nice home in a leafy suberb. He looses his job. Does he start his quest to find a new job by taking a couple of the kids out the back and disposing of them or by packing up all his belongings to move home? He could be back in work in a month, six months or maybe it could take longer. Would loosing his home and stressing out over how to keep his children help or hinder his job search? If there were people crying out for employees I could understand the venom aimed at the benefit claimants but this is Bradford and the jobs are not there.
Reed have 4907 jobs in Bradford

http://www.reed.co.u


k/jobs?keywords=&amp
;
;job
titleonly=false&

loca
tion=bradford&sa

lary
From=&salaryTo=&
amp;
amp;perh
our=false

And Monster 1000 plus

http://jobsearch.mon


ster.co.uk/jobs/?cy=


uk&where=Bradfor

d__2
C-Yorkshire

Thats just two sites and doesnt take Leeds into account

There are jobs is people can bothered going out and looking for them

I'll await your usual responses
So why have they got all these jobs on their books that haven't been filled despite the job seekers facing sanctions if they refuse them? Is it because the agencies in question are run by obnoxious parasites that expect people to sign off and sit waiting for phone calls to tell them when the work is available? How long are they expected to wait for this phone call with no money coming in to pay their bills? The agencies are scam artists.
And there ^^^ you have it

You are just talking about SOME and VERY few manual labour agencies there. And no you dont have to sign off until you start working.

They will make up about 0.05% of the job adverts on these sites.

I'll await your further excuses
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parz[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tinytoonster[/bold] wrote: “While seeking to demonise people on benefits, the Government is giving a tax cut to millionaires and doing nothing to stop the scandal of bankers’ bonuses – the very people who got us into this mess in the first place.” think you will find labour is the reason we are in this mess. open door immigration policy, gold selling at a silly low price, benefits for all, thousands of made up jobs which crippled councils, paying union reps in councils. need i go on? time to punish people with large families, drop benefits for every child over a permitted amount. say 3.[/p][/quote]If they have large families will punishing them make their families smaller? Why do you want to "punish" people? Are you psychologically unbalanced? I have had my suspicions for some time.[/p][/quote]Maybe not. But then the state should not be expected to pick up the tab for families having children they cannot afford to provide for. Benefits (in my opinion) should stop increasing beyond your first 2 children. If you have any more that's up to you, nobody can tell you not to. But finacially, you're on your own.[/p][/quote]Here's a scenario for you. A man has a well paid job, four kids and rents a nice home in a leafy suberb. He looses his job. Does he start his quest to find a new job by taking a couple of the kids out the back and disposing of them or by packing up all his belongings to move home? He could be back in work in a month, six months or maybe it could take longer. Would loosing his home and stressing out over how to keep his children help or hinder his job search? If there were people crying out for employees I could understand the venom aimed at the benefit claimants but this is Bradford and the jobs are not there.[/p][/quote]Reed have 4907 jobs in Bradford http://www.reed.co.u k/jobs?keywords=& ; ;job titleonly=false& loca tion=bradford&sa lary From=&salaryTo=& amp; amp;perh our=false And Monster 1000 plus http://jobsearch.mon ster.co.uk/jobs/?cy= uk&where=Bradfor d__2 C-Yorkshire Thats just two sites and doesnt take Leeds into account There are jobs is people can bothered going out and looking for them I'll await your usual responses[/p][/quote]So why have they got all these jobs on their books that haven't been filled despite the job seekers facing sanctions if they refuse them? Is it because the agencies in question are run by obnoxious parasites that expect people to sign off and sit waiting for phone calls to tell them when the work is available? How long are they expected to wait for this phone call with no money coming in to pay their bills? The agencies are scam artists.[/p][/quote]And there ^^^ you have it You are just talking about SOME and VERY few manual labour agencies there. And no you dont have to sign off until you start working. They will make up about 0.05% of the job adverts on these sites. I'll await your further excuses Andy2010
  • Score: 8

12:50pm Wed 29 Jan 14

RollandSmoke says...

Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Parz wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
tinytoonster wrote: “While seeking to demonise people on benefits, the Government is giving a tax cut to millionaires and doing nothing to stop the scandal of bankers’ bonuses – the very people who got us into this mess in the first place.” think you will find labour is the reason we are in this mess. open door immigration policy, gold selling at a silly low price, benefits for all, thousands of made up jobs which crippled councils, paying union reps in councils. need i go on? time to punish people with large families, drop benefits for every child over a permitted amount. say 3.
If they have large families will punishing them make their families smaller? Why do you want to "punish" people? Are you psychologically unbalanced? I have had my suspicions for some time.
Maybe not. But then the state should not be expected to pick up the tab for families having children they cannot afford to provide for. Benefits (in my opinion) should stop increasing beyond your first 2 children. If you have any more that's up to you, nobody can tell you not to. But finacially, you're on your own.
Here's a scenario for you. A man has a well paid job, four kids and rents a nice home in a leafy suberb. He looses his job. Does he start his quest to find a new job by taking a couple of the kids out the back and disposing of them or by packing up all his belongings to move home? He could be back in work in a month, six months or maybe it could take longer. Would loosing his home and stressing out over how to keep his children help or hinder his job search? If there were people crying out for employees I could understand the venom aimed at the benefit claimants but this is Bradford and the jobs are not there.
Reed have 4907 jobs in Bradford

http://www.reed.co.u



k/jobs?keywords=&amp
;
;
;job
titleonly=false&


loca
tion=bradford&sa


lary
From=&salaryTo=&
amp;
amp;
amp;perh
our=false

And Monster 1000 plus

http://jobsearch.mon



ster.co.uk/jobs/?cy=



uk&where=Bradfor


d__2
C-Yorkshire

Thats just two sites and doesnt take Leeds into account

There are jobs is people can bothered going out and looking for them

I'll await your usual responses
So why have they got all these jobs on their books that haven't been filled despite the job seekers facing sanctions if they refuse them? Is it because the agencies in question are run by obnoxious parasites that expect people to sign off and sit waiting for phone calls to tell them when the work is available? How long are they expected to wait for this phone call with no money coming in to pay their bills? The agencies are scam artists.
And there ^^^ you have it

You are just talking about SOME and VERY few manual labour agencies there. And no you dont have to sign off until you start working.

They will make up about 0.05% of the job adverts on these sites.

I'll await your further excuses
So why have they got all these jobs on their books that haven't been filled despite the job seekers facing sanctions if they refuse them? Answer the question for once.
[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]Parz[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tinytoonster[/bold] wrote: “While seeking to demonise people on benefits, the Government is giving a tax cut to millionaires and doing nothing to stop the scandal of bankers’ bonuses – the very people who got us into this mess in the first place.” think you will find labour is the reason we are in this mess. open door immigration policy, gold selling at a silly low price, benefits for all, thousands of made up jobs which crippled councils, paying union reps in councils. need i go on? time to punish people with large families, drop benefits for every child over a permitted amount. say 3.[/p][/quote]If they have large families will punishing them make their families smaller? Why do you want to "punish" people? Are you psychologically unbalanced? I have had my suspicions for some time.[/p][/quote]Maybe not. But then the state should not be expected to pick up the tab for families having children they cannot afford to provide for. Benefits (in my opinion) should stop increasing beyond your first 2 children. If you have any more that's up to you, nobody can tell you not to. But finacially, you're on your own.[/p][/quote]Here's a scenario for you. A man has a well paid job, four kids and rents a nice home in a leafy suberb. He looses his job. Does he start his quest to find a new job by taking a couple of the kids out the back and disposing of them or by packing up all his belongings to move home? He could be back in work in a month, six months or maybe it could take longer. Would loosing his home and stressing out over how to keep his children help or hinder his job search? If there were people crying out for employees I could understand the venom aimed at the benefit claimants but this is Bradford and the jobs are not there.[/p][/quote]Reed have 4907 jobs in Bradford http://www.reed.co.u k/jobs?keywords=& ; ; ;job titleonly=false& loca tion=bradford&sa lary From=&salaryTo=& amp; amp; amp;perh our=false And Monster 1000 plus http://jobsearch.mon ster.co.uk/jobs/?cy= uk&where=Bradfor d__2 C-Yorkshire Thats just two sites and doesnt take Leeds into account There are jobs is people can bothered going out and looking for them I'll await your usual responses[/p][/quote]So why have they got all these jobs on their books that haven't been filled despite the job seekers facing sanctions if they refuse them? Is it because the agencies in question are run by obnoxious parasites that expect people to sign off and sit waiting for phone calls to tell them when the work is available? How long are they expected to wait for this phone call with no money coming in to pay their bills? The agencies are scam artists.[/p][/quote]And there ^^^ you have it You are just talking about SOME and VERY few manual labour agencies there. And no you dont have to sign off until you start working. They will make up about 0.05% of the job adverts on these sites. I'll await your further excuses[/p][/quote]So why have they got all these jobs on their books that haven't been filled despite the job seekers facing sanctions if they refuse them? Answer the question for once. RollandSmoke
  • Score: -3

12:54pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Mixter says...

How about this for a radical idea.

We apparently have loads of overseas immigrant workers to do the jobs Brits wont do. The vast amount of the money they earn gets shipped home, making our economy poorer.

What about, and this will crack you up.....what about making benefits payable to those who will replace an overseas worker? Folk on benefits still need housing and health, so theres no extra drain there.

And if the government get involved in this, bosses cant dodge their responsibilities re 'elf 'n safety + minimum wage, like they can with immigrant workers.

Its a win-win situation. Benefit claimants seen to be doing something for their money, and less immigrants needed, to be a drain on services.

Obviously this wouldnt work right across the board, as the 'work' would have to be where the claimants lived (unless they were rehoused nearer - beggars cant be choosers and all that?). And there would be health issues affecting others.

But, the able-bodied - get them doing at least something. Starting with the ones who have been on JS almost since decimalisation.
How about this for a radical idea. We apparently have loads of overseas immigrant workers to do the jobs Brits wont do. The vast amount of the money they earn gets shipped home, making our economy poorer. What about, and this will crack you up.....what about making benefits payable to those who will replace an overseas worker? Folk on benefits still need housing and health, so theres no extra drain there. And if the government get involved in this, bosses cant dodge their responsibilities re 'elf 'n safety + minimum wage, like they can with immigrant workers. Its a win-win situation. Benefit claimants seen to be doing something for their money, and less immigrants needed, to be a drain on services. Obviously this wouldnt work right across the board, as the 'work' would have to be where the claimants lived (unless they were rehoused nearer - beggars cant be choosers and all that?). And there would be health issues affecting others. But, the able-bodied - get them doing at least something. Starting with the ones who have been on JS almost since decimalisation. Mixter
  • Score: 8

12:55pm Wed 29 Jan 14

bd7 helper says...

tinytoonster wrote:
ENTITLED.
the key word for any scrounger.
Benefits are meant to be a last resort not a lifestyle.
Lets see if the syrians we are giving "refuge" to claim benefits!
Supposed to be actively seeking work!
Yeah right!!
Free money grab it
[quote][p][bold]tinytoonster[/bold] wrote: ENTITLED. the key word for any scrounger. Benefits are meant to be a last resort not a lifestyle. Lets see if the syrians we are giving "refuge" to claim benefits! Supposed to be actively seeking work! Yeah right!![/p][/quote]Free money grab it bd7 helper
  • Score: -4

1:01pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Andy2010 says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Parz wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
tinytoonster wrote: “While seeking to demonise people on benefits, the Government is giving a tax cut to millionaires and doing nothing to stop the scandal of bankers’ bonuses – the very people who got us into this mess in the first place.” think you will find labour is the reason we are in this mess. open door immigration policy, gold selling at a silly low price, benefits for all, thousands of made up jobs which crippled councils, paying union reps in councils. need i go on? time to punish people with large families, drop benefits for every child over a permitted amount. say 3.
If they have large families will punishing them make their families smaller? Why do you want to "punish" people? Are you psychologically unbalanced? I have had my suspicions for some time.
Maybe not. But then the state should not be expected to pick up the tab for families having children they cannot afford to provide for. Benefits (in my opinion) should stop increasing beyond your first 2 children. If you have any more that's up to you, nobody can tell you not to. But finacially, you're on your own.
Here's a scenario for you. A man has a well paid job, four kids and rents a nice home in a leafy suberb. He looses his job. Does he start his quest to find a new job by taking a couple of the kids out the back and disposing of them or by packing up all his belongings to move home? He could be back in work in a month, six months or maybe it could take longer. Would loosing his home and stressing out over how to keep his children help or hinder his job search? If there were people crying out for employees I could understand the venom aimed at the benefit claimants but this is Bradford and the jobs are not there.
Reed have 4907 jobs in Bradford

http://www.reed.co.u




k/jobs?keywords=&amp
;
;
;
;job
titleonly=false&



loca
tion=bradford&sa



lary
From=&salaryTo=&
amp;
amp;
amp;
amp;perh
our=false

And Monster 1000 plus

http://jobsearch.mon




ster.co.uk/jobs/?cy=




uk&where=Bradfor



d__2
C-Yorkshire

Thats just two sites and doesnt take Leeds into account

There are jobs is people can bothered going out and looking for them

I'll await your usual responses
So why have they got all these jobs on their books that haven't been filled despite the job seekers facing sanctions if they refuse them? Is it because the agencies in question are run by obnoxious parasites that expect people to sign off and sit waiting for phone calls to tell them when the work is available? How long are they expected to wait for this phone call with no money coming in to pay their bills? The agencies are scam artists.
And there ^^^ you have it

You are just talking about SOME and VERY few manual labour agencies there. And no you dont have to sign off until you start working.

They will make up about 0.05% of the job adverts on these sites.

I'll await your further excuses
So why have they got all these jobs on their books that haven't been filled despite the job seekers facing sanctions if they refuse them? Answer the question for once.
Because they are AVAILABLE jobs that arent filled yet

Whats your point?

These jobs will get filled then new ones will appear.....as such is the case for....forever
[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]Parz[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tinytoonster[/bold] wrote: “While seeking to demonise people on benefits, the Government is giving a tax cut to millionaires and doing nothing to stop the scandal of bankers’ bonuses – the very people who got us into this mess in the first place.” think you will find labour is the reason we are in this mess. open door immigration policy, gold selling at a silly low price, benefits for all, thousands of made up jobs which crippled councils, paying union reps in councils. need i go on? time to punish people with large families, drop benefits for every child over a permitted amount. say 3.[/p][/quote]If they have large families will punishing them make their families smaller? Why do you want to "punish" people? Are you psychologically unbalanced? I have had my suspicions for some time.[/p][/quote]Maybe not. But then the state should not be expected to pick up the tab for families having children they cannot afford to provide for. Benefits (in my opinion) should stop increasing beyond your first 2 children. If you have any more that's up to you, nobody can tell you not to. But finacially, you're on your own.[/p][/quote]Here's a scenario for you. A man has a well paid job, four kids and rents a nice home in a leafy suberb. He looses his job. Does he start his quest to find a new job by taking a couple of the kids out the back and disposing of them or by packing up all his belongings to move home? He could be back in work in a month, six months or maybe it could take longer. Would loosing his home and stressing out over how to keep his children help or hinder his job search? If there were people crying out for employees I could understand the venom aimed at the benefit claimants but this is Bradford and the jobs are not there.[/p][/quote]Reed have 4907 jobs in Bradford http://www.reed.co.u k/jobs?keywords=& ; ; ; ;job titleonly=false& loca tion=bradford&sa lary From=&salaryTo=& amp; amp; amp; amp;perh our=false And Monster 1000 plus http://jobsearch.mon ster.co.uk/jobs/?cy= uk&where=Bradfor d__2 C-Yorkshire Thats just two sites and doesnt take Leeds into account There are jobs is people can bothered going out and looking for them I'll await your usual responses[/p][/quote]So why have they got all these jobs on their books that haven't been filled despite the job seekers facing sanctions if they refuse them? Is it because the agencies in question are run by obnoxious parasites that expect people to sign off and sit waiting for phone calls to tell them when the work is available? How long are they expected to wait for this phone call with no money coming in to pay their bills? The agencies are scam artists.[/p][/quote]And there ^^^ you have it You are just talking about SOME and VERY few manual labour agencies there. And no you dont have to sign off until you start working. They will make up about 0.05% of the job adverts on these sites. I'll await your further excuses[/p][/quote]So why have they got all these jobs on their books that haven't been filled despite the job seekers facing sanctions if they refuse them? Answer the question for once.[/p][/quote]Because they are AVAILABLE jobs that arent filled yet Whats your point? These jobs will get filled then new ones will appear.....as such is the case for....forever Andy2010
  • Score: 4

1:03pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Bacon Bantam says...

allinittogether wrote:
SinnerSaint wrote:
allinittogether wrote:
SinnerSaint wrote: The number of times Thatcher gets mentioned by some of you communists is incredible. She was last in power nearly 30 years ago and yet you lot are still soiling tissues while complaining about her. It's laughable. There's a couple of big fat red reasons why the country is in the state it's in right now and they both begin with B. Want something for nothing? You're a ****. Want to live off the state your whole life? You're a scrounging ****. Want to have loads of kids and then moan about how hard done by you are? You're a stupid ****. Simple.
Bankers & bonuses?
Yes of course! The reasons why we have a large benefits dependency in this country is because of bankers and bonuses! There was no poverty, disease, famine or war in the world before the banking crisis was there? What a godsend it was for the commies to blame for the world's ills.
I'm not blaming bankers and bonuses for poverty, disease, famine or war, though there is a very good case for doing so, I'm blaming them for a global financial crisis. Wasn't the poor that caused it was it?
Actually it was. They were borrowing more than they could afford. 110% mortgages, credit cards galore. When the penny dropped and they could make the repayments the market collapsed.
[quote][p][bold]allinittogether[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SinnerSaint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]allinittogether[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SinnerSaint[/bold] wrote: The number of times Thatcher gets mentioned by some of you communists is incredible. She was last in power nearly 30 years ago and yet you lot are still soiling tissues while complaining about her. It's laughable. There's a couple of big fat red reasons why the country is in the state it's in right now and they both begin with B. Want something for nothing? You're a ****. Want to live off the state your whole life? You're a scrounging ****. Want to have loads of kids and then moan about how hard done by you are? You're a stupid ****. Simple.[/p][/quote]Bankers & bonuses?[/p][/quote]Yes of course! The reasons why we have a large benefits dependency in this country is because of bankers and bonuses! There was no poverty, disease, famine or war in the world before the banking crisis was there? What a godsend it was for the commies to blame for the world's ills.[/p][/quote]I'm not blaming bankers and bonuses for poverty, disease, famine or war, though there is a very good case for doing so, I'm blaming them for a global financial crisis. Wasn't the poor that caused it was it?[/p][/quote]Actually it was. They were borrowing more than they could afford. 110% mortgages, credit cards galore. When the penny dropped and they could make the repayments the market collapsed. Bacon Bantam
  • Score: 6

1:05pm Wed 29 Jan 14

allinittogether says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Parz wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
tinytoonster wrote: “While seeking to demonise people on benefits, the Government is giving a tax cut to millionaires and doing nothing to stop the scandal of bankers’ bonuses – the very people who got us into this mess in the first place.” think you will find labour is the reason we are in this mess. open door immigration policy, gold selling at a silly low price, benefits for all, thousands of made up jobs which crippled councils, paying union reps in councils. need i go on? time to punish people with large families, drop benefits for every child over a permitted amount. say 3.
If they have large families will punishing them make their families smaller? Why do you want to "punish" people? Are you psychologically unbalanced? I have had my suspicions for some time.
Maybe not. But then the state should not be expected to pick up the tab for families having children they cannot afford to provide for. Benefits (in my opinion) should stop increasing beyond your first 2 children. If you have any more that's up to you, nobody can tell you not to. But finacially, you're on your own.
Here's a scenario for you. A man has a well paid job, four kids and rents a nice home in a leafy suberb. He looses his job. Does he start his quest to find a new job by taking a couple of the kids out the back and disposing of them or by packing up all his belongings to move home? He could be back in work in a month, six months or maybe it could take longer. Would loosing his home and stressing out over how to keep his children help or hinder his job search? If there were people crying out for employees I could understand the venom aimed at the benefit claimants but this is Bradford and the jobs are not there.
Reed have 4907 jobs in Bradford

http://www.reed.co.u


k/jobs?keywords=&amp
;
;job
titleonly=false&

loca
tion=bradford&sa

lary
From=&salaryTo=&
amp;
amp;perh
our=false

And Monster 1000 plus

http://jobsearch.mon


ster.co.uk/jobs/?cy=


uk&where=Bradfor

d__2
C-Yorkshire

Thats just two sites and doesnt take Leeds into account

There are jobs is people can bothered going out and looking for them

I'll await your usual responses
So why have they got all these jobs on their books that haven't been filled despite the job seekers facing sanctions if they refuse them? Is it because the agencies in question are run by obnoxious parasites that expect people to sign off and sit waiting for phone calls to tell them when the work is available? How long are they expected to wait for this phone call with no money coming in to pay their bills? The agencies are scam artists.
That's disingenuous Andy and you know it those "4907" jobs are aggregated from a number of other agencies sites so the "jobs" are counted multiple times.
A quick viewing also shows on page 1 to have 5 jobs in Bradford and 20 in others, Leeds, Huddersfield, Halifax.
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parz[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tinytoonster[/bold] wrote: “While seeking to demonise people on benefits, the Government is giving a tax cut to millionaires and doing nothing to stop the scandal of bankers’ bonuses – the very people who got us into this mess in the first place.” think you will find labour is the reason we are in this mess. open door immigration policy, gold selling at a silly low price, benefits for all, thousands of made up jobs which crippled councils, paying union reps in councils. need i go on? time to punish people with large families, drop benefits for every child over a permitted amount. say 3.[/p][/quote]If they have large families will punishing them make their families smaller? Why do you want to "punish" people? Are you psychologically unbalanced? I have had my suspicions for some time.[/p][/quote]Maybe not. But then the state should not be expected to pick up the tab for families having children they cannot afford to provide for. Benefits (in my opinion) should stop increasing beyond your first 2 children. If you have any more that's up to you, nobody can tell you not to. But finacially, you're on your own.[/p][/quote]Here's a scenario for you. A man has a well paid job, four kids and rents a nice home in a leafy suberb. He looses his job. Does he start his quest to find a new job by taking a couple of the kids out the back and disposing of them or by packing up all his belongings to move home? He could be back in work in a month, six months or maybe it could take longer. Would loosing his home and stressing out over how to keep his children help or hinder his job search? If there were people crying out for employees I could understand the venom aimed at the benefit claimants but this is Bradford and the jobs are not there.[/p][/quote]Reed have 4907 jobs in Bradford http://www.reed.co.u k/jobs?keywords=& ; ;job titleonly=false& loca tion=bradford&sa lary From=&salaryTo=& amp; amp;perh our=false And Monster 1000 plus http://jobsearch.mon ster.co.uk/jobs/?cy= uk&where=Bradfor d__2 C-Yorkshire Thats just two sites and doesnt take Leeds into account There are jobs is people can bothered going out and looking for them I'll await your usual responses[/p][/quote]So why have they got all these jobs on their books that haven't been filled despite the job seekers facing sanctions if they refuse them? Is it because the agencies in question are run by obnoxious parasites that expect people to sign off and sit waiting for phone calls to tell them when the work is available? How long are they expected to wait for this phone call with no money coming in to pay their bills? The agencies are scam artists.[/p][/quote]That's disingenuous Andy and you know it those "4907" jobs are aggregated from a number of other agencies sites so the "jobs" are counted multiple times. A quick viewing also shows on page 1 to have 5 jobs in Bradford and 20 in others, Leeds, Huddersfield, Halifax. allinittogether
  • Score: 5

1:09pm Wed 29 Jan 14

dellorri says...

Apollo wrote:
Working should always provide more financial incentive than any packages of benefits.

Otherwise why would anyone work? Oh! just remembered - millions in this country do not work vwho could and should. They rely on benefits paid for by the rest of us.

No more it seems and that is a good thing.

Choosing not to work should no longer be an acceptable lifestyle choice - if it ever was.
how many millions is that then Apollo, Because according to "Call me Dave" and his cohorts the figure is dropping daily, though I believe at the last count, it was officially 2.1 million, though this does not take into account, those on workfare, those currently sanctioned, those who are unemployed but not claiming (economically inactive). Which actually brings the figure nearer to 6.7 million. I also believe at the last count by the DWP there were officially 849,652 vacancies to be filled, so with that many out of work, and that amount of vacancies. Where does CHOICE come into the equation? Oh and if you think benefits is such and easy lifestyle CHOICE, why not go for it,
Become intentionally unemployed and you'll immediately be sanctioned for 26 weeks, i.e. NO BENEFITS, good choice eh? Choose to be on JSA, miss an advisor appointment by 5 minutes...........sa
nctioned for 4 weeks the first time, 13 weeks the second time, 3 years on a third time, good choice eh?
sick or disabled, too illl to work, no problem quick trip to ATOS and they will get you sorted, so you've got terminal cancer, but you're prognosis is that you will live for MORE THAN 7 MONTHS, "Sorry you'll have to go in the WRAG group" In the WRAG group you will be expected to attend work advisory meetings, go on non-time limited workfare up to 2 years, Should you fail in any of the tasks set for you during your time in WRAG, YOU WILL BE SANCTIONED. good choice eh?
The jobless, the sick, the disabled, are all suffering, Osbourne is saying he will cut the welfare bill by a firther £12 BILLION if they get back in.
Well who's he going it take it from? JSA counts for £3 billion, ESA for £3.9 billion, DLA/PIP for £13 billion housing benefit for £17 billion, the rest of the welfare budget aprroximately £37 billion is paid to pensioners.

In fact here's something to take a look at and think about, then consider benefits............
...

www.parasitestreet.c
o.uk
[quote][p][bold]Apollo[/bold] wrote: Working should always provide more financial incentive than any packages of benefits. Otherwise why would anyone work? Oh! just remembered - millions in this country do not work vwho could and should. They rely on benefits paid for by the rest of us. No more it seems and that is a good thing. Choosing not to work should no longer be an acceptable lifestyle choice - if it ever was.[/p][/quote]how many millions is that then Apollo, Because according to "Call me Dave" and his cohorts the figure is dropping daily, though I believe at the last count, it was officially 2.1 million, though this does not take into account, those on workfare, those currently sanctioned, those who are unemployed but not claiming (economically inactive). Which actually brings the figure nearer to 6.7 million. I also believe at the last count by the DWP there were officially 849,652 vacancies to be filled, so with that many out of work, and that amount of vacancies. Where does CHOICE come into the equation? Oh and if you think benefits is such and easy lifestyle CHOICE, why not go for it, Become intentionally unemployed and you'll immediately be sanctioned for 26 weeks, i.e. NO BENEFITS, good choice eh? Choose to be on JSA, miss an advisor appointment by 5 minutes...........sa nctioned for 4 weeks the first time, 13 weeks the second time, 3 years on a third time, good choice eh? sick or disabled, too illl to work, no problem quick trip to ATOS and they will get you sorted, so you've got terminal cancer, but you're prognosis is that you will live for MORE THAN 7 MONTHS, "Sorry you'll have to go in the WRAG group" In the WRAG group you will be expected to attend work advisory meetings, go on non-time limited workfare up to 2 years, Should you fail in any of the tasks set for you during your time in WRAG, YOU WILL BE SANCTIONED. good choice eh? The jobless, the sick, the disabled, are all suffering, Osbourne is saying he will cut the welfare bill by a firther £12 BILLION if they get back in. Well who's he going it take it from? JSA counts for £3 billion, ESA for £3.9 billion, DLA/PIP for £13 billion housing benefit for £17 billion, the rest of the welfare budget aprroximately £37 billion is paid to pensioners. In fact here's something to take a look at and think about, then consider benefits............ ... www.parasitestreet.c o.uk dellorri
  • Score: 2

1:11pm Wed 29 Jan 14

allinittogether says...

Bacon Bantam wrote:
allinittogether wrote:
SinnerSaint wrote:
allinittogether wrote:
SinnerSaint wrote: The number of times Thatcher gets mentioned by some of you communists is incredible. She was last in power nearly 30 years ago and yet you lot are still soiling tissues while complaining about her. It's laughable. There's a couple of big fat red reasons why the country is in the state it's in right now and they both begin with B. Want something for nothing? You're a ****. Want to live off the state your whole life? You're a scrounging ****. Want to have loads of kids and then moan about how hard done by you are? You're a stupid ****. Simple.
Bankers & bonuses?
Yes of course! The reasons why we have a large benefits dependency in this country is because of bankers and bonuses! There was no poverty, disease, famine or war in the world before the banking crisis was there? What a godsend it was for the commies to blame for the world's ills.
I'm not blaming bankers and bonuses for poverty, disease, famine or war, though there is a very good case for doing so, I'm blaming them for a global financial crisis. Wasn't the poor that caused it was it?
Actually it was. They were borrowing more than they could afford. 110% mortgages, credit cards galore. When the penny dropped and they could make the repayments the market collapsed.
But they could afford them otherwise financial services compliance regulations would have been breached. You're not suggesting mis-selling went on are you? Heaven forbid!
[quote][p][bold]Bacon Bantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]allinittogether[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SinnerSaint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]allinittogether[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SinnerSaint[/bold] wrote: The number of times Thatcher gets mentioned by some of you communists is incredible. She was last in power nearly 30 years ago and yet you lot are still soiling tissues while complaining about her. It's laughable. There's a couple of big fat red reasons why the country is in the state it's in right now and they both begin with B. Want something for nothing? You're a ****. Want to live off the state your whole life? You're a scrounging ****. Want to have loads of kids and then moan about how hard done by you are? You're a stupid ****. Simple.[/p][/quote]Bankers & bonuses?[/p][/quote]Yes of course! The reasons why we have a large benefits dependency in this country is because of bankers and bonuses! There was no poverty, disease, famine or war in the world before the banking crisis was there? What a godsend it was for the commies to blame for the world's ills.[/p][/quote]I'm not blaming bankers and bonuses for poverty, disease, famine or war, though there is a very good case for doing so, I'm blaming them for a global financial crisis. Wasn't the poor that caused it was it?[/p][/quote]Actually it was. They were borrowing more than they could afford. 110% mortgages, credit cards galore. When the penny dropped and they could make the repayments the market collapsed.[/p][/quote]But they could afford them otherwise financial services compliance regulations would have been breached. You're not suggesting mis-selling went on are you? Heaven forbid! allinittogether
  • Score: -1

1:12pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Andy2010 says...

allinittogether wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Parz wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
tinytoonster wrote: “While seeking to demonise people on benefits, the Government is giving a tax cut to millionaires and doing nothing to stop the scandal of bankers’ bonuses – the very people who got us into this mess in the first place.” think you will find labour is the reason we are in this mess. open door immigration policy, gold selling at a silly low price, benefits for all, thousands of made up jobs which crippled councils, paying union reps in councils. need i go on? time to punish people with large families, drop benefits for every child over a permitted amount. say 3.
If they have large families will punishing them make their families smaller? Why do you want to "punish" people? Are you psychologically unbalanced? I have had my suspicions for some time.
Maybe not. But then the state should not be expected to pick up the tab for families having children they cannot afford to provide for. Benefits (in my opinion) should stop increasing beyond your first 2 children. If you have any more that's up to you, nobody can tell you not to. But finacially, you're on your own.
Here's a scenario for you. A man has a well paid job, four kids and rents a nice home in a leafy suberb. He looses his job. Does he start his quest to find a new job by taking a couple of the kids out the back and disposing of them or by packing up all his belongings to move home? He could be back in work in a month, six months or maybe it could take longer. Would loosing his home and stressing out over how to keep his children help or hinder his job search? If there were people crying out for employees I could understand the venom aimed at the benefit claimants but this is Bradford and the jobs are not there.
Reed have 4907 jobs in Bradford

http://www.reed.co.u



k/jobs?keywords=&amp
;
;
;job
titleonly=false&


loca
tion=bradford&sa


lary
From=&salaryTo=&
amp;
amp;
amp;perh
our=false

And Monster 1000 plus

http://jobsearch.mon



ster.co.uk/jobs/?cy=



uk&where=Bradfor


d__2
C-Yorkshire

Thats just two sites and doesnt take Leeds into account

There are jobs is people can bothered going out and looking for them

I'll await your usual responses
So why have they got all these jobs on their books that haven't been filled despite the job seekers facing sanctions if they refuse them? Is it because the agencies in question are run by obnoxious parasites that expect people to sign off and sit waiting for phone calls to tell them when the work is available? How long are they expected to wait for this phone call with no money coming in to pay their bills? The agencies are scam artists.
That's disingenuous Andy and you know it those "4907" jobs are aggregated from a number of other agencies sites so the "jobs" are counted multiple times.
A quick viewing also shows on page 1 to have 5 jobs in Bradford and 20 in others, Leeds, Huddersfield, Halifax.
Can people not travel to work anymore?

My younger brother for example catches six buses a day to get to work from Bradford to the far side of Halifax for minimum wage
[quote][p][bold]allinittogether[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parz[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tinytoonster[/bold] wrote: “While seeking to demonise people on benefits, the Government is giving a tax cut to millionaires and doing nothing to stop the scandal of bankers’ bonuses – the very people who got us into this mess in the first place.” think you will find labour is the reason we are in this mess. open door immigration policy, gold selling at a silly low price, benefits for all, thousands of made up jobs which crippled councils, paying union reps in councils. need i go on? time to punish people with large families, drop benefits for every child over a permitted amount. say 3.[/p][/quote]If they have large families will punishing them make their families smaller? Why do you want to "punish" people? Are you psychologically unbalanced? I have had my suspicions for some time.[/p][/quote]Maybe not. But then the state should not be expected to pick up the tab for families having children they cannot afford to provide for. Benefits (in my opinion) should stop increasing beyond your first 2 children. If you have any more that's up to you, nobody can tell you not to. But finacially, you're on your own.[/p][/quote]Here's a scenario for you. A man has a well paid job, four kids and rents a nice home in a leafy suberb. He looses his job. Does he start his quest to find a new job by taking a couple of the kids out the back and disposing of them or by packing up all his belongings to move home? He could be back in work in a month, six months or maybe it could take longer. Would loosing his home and stressing out over how to keep his children help or hinder his job search? If there were people crying out for employees I could understand the venom aimed at the benefit claimants but this is Bradford and the jobs are not there.[/p][/quote]Reed have 4907 jobs in Bradford http://www.reed.co.u k/jobs?keywords=& ; ; ;job titleonly=false& loca tion=bradford&sa lary From=&salaryTo=& amp; amp; amp;perh our=false And Monster 1000 plus http://jobsearch.mon ster.co.uk/jobs/?cy= uk&where=Bradfor d__2 C-Yorkshire Thats just two sites and doesnt take Leeds into account There are jobs is people can bothered going out and looking for them I'll await your usual responses[/p][/quote]So why have they got all these jobs on their books that haven't been filled despite the job seekers facing sanctions if they refuse them? Is it because the agencies in question are run by obnoxious parasites that expect people to sign off and sit waiting for phone calls to tell them when the work is available? How long are they expected to wait for this phone call with no money coming in to pay their bills? The agencies are scam artists.[/p][/quote]That's disingenuous Andy and you know it those "4907" jobs are aggregated from a number of other agencies sites so the "jobs" are counted multiple times. A quick viewing also shows on page 1 to have 5 jobs in Bradford and 20 in others, Leeds, Huddersfield, Halifax.[/p][/quote]Can people not travel to work anymore? My younger brother for example catches six buses a day to get to work from Bradford to the far side of Halifax for minimum wage Andy2010
  • Score: 5

1:15pm Wed 29 Jan 14

dellorri says...

My apologies that link should read

www.parasite-street.
co.uk
My apologies that link should read www.parasite-street. co.uk dellorri
  • Score: 3

1:16pm Wed 29 Jan 14

RollandSmoke says...

Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Parz wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
tinytoonster wrote: “While seeking to demonise people on benefits, the Government is giving a tax cut to millionaires and doing nothing to stop the scandal of bankers’ bonuses – the very people who got us into this mess in the first place.” think you will find labour is the reason we are in this mess. open door immigration policy, gold selling at a silly low price, benefits for all, thousands of made up jobs which crippled councils, paying union reps in councils. need i go on? time to punish people with large families, drop benefits for every child over a permitted amount. say 3.
If they have large families will punishing them make their families smaller? Why do you want to "punish" people? Are you psychologically unbalanced? I have had my suspicions for some time.
Maybe not. But then the state should not be expected to pick up the tab for families having children they cannot afford to provide for. Benefits (in my opinion) should stop increasing beyond your first 2 children. If you have any more that's up to you, nobody can tell you not to. But finacially, you're on your own.
Here's a scenario for you. A man has a well paid job, four kids and rents a nice home in a leafy suberb. He looses his job. Does he start his quest to find a new job by taking a couple of the kids out the back and disposing of them or by packing up all his belongings to move home? He could be back in work in a month, six months or maybe it could take longer. Would loosing his home and stressing out over how to keep his children help or hinder his job search? If there were people crying out for employees I could understand the venom aimed at the benefit claimants but this is Bradford and the jobs are not there.
Reed have 4907 jobs in Bradford

http://www.reed.co.u





k/jobs?keywords=&amp
;
;
;
;
;job
titleonly=false&




loca
tion=bradford&sa




lary
From=&salaryTo=&
amp;
amp;
amp;
amp;
amp;perh
our=false

And Monster 1000 plus

http://jobsearch.mon





ster.co.uk/jobs/?cy=





uk&where=Bradfor




d__2
C-Yorkshire

Thats just two sites and doesnt take Leeds into account

There are jobs is people can bothered going out and looking for them

I'll await your usual responses
So why have they got all these jobs on their books that haven't been filled despite the job seekers facing sanctions if they refuse them? Is it because the agencies in question are run by obnoxious parasites that expect people to sign off and sit waiting for phone calls to tell them when the work is available? How long are they expected to wait for this phone call with no money coming in to pay their bills? The agencies are scam artists.
And there ^^^ you have it

You are just talking about SOME and VERY few manual labour agencies there. And no you dont have to sign off until you start working.

They will make up about 0.05% of the job adverts on these sites.

I'll await your further excuses
So why have they got all these jobs on their books that haven't been filled despite the job seekers facing sanctions if they refuse them? Answer the question for once.
Because they are AVAILABLE jobs that arent filled yet

Whats your point?

These jobs will get filled then new ones will appear.....as such is the case for....forever
My point is that it was recently reported that over 5000 people in Bradford have had sanctions placed on their benefits. If it is as easy as you claim to get a job why haven't they got one? Do you really believe they prefer trying to live on nothing? Or is it that with such a large pool of unemployed to chose from the agencies are cherry picking the very best and the people who are getting sanctioned wouldn't get a look in no matter how many jobs they applied for?
[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]Parz[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tinytoonster[/bold] wrote: “While seeking to demonise people on benefits, the Government is giving a tax cut to millionaires and doing nothing to stop the scandal of bankers’ bonuses – the very people who got us into this mess in the first place.” think you will find labour is the reason we are in this mess. open door immigration policy, gold selling at a silly low price, benefits for all, thousands of made up jobs which crippled councils, paying union reps in councils. need i go on? time to punish people with large families, drop benefits for every child over a permitted amount. say 3.[/p][/quote]If they have large families will punishing them make their families smaller? Why do you want to "punish" people? Are you psychologically unbalanced? I have had my suspicions for some time.[/p][/quote]Maybe not. But then the state should not be expected to pick up the tab for families having children they cannot afford to provide for. Benefits (in my opinion) should stop increasing beyond your first 2 children. If you have any more that's up to you, nobody can tell you not to. But finacially, you're on your own.[/p][/quote]Here's a scenario for you. A man has a well paid job, four kids and rents a nice home in a leafy suberb. He looses his job. Does he start his quest to find a new job by taking a couple of the kids out the back and disposing of them or by packing up all his belongings to move home? He could be back in work in a month, six months or maybe it could take longer. Would loosing his home and stressing out over how to keep his children help or hinder his job search? If there were people crying out for employees I could understand the venom aimed at the benefit claimants but this is Bradford and the jobs are not there.[/p][/quote]Reed have 4907 jobs in Bradford http://www.reed.co.u k/jobs?keywords=& ; ; ; ; ;job titleonly=false& loca tion=bradford&sa lary From=&salaryTo=& amp; amp; amp; amp; amp;perh our=false And Monster 1000 plus http://jobsearch.mon ster.co.uk/jobs/?cy= uk&where=Bradfor d__2 C-Yorkshire Thats just two sites and doesnt take Leeds into account There are jobs is people can bothered going out and looking for them I'll await your usual responses[/p][/quote]So why have they got all these jobs on their books that haven't been filled despite the job seekers facing sanctions if they refuse them? Is it because the agencies in question are run by obnoxious parasites that expect people to sign off and sit waiting for phone calls to tell them when the work is available? How long are they expected to wait for this phone call with no money coming in to pay their bills? The agencies are scam artists.[/p][/quote]And there ^^^ you have it You are just talking about SOME and VERY few manual labour agencies there. And no you dont have to sign off until you start working. They will make up about 0.05% of the job adverts on these sites. I'll await your further excuses[/p][/quote]So why have they got all these jobs on their books that haven't been filled despite the job seekers facing sanctions if they refuse them? Answer the question for once.[/p][/quote]Because they are AVAILABLE jobs that arent filled yet Whats your point? These jobs will get filled then new ones will appear.....as such is the case for....forever[/p][/quote]My point is that it was recently reported that over 5000 people in Bradford have had sanctions placed on their benefits. If it is as easy as you claim to get a job why haven't they got one? Do you really believe they prefer trying to live on nothing? Or is it that with such a large pool of unemployed to chose from the agencies are cherry picking the very best and the people who are getting sanctioned wouldn't get a look in no matter how many jobs they applied for? RollandSmoke
  • Score: 0

1:16pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Andy2010 says...

allinittogether wrote:
Bacon Bantam wrote:
allinittogether wrote:
SinnerSaint wrote:
allinittogether wrote:
SinnerSaint wrote: The number of times Thatcher gets mentioned by some of you communists is incredible. She was last in power nearly 30 years ago and yet you lot are still soiling tissues while complaining about her. It's laughable. There's a couple of big fat red reasons why the country is in the state it's in right now and they both begin with B. Want something for nothing? You're a ****. Want to live off the state your whole life? You're a scrounging ****. Want to have loads of kids and then moan about how hard done by you are? You're a stupid ****. Simple.
Bankers & bonuses?
Yes of course! The reasons why we have a large benefits dependency in this country is because of bankers and bonuses! There was no poverty, disease, famine or war in the world before the banking crisis was there? What a godsend it was for the commies to blame for the world's ills.
I'm not blaming bankers and bonuses for poverty, disease, famine or war, though there is a very good case for doing so, I'm blaming them for a global financial crisis. Wasn't the poor that caused it was it?
Actually it was. They were borrowing more than they could afford. 110% mortgages, credit cards galore. When the penny dropped and they could make the repayments the market collapsed.
But they could afford them otherwise financial services compliance regulations would have been breached. You're not suggesting mis-selling went on are you? Heaven forbid!
No he/ she is suggesting people take some responsibility for their own actions. Blame the banks all you want but what happened to people actually sitting and thinking "you know what I cant afford this 120% mortgage" or factoring in what will happen if they lost their job etc or had a change of circumstances.

Its like people blaming companies like Wonga. They dont force loans into people's banks. Its up to the individual to ascertain they can afford it and pay back monies when due. If you cant then dont borrow it
[quote][p][bold]allinittogether[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bacon Bantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]allinittogether[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SinnerSaint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]allinittogether[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SinnerSaint[/bold] wrote: The number of times Thatcher gets mentioned by some of you communists is incredible. She was last in power nearly 30 years ago and yet you lot are still soiling tissues while complaining about her. It's laughable. There's a couple of big fat red reasons why the country is in the state it's in right now and they both begin with B. Want something for nothing? You're a ****. Want to live off the state your whole life? You're a scrounging ****. Want to have loads of kids and then moan about how hard done by you are? You're a stupid ****. Simple.[/p][/quote]Bankers & bonuses?[/p][/quote]Yes of course! The reasons why we have a large benefits dependency in this country is because of bankers and bonuses! There was no poverty, disease, famine or war in the world before the banking crisis was there? What a godsend it was for the commies to blame for the world's ills.[/p][/quote]I'm not blaming bankers and bonuses for poverty, disease, famine or war, though there is a very good case for doing so, I'm blaming them for a global financial crisis. Wasn't the poor that caused it was it?[/p][/quote]Actually it was. They were borrowing more than they could afford. 110% mortgages, credit cards galore. When the penny dropped and they could make the repayments the market collapsed.[/p][/quote]But they could afford them otherwise financial services compliance regulations would have been breached. You're not suggesting mis-selling went on are you? Heaven forbid![/p][/quote]No he/ she is suggesting people take some responsibility for their own actions. Blame the banks all you want but what happened to people actually sitting and thinking "you know what I cant afford this 120% mortgage" or factoring in what will happen if they lost their job etc or had a change of circumstances. Its like people blaming companies like Wonga. They dont force loans into people's banks. Its up to the individual to ascertain they can afford it and pay back monies when due. If you cant then dont borrow it Andy2010
  • Score: 6

1:18pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Andy2010 says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Parz wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
tinytoonster wrote: “While seeking to demonise people on benefits, the Government is giving a tax cut to millionaires and doing nothing to stop the scandal of bankers’ bonuses – the very people who got us into this mess in the first place.” think you will find labour is the reason we are in this mess. open door immigration policy, gold selling at a silly low price, benefits for all, thousands of made up jobs which crippled councils, paying union reps in councils. need i go on? time to punish people with large families, drop benefits for every child over a permitted amount. say 3.
If they have large families will punishing them make their families smaller? Why do you want to "punish" people? Are you psychologically unbalanced? I have had my suspicions for some time.
Maybe not. But then the state should not be expected to pick up the tab for families having children they cannot afford to provide for. Benefits (in my opinion) should stop increasing beyond your first 2 children. If you have any more that's up to you, nobody can tell you not to. But finacially, you're on your own.
Here's a scenario for you. A man has a well paid job, four kids and rents a nice home in a leafy suberb. He looses his job. Does he start his quest to find a new job by taking a couple of the kids out the back and disposing of them or by packing up all his belongings to move home? He could be back in work in a month, six months or maybe it could take longer. Would loosing his home and stressing out over how to keep his children help or hinder his job search? If there were people crying out for employees I could understand the venom aimed at the benefit claimants but this is Bradford and the jobs are not there.
Reed have 4907 jobs in Bradford

http://www.reed.co.u






k/jobs?keywords=&amp
;
;
;
;
;
;job
titleonly=false&





loca
tion=bradford&sa





lary
From=&salaryTo=&
amp;
amp;
amp;
amp;
amp;
amp;perh
our=false

And Monster 1000 plus

http://jobsearch.mon






ster.co.uk/jobs/?cy=






uk&where=Bradfor





d__2
C-Yorkshire

Thats just two sites and doesnt take Leeds into account

There are jobs is people can bothered going out and looking for them

I'll await your usual responses
So why have they got all these jobs on their books that haven't been filled despite the job seekers facing sanctions if they refuse them? Is it because the agencies in question are run by obnoxious parasites that expect people to sign off and sit waiting for phone calls to tell them when the work is available? How long are they expected to wait for this phone call with no money coming in to pay their bills? The agencies are scam artists.
And there ^^^ you have it

You are just talking about SOME and VERY few manual labour agencies there. And no you dont have to sign off until you start working.

They will make up about 0.05% of the job adverts on these sites.

I'll await your further excuses
So why have they got all these jobs on their books that haven't been filled despite the job seekers facing sanctions if they refuse them? Answer the question for once.
Because they are AVAILABLE jobs that arent filled yet

Whats your point?

These jobs will get filled then new ones will appear.....as such is the case for....forever
My point is that it was recently reported that over 5000 people in Bradford have had sanctions placed on their benefits. If it is as easy as you claim to get a job why haven't they got one? Do you really believe they prefer trying to live on nothing? Or is it that with such a large pool of unemployed to chose from the agencies are cherry picking the very best and the people who are getting sanctioned wouldn't get a look in no matter how many jobs they applied for?
No its about 5000 people who cant be bothered. I know quite a few of these layabouts myself and no amount of sanctions apart from taking absolutely everything away from them will force them to get a job.

I'm not claiming getting a job is easy. It never has been but there are plenty out for people if they are prepared to put in the work to land them
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parz[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tinytoonster[/bold] wrote: “While seeking to demonise people on benefits, the Government is giving a tax cut to millionaires and doing nothing to stop the scandal of bankers’ bonuses – the very people who got us into this mess in the first place.” think you will find labour is the reason we are in this mess. open door immigration policy, gold selling at a silly low price, benefits for all, thousands of made up jobs which crippled councils, paying union reps in councils. need i go on? time to punish people with large families, drop benefits for every child over a permitted amount. say 3.[/p][/quote]If they have large families will punishing them make their families smaller? Why do you want to "punish" people? Are you psychologically unbalanced? I have had my suspicions for some time.[/p][/quote]Maybe not. But then the state should not be expected to pick up the tab for families having children they cannot afford to provide for. Benefits (in my opinion) should stop increasing beyond your first 2 children. If you have any more that's up to you, nobody can tell you not to. But finacially, you're on your own.[/p][/quote]Here's a scenario for you. A man has a well paid job, four kids and rents a nice home in a leafy suberb. He looses his job. Does he start his quest to find a new job by taking a couple of the kids out the back and disposing of them or by packing up all his belongings to move home? He could be back in work in a month, six months or maybe it could take longer. Would loosing his home and stressing out over how to keep his children help or hinder his job search? If there were people crying out for employees I could understand the venom aimed at the benefit claimants but this is Bradford and the jobs are not there.[/p][/quote]Reed have 4907 jobs in Bradford http://www.reed.co.u k/jobs?keywords=& ; ; ; ; ; ;job titleonly=false& loca tion=bradford&sa lary From=&salaryTo=& amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp;perh our=false And Monster 1000 plus http://jobsearch.mon ster.co.uk/jobs/?cy= uk&where=Bradfor d__2 C-Yorkshire Thats just two sites and doesnt take Leeds into account There are jobs is people can bothered going out and looking for them I'll await your usual responses[/p][/quote]So why have they got all these jobs on their books that haven't been filled despite the job seekers facing sanctions if they refuse them? Is it because the agencies in question are run by obnoxious parasites that expect people to sign off and sit waiting for phone calls to tell them when the work is available? How long are they expected to wait for this phone call with no money coming in to pay their bills? The agencies are scam artists.[/p][/quote]And there ^^^ you have it You are just talking about SOME and VERY few manual labour agencies there. And no you dont have to sign off until you start working. They will make up about 0.05% of the job adverts on these sites. I'll await your further excuses[/p][/quote]So why have they got all these jobs on their books that haven't been filled despite the job seekers facing sanctions if they refuse them? Answer the question for once.[/p][/quote]Because they are AVAILABLE jobs that arent filled yet Whats your point? These jobs will get filled then new ones will appear.....as such is the case for....forever[/p][/quote]My point is that it was recently reported that over 5000 people in Bradford have had sanctions placed on their benefits. If it is as easy as you claim to get a job why haven't they got one? Do you really believe they prefer trying to live on nothing? Or is it that with such a large pool of unemployed to chose from the agencies are cherry picking the very best and the people who are getting sanctioned wouldn't get a look in no matter how many jobs they applied for?[/p][/quote]No its about 5000 people who cant be bothered. I know quite a few of these layabouts myself and no amount of sanctions apart from taking absolutely everything away from them will force them to get a job. I'm not claiming getting a job is easy. It never has been but there are plenty out for people if they are prepared to put in the work to land them Andy2010
  • Score: 3

1:19pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Steve30d says...

tyker2 wrote:
child benefit should be stopped altogether. It was brought in after the war to assist in re population. We are now over populated and people should take responsibility for their own children.

This though should be eased in by saying all existing child benefit stays but for all new births after 05.04. 2015 no child benefit will be paid. With each passing the year the total paid out in child benefits will be reduced saving the country millions, maybe billions.
Like free milk, the idea was brought in to ensure children ate properly, to reduce burden of ill health on the country. Lot of it was due to research started in the aftermath of the Napelonic wars, reitterated by the need for Bantom regiments in WW1 and then finally something actually was done after WW2.
Also until end of 76 family allowance(old name for child benefit) wasn't payable for 1st child.
[quote][p][bold]tyker2[/bold] wrote: child benefit should be stopped altogether. It was brought in after the war to assist in re population. We are now over populated and people should take responsibility for their own children. This though should be eased in by saying all existing child benefit stays but for all new births after 05.04. 2015 no child benefit will be paid. With each passing the year the total paid out in child benefits will be reduced saving the country millions, maybe billions.[/p][/quote]Like free milk, the idea was brought in to ensure children ate properly, to reduce burden of ill health on the country. Lot of it was due to research started in the aftermath of the Napelonic wars, reitterated by the need for Bantom regiments in WW1 and then finally something actually was done after WW2. Also until end of 76 family allowance(old name for child benefit) wasn't payable for 1st child. Steve30d
  • Score: 6

1:19pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Victor Clayton says...

Andy2010 wrote:
allinittogether wrote:
Bacon Bantam wrote:
allinittogether wrote:
SinnerSaint wrote:
allinittogether wrote:
SinnerSaint wrote: The number of times Thatcher gets mentioned by some of you communists is incredible. She was last in power nearly 30 years ago and yet you lot are still soiling tissues while complaining about her. It's laughable. There's a couple of big fat red reasons why the country is in the state it's in right now and they both begin with B. Want something for nothing? You're a ****. Want to live off the state your whole life? You're a scrounging ****. Want to have loads of kids and then moan about how hard done by you are? You're a stupid ****. Simple.
Bankers & bonuses?
Yes of course! The reasons why we have a large benefits dependency in this country is because of bankers and bonuses! There was no poverty, disease, famine or war in the world before the banking crisis was there? What a godsend it was for the commies to blame for the world's ills.
I'm not blaming bankers and bonuses for poverty, disease, famine or war, though there is a very good case for doing so, I'm blaming them for a global financial crisis. Wasn't the poor that caused it was it?
Actually it was. They were borrowing more than they could afford. 110% mortgages, credit cards galore. When the penny dropped and they could make the repayments the market collapsed.
But they could afford them otherwise financial services compliance regulations would have been breached. You're not suggesting mis-selling went on are you? Heaven forbid!
No he/ she is suggesting people take some responsibility for their own actions. Blame the banks all you want but what happened to people actually sitting and thinking "you know what I cant afford this 120% mortgage" or factoring in what will happen if they lost their job etc or had a change of circumstances. Its like people blaming companies like Wonga. They dont force loans into people's banks. Its up to the individual to ascertain they can afford it and pay back monies when due. If you cant then dont borrow it
we are at a point where the state is seen as responsible for everything. food, shelter, enducation, health etc. and the individual nothing. don't vote labour is all i can say.
[quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]allinittogether[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bacon Bantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]allinittogether[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SinnerSaint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]allinittogether[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SinnerSaint[/bold] wrote: The number of times Thatcher gets mentioned by some of you communists is incredible. She was last in power nearly 30 years ago and yet you lot are still soiling tissues while complaining about her. It's laughable. There's a couple of big fat red reasons why the country is in the state it's in right now and they both begin with B. Want something for nothing? You're a ****. Want to live off the state your whole life? You're a scrounging ****. Want to have loads of kids and then moan about how hard done by you are? You're a stupid ****. Simple.[/p][/quote]Bankers & bonuses?[/p][/quote]Yes of course! The reasons why we have a large benefits dependency in this country is because of bankers and bonuses! There was no poverty, disease, famine or war in the world before the banking crisis was there? What a godsend it was for the commies to blame for the world's ills.[/p][/quote]I'm not blaming bankers and bonuses for poverty, disease, famine or war, though there is a very good case for doing so, I'm blaming them for a global financial crisis. Wasn't the poor that caused it was it?[/p][/quote]Actually it was. They were borrowing more than they could afford. 110% mortgages, credit cards galore. When the penny dropped and they could make the repayments the market collapsed.[/p][/quote]But they could afford them otherwise financial services compliance regulations would have been breached. You're not suggesting mis-selling went on are you? Heaven forbid![/p][/quote]No he/ she is suggesting people take some responsibility for their own actions. Blame the banks all you want but what happened to people actually sitting and thinking "you know what I cant afford this 120% mortgage" or factoring in what will happen if they lost their job etc or had a change of circumstances. Its like people blaming companies like Wonga. They dont force loans into people's banks. Its up to the individual to ascertain they can afford it and pay back monies when due. If you cant then dont borrow it[/p][/quote]we are at a point where the state is seen as responsible for everything. food, shelter, enducation, health etc. and the individual nothing. don't vote labour is all i can say. Victor Clayton
  • Score: 4

1:21pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Prisoner Cell Block A says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
It seems a lot of people are complaining that they've got up at the crack of dawn and sat in rush hour traffic to do a job they hate which is suprising as I would have thought if they were working reading and commenting on stories in the T&A would not be in many job descriptions. Why do you do it you ask? Well there's only you that can answer that but I presume it's because you don't fancy struggling by on job seekers allowance which even with housing benefit and council tax benefit wouldn't take you to £10k let alone £26k. So I ask again why are the claimants that Davies has chosen for his political point scoring excersize getting these sums. If no-one can answer due to the fact that they don't know the circumstances I suggest they shut up especially if their name is Philip Davies.
"Why do you do it you ask? Well there's only you that can answer that but I presume it's because you don't fancy struggling by on job seekers allowance "

Or they have pride? A feeling of self-worth and do not want to be either a burden on the state or a failure for their families? There are many reasons people go to work, the main one being to generate an income but not always.

We know of your circumstances but there is DEFINITELY a culture of 'the non-working class' and always has been, even when jobs were plentiful.
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: It seems a lot of people are complaining that they've got up at the crack of dawn and sat in rush hour traffic to do a job they hate which is suprising as I would have thought if they were working reading and commenting on stories in the T&A would not be in many job descriptions. Why do you do it you ask? Well there's only you that can answer that but I presume it's because you don't fancy struggling by on job seekers allowance which even with housing benefit and council tax benefit wouldn't take you to £10k let alone £26k. So I ask again why are the claimants that Davies has chosen for his political point scoring excersize getting these sums. If no-one can answer due to the fact that they don't know the circumstances I suggest they shut up especially if their name is Philip Davies.[/p][/quote]"Why do you do it you ask? Well there's only you that can answer that but I presume it's because you don't fancy struggling by on job seekers allowance " Or they have pride? A feeling of self-worth and do not want to be either a burden on the state or a failure for their families? There are many reasons people go to work, the main one being to generate an income but not always. We know of your circumstances but there is DEFINITELY a culture of 'the non-working class' and always has been, even when jobs were plentiful. Prisoner Cell Block A
  • Score: 6

1:34pm Wed 29 Jan 14

dellorri says...

Look why don't you all just say what you and IDS are really thinking eh? get it out in the open and have done with it, even though you KNOW there aren;t enough jobs out there, and that the disabled aren;t suddenly going to be cured of lifelong conditions, just say what you're all thinking and get it over with, or shall I say it for you eh? because you're all alluding to it pretty well,

"ALL PEOPLE ON BENEFITS ARE SCUM THEY DON'T DESERVE TO LIVE"

There, that about seems to fit your thinking, some of the venom that you people espouse on this paper daily for others disgusts me, Tell you what why not build nice camps in the country as someone suggested once on here, where all the jobless and disabled can live in dormitories, that was the suggestion.
I wonder how long it would take until it became too expensive to run, keeping an eye on the inmates, and a different solution might be needed.
It's all been done before you see.
In the 30's the unemployed were sent away to work camps, to "earn" their benefits.
In the 30's The sick and disabled in Germany were taken to "special clinics" where over a hundred thousand of them disappeared, never to be seen again by their family during AKTION T4.
So why don't you just say what you really want to say, at least then we'll know where we stand. or in our disabled case fall.
Look why don't you all just say what you and IDS are really thinking eh? get it out in the open and have done with it, even though you KNOW there aren;t enough jobs out there, and that the disabled aren;t suddenly going to be cured of lifelong conditions, just say what you're all thinking and get it over with, or shall I say it for you eh? because you're all alluding to it pretty well, "ALL PEOPLE ON BENEFITS ARE SCUM THEY DON'T DESERVE TO LIVE" There, that about seems to fit your thinking, some of the venom that you people espouse on this paper daily for others disgusts me, Tell you what why not build nice camps in the country as someone suggested once on here, where all the jobless and disabled can live in dormitories, that was the suggestion. I wonder how long it would take until it became too expensive to run, keeping an eye on the inmates, and a different solution might be needed. It's all been done before you see. In the 30's the unemployed were sent away to work camps, to "earn" their benefits. In the 30's The sick and disabled in Germany were taken to "special clinics" where over a hundred thousand of them disappeared, never to be seen again by their family during AKTION T4. So why don't you just say what you really want to say, at least then we'll know where we stand. or in our disabled case fall. dellorri
  • Score: 2

1:35pm Wed 29 Jan 14

RollandSmoke says...

Prisoner Cell Block A wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
It seems a lot of people are complaining that they've got up at the crack of dawn and sat in rush hour traffic to do a job they hate which is suprising as I would have thought if they were working reading and commenting on stories in the T&A would not be in many job descriptions. Why do you do it you ask? Well there's only you that can answer that but I presume it's because you don't fancy struggling by on job seekers allowance which even with housing benefit and council tax benefit wouldn't take you to £10k let alone £26k. So I ask again why are the claimants that Davies has chosen for his political point scoring excersize getting these sums. If no-one can answer due to the fact that they don't know the circumstances I suggest they shut up especially if their name is Philip Davies.
"Why do you do it you ask? Well there's only you that can answer that but I presume it's because you don't fancy struggling by on job seekers allowance "

Or they have pride? A feeling of self-worth and do not want to be either a burden on the state or a failure for their families? There are many reasons people go to work, the main one being to generate an income but not always.

We know of your circumstances but there is DEFINITELY a culture of 'the non-working class' and always has been, even when jobs were plentiful.
If their job is making them worse off than they would be on benefits then it would seem that their employers are exploiting them. It's a strange person who takes a pride in knowingly being exploited. We know this happens but why is the employer never critisised for offering poverty wages and leaving the taxpayer to subsidise the employees living costs? I know that money is not always the motivation. There are many people who work voluntarily but they will only do so if they can afford to do so.
[quote][p][bold]Prisoner Cell Block A[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: It seems a lot of people are complaining that they've got up at the crack of dawn and sat in rush hour traffic to do a job they hate which is suprising as I would have thought if they were working reading and commenting on stories in the T&A would not be in many job descriptions. Why do you do it you ask? Well there's only you that can answer that but I presume it's because you don't fancy struggling by on job seekers allowance which even with housing benefit and council tax benefit wouldn't take you to £10k let alone £26k. So I ask again why are the claimants that Davies has chosen for his political point scoring excersize getting these sums. If no-one can answer due to the fact that they don't know the circumstances I suggest they shut up especially if their name is Philip Davies.[/p][/quote]"Why do you do it you ask? Well there's only you that can answer that but I presume it's because you don't fancy struggling by on job seekers allowance " Or they have pride? A feeling of self-worth and do not want to be either a burden on the state or a failure for their families? There are many reasons people go to work, the main one being to generate an income but not always. We know of your circumstances but there is DEFINITELY a culture of 'the non-working class' and always has been, even when jobs were plentiful.[/p][/quote]If their job is making them worse off than they would be on benefits then it would seem that their employers are exploiting them. It's a strange person who takes a pride in knowingly being exploited. We know this happens but why is the employer never critisised for offering poverty wages and leaving the taxpayer to subsidise the employees living costs? I know that money is not always the motivation. There are many people who work voluntarily but they will only do so if they can afford to do so. RollandSmoke
  • Score: 4

1:43pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Andy2010 says...

dellorri wrote:
Look why don't you all just say what you and IDS are really thinking eh? get it out in the open and have done with it, even though you KNOW there aren;t enough jobs out there, and that the disabled aren;t suddenly going to be cured of lifelong conditions, just say what you're all thinking and get it over with, or shall I say it for you eh? because you're all alluding to it pretty well,

"ALL PEOPLE ON BENEFITS ARE SCUM THEY DON'T DESERVE TO LIVE"

There, that about seems to fit your thinking, some of the venom that you people espouse on this paper daily for others disgusts me, Tell you what why not build nice camps in the country as someone suggested once on here, where all the jobless and disabled can live in dormitories, that was the suggestion.
I wonder how long it would take until it became too expensive to run, keeping an eye on the inmates, and a different solution might be needed.
It's all been done before you see.
In the 30's the unemployed were sent away to work camps, to "earn" their benefits.
In the 30's The sick and disabled in Germany were taken to "special clinics" where over a hundred thousand of them disappeared, never to be seen again by their family during AKTION T4.
So why don't you just say what you really want to say, at least then we'll know where we stand. or in our disabled case fall.
Drama Queen much !
[quote][p][bold]dellorri[/bold] wrote: Look why don't you all just say what you and IDS are really thinking eh? get it out in the open and have done with it, even though you KNOW there aren;t enough jobs out there, and that the disabled aren;t suddenly going to be cured of lifelong conditions, just say what you're all thinking and get it over with, or shall I say it for you eh? because you're all alluding to it pretty well, "ALL PEOPLE ON BENEFITS ARE SCUM THEY DON'T DESERVE TO LIVE" There, that about seems to fit your thinking, some of the venom that you people espouse on this paper daily for others disgusts me, Tell you what why not build nice camps in the country as someone suggested once on here, where all the jobless and disabled can live in dormitories, that was the suggestion. I wonder how long it would take until it became too expensive to run, keeping an eye on the inmates, and a different solution might be needed. It's all been done before you see. In the 30's the unemployed were sent away to work camps, to "earn" their benefits. In the 30's The sick and disabled in Germany were taken to "special clinics" where over a hundred thousand of them disappeared, never to be seen again by their family during AKTION T4. So why don't you just say what you really want to say, at least then we'll know where we stand. or in our disabled case fall.[/p][/quote]Drama Queen much ! Andy2010
  • Score: 2

1:55pm Wed 29 Jan 14

dellorri says...

There is something about this thread that is irritating me in the extreme, gnawing away and it's the fact that, all through this comments section, no matter what is posted, what fact, what figure, it's all coming down to one thing, MONEY MONEY MONEY............
Are you all so cynical, so lacking in compassion, that labelling people is all you can do now. Following headlines and IDS's phony statistics, you jump on any little chance to complain about people on benefits.

THIS CAP AFFECTED A MINISCULE PERCENTAGE IN BRADFORD.
not even a tenth of 1%, yet it has caused this furore.
Can't you see it's ANOTHER DEAD CAT ON THE TABLE?
As advised by Lynton Crosbie, Chuck another dead cat on the table, they'll be so horrified, they won't notice anything else you do.

Did you know the gagging law went through the house of lords yesterday unopposed...........
.....NO you didn't, and it won;t be in the newspapers either, Because THIS IS, THE DEAD CAT STORY.
There is something about this thread that is irritating me in the extreme, gnawing away and it's the fact that, all through this comments section, no matter what is posted, what fact, what figure, it's all coming down to one thing, MONEY MONEY MONEY............ Are you all so cynical, so lacking in compassion, that labelling people is all you can do now. Following headlines and IDS's phony statistics, you jump on any little chance to complain about people on benefits. THIS CAP AFFECTED A MINISCULE PERCENTAGE IN BRADFORD. not even a tenth of 1%, yet it has caused this furore. Can't you see it's ANOTHER DEAD CAT ON THE TABLE? As advised by Lynton Crosbie, Chuck another dead cat on the table, they'll be so horrified, they won't notice anything else you do. Did you know the gagging law went through the house of lords yesterday unopposed........... .....NO you didn't, and it won;t be in the newspapers either, Because THIS IS, THE DEAD CAT STORY. dellorri
  • Score: 2

1:57pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Andy2010 says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
Prisoner Cell Block A wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
It seems a lot of people are complaining that they've got up at the crack of dawn and sat in rush hour traffic to do a job they hate which is suprising as I would have thought if they were working reading and commenting on stories in the T&A would not be in many job descriptions. Why do you do it you ask? Well there's only you that can answer that but I presume it's because you don't fancy struggling by on job seekers allowance which even with housing benefit and council tax benefit wouldn't take you to £10k let alone £26k. So I ask again why are the claimants that Davies has chosen for his political point scoring excersize getting these sums. If no-one can answer due to the fact that they don't know the circumstances I suggest they shut up especially if their name is Philip Davies.
"Why do you do it you ask? Well there's only you that can answer that but I presume it's because you don't fancy struggling by on job seekers allowance "

Or they have pride? A feeling of self-worth and do not want to be either a burden on the state or a failure for their families? There are many reasons people go to work, the main one being to generate an income but not always.

We know of your circumstances but there is DEFINITELY a culture of 'the non-working class' and always has been, even when jobs were plentiful.
If their job is making them worse off than they would be on benefits then it would seem that their employers are exploiting them. It's a strange person who takes a pride in knowingly being exploited. We know this happens but why is the employer never critisised for offering poverty wages and leaving the taxpayer to subsidise the employees living costs? I know that money is not always the motivation. There are many people who work voluntarily but they will only do so if they can afford to do so.
Again rubbish

Most volunteers are people on benefits who are volunteering to gain experience.

Again let me flip your comment. you say employers are exploiting employees if they are better off on benefits. My view would be that if they are better off on benefits the Government are being far too generous with their benefits.
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Prisoner Cell Block A[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: It seems a lot of people are complaining that they've got up at the crack of dawn and sat in rush hour traffic to do a job they hate which is suprising as I would have thought if they were working reading and commenting on stories in the T&A would not be in many job descriptions. Why do you do it you ask? Well there's only you that can answer that but I presume it's because you don't fancy struggling by on job seekers allowance which even with housing benefit and council tax benefit wouldn't take you to £10k let alone £26k. So I ask again why are the claimants that Davies has chosen for his political point scoring excersize getting these sums. If no-one can answer due to the fact that they don't know the circumstances I suggest they shut up especially if their name is Philip Davies.[/p][/quote]"Why do you do it you ask? Well there's only you that can answer that but I presume it's because you don't fancy struggling by on job seekers allowance " Or they have pride? A feeling of self-worth and do not want to be either a burden on the state or a failure for their families? There are many reasons people go to work, the main one being to generate an income but not always. We know of your circumstances but there is DEFINITELY a culture of 'the non-working class' and always has been, even when jobs were plentiful.[/p][/quote]If their job is making them worse off than they would be on benefits then it would seem that their employers are exploiting them. It's a strange person who takes a pride in knowingly being exploited. We know this happens but why is the employer never critisised for offering poverty wages and leaving the taxpayer to subsidise the employees living costs? I know that money is not always the motivation. There are many people who work voluntarily but they will only do so if they can afford to do so.[/p][/quote]Again rubbish Most volunteers are people on benefits who are volunteering to gain experience. Again let me flip your comment. you say employers are exploiting employees if they are better off on benefits. My view would be that if they are better off on benefits the Government are being far too generous with their benefits. Andy2010
  • Score: -3

2:00pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Andy2010 says...

dellorri wrote:
There is something about this thread that is irritating me in the extreme, gnawing away and it's the fact that, all through this comments section, no matter what is posted, what fact, what figure, it's all coming down to one thing, MONEY MONEY MONEY............
Are you all so cynical, so lacking in compassion, that labelling people is all you can do now. Following headlines and IDS's phony statistics, you jump on any little chance to complain about people on benefits.

THIS CAP AFFECTED A MINISCULE PERCENTAGE IN BRADFORD.
not even a tenth of 1%, yet it has caused this furore.
Can't you see it's ANOTHER DEAD CAT ON THE TABLE?
As advised by Lynton Crosbie, Chuck another dead cat on the table, they'll be so horrified, they won't notice anything else you do.

Did you know the gagging law went through the house of lords yesterday unopposed...........

.....NO you didn't, and it won;t be in the newspapers either, Because THIS IS, THE DEAD CAT STORY.
I see no mention of dead cats.

And this is a newspaper designed to drive traffic to their site and generate sales.

They know the working population are sick of people taking the mick with the benefit system more than some tinpot law about gagging therefore print a story about the later.

But from a personal point of view I couldn't care if its 1% or whatever as any decrease in the benefit is welcome news in my eyes
[quote][p][bold]dellorri[/bold] wrote: There is something about this thread that is irritating me in the extreme, gnawing away and it's the fact that, all through this comments section, no matter what is posted, what fact, what figure, it's all coming down to one thing, MONEY MONEY MONEY............ Are you all so cynical, so lacking in compassion, that labelling people is all you can do now. Following headlines and IDS's phony statistics, you jump on any little chance to complain about people on benefits. THIS CAP AFFECTED A MINISCULE PERCENTAGE IN BRADFORD. not even a tenth of 1%, yet it has caused this furore. Can't you see it's ANOTHER DEAD CAT ON THE TABLE? As advised by Lynton Crosbie, Chuck another dead cat on the table, they'll be so horrified, they won't notice anything else you do. Did you know the gagging law went through the house of lords yesterday unopposed........... .....NO you didn't, and it won;t be in the newspapers either, Because THIS IS, THE DEAD CAT STORY.[/p][/quote]I see no mention of dead cats. And this is a newspaper designed to drive traffic to their site and generate sales. They know the working population are sick of people taking the mick with the benefit system more than some tinpot law about gagging therefore print a story about the later. But from a personal point of view I couldn't care if its 1% or whatever as any decrease in the benefit is welcome news in my eyes Andy2010
  • Score: -1

2:20pm Wed 29 Jan 14

OLDLAD says...

Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Parz wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
tinytoonster wrote: “While seeking to demonise people on benefits, the Government is giving a tax cut to millionaires and doing nothing to stop the scandal of bankers’ bonuses – the very people who got us into this mess in the first place.” think you will find labour is the reason we are in this mess. open door immigration policy, gold selling at a silly low price, benefits for all, thousands of made up jobs which crippled councils, paying union reps in councils. need i go on? time to punish people with large families, drop benefits for every child over a permitted amount. say 3.
If they have large families will punishing them make their families smaller? Why do you want to "punish" people? Are you psychologically unbalanced? I have had my suspicions for some time.
Maybe not. But then the state should not be expected to pick up the tab for families having children they cannot afford to provide for. Benefits (in my opinion) should stop increasing beyond your first 2 children. If you have any more that's up to you, nobody can tell you not to. But finacially, you're on your own.
Here's a scenario for you. A man has a well paid job, four kids and rents a nice home in a leafy suberb. He looses his job. Does he start his quest to find a new job by taking a couple of the kids out the back and disposing of them or by packing up all his belongings to move home? He could be back in work in a month, six months or maybe it could take longer. Would loosing his home and stressing out over how to keep his children help or hinder his job search? If there were people crying out for employees I could understand the venom aimed at the benefit claimants but this is Bradford and the jobs are not there.
Reed have 4907 jobs in Bradford

http://www.reed.co.u

k/jobs?keywords=&amp
;job
titleonly=false&
loca
tion=bradford&sa
lary
From=&salaryTo=&
amp;perh
our=false

And Monster 1000 plus

http://jobsearch.mon

ster.co.uk/jobs/?cy=

uk&where=Bradfor
d__2
C-Yorkshire

Thats just two sites and doesnt take Leeds into account

There are jobs is people can bothered going out and looking for them

I'll await your usual responses
Reed and jobs! Have been on Reed's books for 12 months, and have higher qualifications, and in all that time all the jobs I have applied for I have never even had a call from them. When I popped in to speak to them they just said too qualified for the jobs applied for. Surely it's the employer that should make that decision.
[quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parz[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tinytoonster[/bold] wrote: “While seeking to demonise people on benefits, the Government is giving a tax cut to millionaires and doing nothing to stop the scandal of bankers’ bonuses – the very people who got us into this mess in the first place.” think you will find labour is the reason we are in this mess. open door immigration policy, gold selling at a silly low price, benefits for all, thousands of made up jobs which crippled councils, paying union reps in councils. need i go on? time to punish people with large families, drop benefits for every child over a permitted amount. say 3.[/p][/quote]If they have large families will punishing them make their families smaller? Why do you want to "punish" people? Are you psychologically unbalanced? I have had my suspicions for some time.[/p][/quote]Maybe not. But then the state should not be expected to pick up the tab for families having children they cannot afford to provide for. Benefits (in my opinion) should stop increasing beyond your first 2 children. If you have any more that's up to you, nobody can tell you not to. But finacially, you're on your own.[/p][/quote]Here's a scenario for you. A man has a well paid job, four kids and rents a nice home in a leafy suberb. He looses his job. Does he start his quest to find a new job by taking a couple of the kids out the back and disposing of them or by packing up all his belongings to move home? He could be back in work in a month, six months or maybe it could take longer. Would loosing his home and stressing out over how to keep his children help or hinder his job search? If there were people crying out for employees I could understand the venom aimed at the benefit claimants but this is Bradford and the jobs are not there.[/p][/quote]Reed have 4907 jobs in Bradford http://www.reed.co.u k/jobs?keywords=& ;job titleonly=false& loca tion=bradford&sa lary From=&salaryTo=& amp;perh our=false And Monster 1000 plus http://jobsearch.mon ster.co.uk/jobs/?cy= uk&where=Bradfor d__2 C-Yorkshire Thats just two sites and doesnt take Leeds into account There are jobs is people can bothered going out and looking for them I'll await your usual responses[/p][/quote]Reed and jobs! Have been on Reed's books for 12 months, and have higher qualifications, and in all that time all the jobs I have applied for I have never even had a call from them. When I popped in to speak to them they just said too qualified for the jobs applied for. Surely it's the employer that should make that decision. OLDLAD
  • Score: 8

2:20pm Wed 29 Jan 14

dellorri says...

Andy2010 wrote:
dellorri wrote:
Look why don't you all just say what you and IDS are really thinking eh? get it out in the open and have done with it, even though you KNOW there aren;t enough jobs out there, and that the disabled aren;t suddenly going to be cured of lifelong conditions, just say what you're all thinking and get it over with, or shall I say it for you eh? because you're all alluding to it pretty well,

"ALL PEOPLE ON BENEFITS ARE SCUM THEY DON'T DESERVE TO LIVE"

There, that about seems to fit your thinking, some of the venom that you people espouse on this paper daily for others disgusts me, Tell you what why not build nice camps in the country as someone suggested once on here, where all the jobless and disabled can live in dormitories, that was the suggestion.
I wonder how long it would take until it became too expensive to run, keeping an eye on the inmates, and a different solution might be needed.
It's all been done before you see.
In the 30's the unemployed were sent away to work camps, to "earn" their benefits.
In the 30's The sick and disabled in Germany were taken to "special clinics" where over a hundred thousand of them disappeared, never to be seen again by their family during AKTION T4.
So why don't you just say what you really want to say, at least then we'll know where we stand. or in our disabled case fall.
Drama Queen much !
You think so Andy, check out the post where someone said, young people should just be given somewhere to live, and nothing else, no money, no heating, NOTHING, OH? how do they eat then? clothe themselves? how are they supposed to get a job if they are unfit for work through malnutrition? or haven't got clothes to wear?
Drama Queen? Really figures published by DWP up until October last year confirmed that 10,600 sick or disabled people had died WITHIN 6 weeks of being told they were "FIT FOR WORK" by ATOS. DWP claim they no longer keep these figures as it is to hardd to keep track of them.
People placed in the WRAG group can include those suffering from terminal cancer IF they have a prognosis saying they have MORE THAN 6 MONTHS TO LIVE. They are then expected to seek work, attend back to work groups and if required to do so, attend WORKFARE for up to a maximum of 2 years, failure to do ANY of these will result in them being sanctioned. Remember these are TERMINALLY ILL patients we are talking about.
If sanctioned, these sick and disabled people not only lose their ESA and /or DLA,. they WILL automatically lose their housing benefit leading to rent arrears and possible eviction, So they are also likely to become homeless. Simply for being ill, i.e. they may be ill so might not be able to attend a work advisory meeting...........SA
NCTIONED.
DID NOT ATTEND WORKFARE...........S
ANCTIONED
LATE DUE TO DRs SANCTIONED

Sheila Coulton was in hospital in a coma following a brain aneurism, ATOS said she "DID NOT ATTEND" her assessment, SANCTIONED.

This is not an isolated case Andy, 10,600 RECORDED cases up to last October, how many more since?
The work camps in the 30's they existed, run by a labour government.
and espoused a couple of weeks ago by someone on here though I'm pretty sure he didn't know of the ones in the 30's
As for AKTION T4 IDS and ATOS seem to be doing a pretty good job there, in fact just yesterday, one of the executive officers of ATOS was given a roasting by a cross party committee at the house of commons,
where he claimed he thought that the public was satisfied with ATOS's performance, to which the conservative member replied, "If you believe that sir, you are either living in a fantasy land, or a parallel universe."

As for the posters on here Andy, they spout so much hatred towards people on benefits, They show a clear lack of humanity, and an obvious liking for the sadism of IDS.
So drama queen, no not really, honest in what I see, yes.
[quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dellorri[/bold] wrote: Look why don't you all just say what you and IDS are really thinking eh? get it out in the open and have done with it, even though you KNOW there aren;t enough jobs out there, and that the disabled aren;t suddenly going to be cured of lifelong conditions, just say what you're all thinking and get it over with, or shall I say it for you eh? because you're all alluding to it pretty well, "ALL PEOPLE ON BENEFITS ARE SCUM THEY DON'T DESERVE TO LIVE" There, that about seems to fit your thinking, some of the venom that you people espouse on this paper daily for others disgusts me, Tell you what why not build nice camps in the country as someone suggested once on here, where all the jobless and disabled can live in dormitories, that was the suggestion. I wonder how long it would take until it became too expensive to run, keeping an eye on the inmates, and a different solution might be needed. It's all been done before you see. In the 30's the unemployed were sent away to work camps, to "earn" their benefits. In the 30's The sick and disabled in Germany were taken to "special clinics" where over a hundred thousand of them disappeared, never to be seen again by their family during AKTION T4. So why don't you just say what you really want to say, at least then we'll know where we stand. or in our disabled case fall.[/p][/quote]Drama Queen much ![/p][/quote]You think so Andy, check out the post where someone said, young people should just be given somewhere to live, and nothing else, no money, no heating, NOTHING, OH? how do they eat then? clothe themselves? how are they supposed to get a job if they are unfit for work through malnutrition? or haven't got clothes to wear? Drama Queen? Really figures published by DWP up until October last year confirmed that 10,600 sick or disabled people had died WITHIN 6 weeks of being told they were "FIT FOR WORK" by ATOS. DWP claim they no longer keep these figures as it is to hardd to keep track of them. People placed in the WRAG group can include those suffering from terminal cancer IF they have a prognosis saying they have MORE THAN 6 MONTHS TO LIVE. They are then expected to seek work, attend back to work groups and if required to do so, attend WORKFARE for up to a maximum of 2 years, failure to do ANY of these will result in them being sanctioned. Remember these are TERMINALLY ILL patients we are talking about. If sanctioned, these sick and disabled people not only lose their ESA and /or DLA,. they WILL automatically lose their housing benefit leading to rent arrears and possible eviction, So they are also likely to become homeless. Simply for being ill, i.e. they may be ill so might not be able to attend a work advisory meeting...........SA NCTIONED. DID NOT ATTEND WORKFARE...........S ANCTIONED LATE DUE TO DRs SANCTIONED Sheila Coulton was in hospital in a coma following a brain aneurism, ATOS said she "DID NOT ATTEND" her assessment, SANCTIONED. This is not an isolated case Andy, 10,600 RECORDED cases up to last October, how many more since? The work camps in the 30's they existed, run by a labour government. and espoused a couple of weeks ago by someone on here though I'm pretty sure he didn't know of the ones in the 30's As for AKTION T4 IDS and ATOS seem to be doing a pretty good job there, in fact just yesterday, one of the executive officers of ATOS was given a roasting by a cross party committee at the house of commons, where he claimed he thought that the public was satisfied with ATOS's performance, to which the conservative member replied, "If you believe that sir, you are either living in a fantasy land, or a parallel universe." As for the posters on here Andy, they spout so much hatred towards people on benefits, They show a clear lack of humanity, and an obvious liking for the sadism of IDS. So drama queen, no not really, honest in what I see, yes. dellorri
  • Score: 8

2:27pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Prisoner Cell Block A says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
Prisoner Cell Block A wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
It seems a lot of people are complaining that they've got up at the crack of dawn and sat in rush hour traffic to do a job they hate which is suprising as I would have thought if they were working reading and commenting on stories in the T&A would not be in many job descriptions. Why do you do it you ask? Well there's only you that can answer that but I presume it's because you don't fancy struggling by on job seekers allowance which even with housing benefit and council tax benefit wouldn't take you to £10k let alone £26k. So I ask again why are the claimants that Davies has chosen for his political point scoring excersize getting these sums. If no-one can answer due to the fact that they don't know the circumstances I suggest they shut up especially if their name is Philip Davies.
"Why do you do it you ask? Well there's only you that can answer that but I presume it's because you don't fancy struggling by on job seekers allowance "

Or they have pride? A feeling of self-worth and do not want to be either a burden on the state or a failure for their families? There are many reasons people go to work, the main one being to generate an income but not always.

We know of your circumstances but there is DEFINITELY a culture of 'the non-working class' and always has been, even when jobs were plentiful.
If their job is making them worse off than they would be on benefits then it would seem that their employers are exploiting them. It's a strange person who takes a pride in knowingly being exploited. We know this happens but why is the employer never critisised for offering poverty wages and leaving the taxpayer to subsidise the employees living costs? I know that money is not always the motivation. There are many people who work voluntarily but they will only do so if they can afford to do so.
That didn't really cover my 'non-working class' description but I do agree with you re employer exploitation. Any working person should be earning enough to make the need for benefits non-existant, this should be covered by employers not the state.

@dellorri

To be honest fella, those who have never worked but are able, who doss all day and booze/smoke etc all night, those depicted in the CH4 programme, and they do exist in society, really have no need to be alive, they offer nothing, serve no purpose and are a drain on those who actually do need to be supported by the benefits system.
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Prisoner Cell Block A[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: It seems a lot of people are complaining that they've got up at the crack of dawn and sat in rush hour traffic to do a job they hate which is suprising as I would have thought if they were working reading and commenting on stories in the T&A would not be in many job descriptions. Why do you do it you ask? Well there's only you that can answer that but I presume it's because you don't fancy struggling by on job seekers allowance which even with housing benefit and council tax benefit wouldn't take you to £10k let alone £26k. So I ask again why are the claimants that Davies has chosen for his political point scoring excersize getting these sums. If no-one can answer due to the fact that they don't know the circumstances I suggest they shut up especially if their name is Philip Davies.[/p][/quote]"Why do you do it you ask? Well there's only you that can answer that but I presume it's because you don't fancy struggling by on job seekers allowance " Or they have pride? A feeling of self-worth and do not want to be either a burden on the state or a failure for their families? There are many reasons people go to work, the main one being to generate an income but not always. We know of your circumstances but there is DEFINITELY a culture of 'the non-working class' and always has been, even when jobs were plentiful.[/p][/quote]If their job is making them worse off than they would be on benefits then it would seem that their employers are exploiting them. It's a strange person who takes a pride in knowingly being exploited. We know this happens but why is the employer never critisised for offering poverty wages and leaving the taxpayer to subsidise the employees living costs? I know that money is not always the motivation. There are many people who work voluntarily but they will only do so if they can afford to do so.[/p][/quote]That didn't really cover my 'non-working class' description but I do agree with you re employer exploitation. Any working person should be earning enough to make the need for benefits non-existant, this should be covered by employers not the state. @dellorri To be honest fella, those who have never worked but are able, who doss all day and booze/smoke etc all night, those depicted in the CH4 programme, and they do exist in society, really have no need to be alive, they offer nothing, serve no purpose and are a drain on those who actually do need to be supported by the benefits system. Prisoner Cell Block A
  • Score: 3

2:30pm Wed 29 Jan 14

RollandSmoke says...

Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Prisoner Cell Block A wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
It seems a lot of people are complaining that they've got up at the crack of dawn and sat in rush hour traffic to do a job they hate which is suprising as I would have thought if they were working reading and commenting on stories in the T&A would not be in many job descriptions. Why do you do it you ask? Well there's only you that can answer that but I presume it's because you don't fancy struggling by on job seekers allowance which even with housing benefit and council tax benefit wouldn't take you to £10k let alone £26k. So I ask again why are the claimants that Davies has chosen for his political point scoring excersize getting these sums. If no-one can answer due to the fact that they don't know the circumstances I suggest they shut up especially if their name is Philip Davies.
"Why do you do it you ask? Well there's only you that can answer that but I presume it's because you don't fancy struggling by on job seekers allowance "

Or they have pride? A feeling of self-worth and do not want to be either a burden on the state or a failure for their families? There are many reasons people go to work, the main one being to generate an income but not always.

We know of your circumstances but there is DEFINITELY a culture of 'the non-working class' and always has been, even when jobs were plentiful.
If their job is making them worse off than they would be on benefits then it would seem that their employers are exploiting them. It's a strange person who takes a pride in knowingly being exploited. We know this happens but why is the employer never critisised for offering poverty wages and leaving the taxpayer to subsidise the employees living costs? I know that money is not always the motivation. There are many people who work voluntarily but they will only do so if they can afford to do so.
Again rubbish

Most volunteers are people on benefits who are volunteering to gain experience.

Again let me flip your comment. you say employers are exploiting employees if they are better off on benefits. My view would be that if they are better off on benefits the Government are being far too generous with their benefits.
If the taxpayer is having to pay towards benefits for people in full time employment, which they are, how can you say that it is the benefits that are at fault rather than the pityful wages? Why is paying for someones employee acceptable?
[quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Prisoner Cell Block A[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: It seems a lot of people are complaining that they've got up at the crack of dawn and sat in rush hour traffic to do a job they hate which is suprising as I would have thought if they were working reading and commenting on stories in the T&A would not be in many job descriptions. Why do you do it you ask? Well there's only you that can answer that but I presume it's because you don't fancy struggling by on job seekers allowance which even with housing benefit and council tax benefit wouldn't take you to £10k let alone £26k. So I ask again why are the claimants that Davies has chosen for his political point scoring excersize getting these sums. If no-one can answer due to the fact that they don't know the circumstances I suggest they shut up especially if their name is Philip Davies.[/p][/quote]"Why do you do it you ask? Well there's only you that can answer that but I presume it's because you don't fancy struggling by on job seekers allowance " Or they have pride? A feeling of self-worth and do not want to be either a burden on the state or a failure for their families? There are many reasons people go to work, the main one being to generate an income but not always. We know of your circumstances but there is DEFINITELY a culture of 'the non-working class' and always has been, even when jobs were plentiful.[/p][/quote]If their job is making them worse off than they would be on benefits then it would seem that their employers are exploiting them. It's a strange person who takes a pride in knowingly being exploited. We know this happens but why is the employer never critisised for offering poverty wages and leaving the taxpayer to subsidise the employees living costs? I know that money is not always the motivation. There are many people who work voluntarily but they will only do so if they can afford to do so.[/p][/quote]Again rubbish Most volunteers are people on benefits who are volunteering to gain experience. Again let me flip your comment. you say employers are exploiting employees if they are better off on benefits. My view would be that if they are better off on benefits the Government are being far too generous with their benefits.[/p][/quote]If the taxpayer is having to pay towards benefits for people in full time employment, which they are, how can you say that it is the benefits that are at fault rather than the pityful wages? Why is paying for someones employee acceptable? RollandSmoke
  • Score: 6

2:34pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Andy2010 says...

OLDLAD wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Parz wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
tinytoonster wrote: “While seeking to demonise people on benefits, the Government is giving a tax cut to millionaires and doing nothing to stop the scandal of bankers’ bonuses – the very people who got us into this mess in the first place.” think you will find labour is the reason we are in this mess. open door immigration policy, gold selling at a silly low price, benefits for all, thousands of made up jobs which crippled councils, paying union reps in councils. need i go on? time to punish people with large families, drop benefits for every child over a permitted amount. say 3.
If they have large families will punishing them make their families smaller? Why do you want to "punish" people? Are you psychologically unbalanced? I have had my suspicions for some time.
Maybe not. But then the state should not be expected to pick up the tab for families having children they cannot afford to provide for. Benefits (in my opinion) should stop increasing beyond your first 2 children. If you have any more that's up to you, nobody can tell you not to. But finacially, you're on your own.
Here's a scenario for you. A man has a well paid job, four kids and rents a nice home in a leafy suberb. He looses his job. Does he start his quest to find a new job by taking a couple of the kids out the back and disposing of them or by packing up all his belongings to move home? He could be back in work in a month, six months or maybe it could take longer. Would loosing his home and stressing out over how to keep his children help or hinder his job search? If there were people crying out for employees I could understand the venom aimed at the benefit claimants but this is Bradford and the jobs are not there.
Reed have 4907 jobs in Bradford

http://www.reed.co.u


k/jobs?keywords=&amp
;
;job
titleonly=false&

loca
tion=bradford&sa

lary
From=&salaryTo=&
amp;
amp;perh
our=false

And Monster 1000 plus

http://jobsearch.mon


ster.co.uk/jobs/?cy=


uk&where=Bradfor

d__2
C-Yorkshire

Thats just two sites and doesnt take Leeds into account

There are jobs is people can bothered going out and looking for them

I'll await your usual responses
Reed and jobs! Have been on Reed's books for 12 months, and have higher qualifications, and in all that time all the jobs I have applied for I have never even had a call from them. When I popped in to speak to them they just said too qualified for the jobs applied for. Surely it's the employer that should make that decision.
Reed are generally a low level agency who deal in bottom of the ladder jobs but their website is actually a separate business entity who farms roles from all agencies of which this division takes a cut off if that make sense.

There are still a lot of agencies out there for the more qualified who do actually deal in jobs which aren't even advertised. Castlefield in Leeds for example work solely with candidates on their books and gain them employment through contacts rather than advertising.

Good to see you are one that is at least looking for work though
[quote][p][bold]OLDLAD[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parz[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tinytoonster[/bold] wrote: “While seeking to demonise people on benefits, the Government is giving a tax cut to millionaires and doing nothing to stop the scandal of bankers’ bonuses – the very people who got us into this mess in the first place.” think you will find labour is the reason we are in this mess. open door immigration policy, gold selling at a silly low price, benefits for all, thousands of made up jobs which crippled councils, paying union reps in councils. need i go on? time to punish people with large families, drop benefits for every child over a permitted amount. say 3.[/p][/quote]If they have large families will punishing them make their families smaller? Why do you want to "punish" people? Are you psychologically unbalanced? I have had my suspicions for some time.[/p][/quote]Maybe not. But then the state should not be expected to pick up the tab for families having children they cannot afford to provide for. Benefits (in my opinion) should stop increasing beyond your first 2 children. If you have any more that's up to you, nobody can tell you not to. But finacially, you're on your own.[/p][/quote]Here's a scenario for you. A man has a well paid job, four kids and rents a nice home in a leafy suberb. He looses his job. Does he start his quest to find a new job by taking a couple of the kids out the back and disposing of them or by packing up all his belongings to move home? He could be back in work in a month, six months or maybe it could take longer. Would loosing his home and stressing out over how to keep his children help or hinder his job search? If there were people crying out for employees I could understand the venom aimed at the benefit claimants but this is Bradford and the jobs are not there.[/p][/quote]Reed have 4907 jobs in Bradford http://www.reed.co.u k/jobs?keywords=& ; ;job titleonly=false& loca tion=bradford&sa lary From=&salaryTo=& amp; amp;perh our=false And Monster 1000 plus http://jobsearch.mon ster.co.uk/jobs/?cy= uk&where=Bradfor d__2 C-Yorkshire Thats just two sites and doesnt take Leeds into account There are jobs is people can bothered going out and looking for them I'll await your usual responses[/p][/quote]Reed and jobs! Have been on Reed's books for 12 months, and have higher qualifications, and in all that time all the jobs I have applied for I have never even had a call from them. When I popped in to speak to them they just said too qualified for the jobs applied for. Surely it's the employer that should make that decision.[/p][/quote]Reed are generally a low level agency who deal in bottom of the ladder jobs but their website is actually a separate business entity who farms roles from all agencies of which this division takes a cut off if that make sense. There are still a lot of agencies out there for the more qualified who do actually deal in jobs which aren't even advertised. Castlefield in Leeds for example work solely with candidates on their books and gain them employment through contacts rather than advertising. Good to see you are one that is at least looking for work though Andy2010
  • Score: 1

2:34pm Wed 29 Jan 14

allinittogether says...

Andy2010 wrote:
dellorri wrote:
There is something about this thread that is irritating me in the extreme, gnawing away and it's the fact that, all through this comments section, no matter what is posted, what fact, what figure, it's all coming down to one thing, MONEY MONEY MONEY............
Are you all so cynical, so lacking in compassion, that labelling people is all you can do now. Following headlines and IDS's phony statistics, you jump on any little chance to complain about people on benefits.

THIS CAP AFFECTED A MINISCULE PERCENTAGE IN BRADFORD.
not even a tenth of 1%, yet it has caused this furore.
Can't you see it's ANOTHER DEAD CAT ON THE TABLE?
As advised by Lynton Crosbie, Chuck another dead cat on the table, they'll be so horrified, they won't notice anything else you do.

Did you know the gagging law went through the house of lords yesterday unopposed...........


.....NO you didn't, and it won;t be in the newspapers either, Because THIS IS, THE DEAD CAT STORY.
I see no mention of dead cats.

And this is a newspaper designed to drive traffic to their site and generate sales.

They know the working population are sick of people taking the mick with the benefit system more than some tinpot law about gagging therefore print a story about the later.

But from a personal point of view I couldn't care if its 1% or whatever as any decrease in the benefit is welcome news in my eyes
Woooooooosh!
[quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dellorri[/bold] wrote: There is something about this thread that is irritating me in the extreme, gnawing away and it's the fact that, all through this comments section, no matter what is posted, what fact, what figure, it's all coming down to one thing, MONEY MONEY MONEY............ Are you all so cynical, so lacking in compassion, that labelling people is all you can do now. Following headlines and IDS's phony statistics, you jump on any little chance to complain about people on benefits. THIS CAP AFFECTED A MINISCULE PERCENTAGE IN BRADFORD. not even a tenth of 1%, yet it has caused this furore. Can't you see it's ANOTHER DEAD CAT ON THE TABLE? As advised by Lynton Crosbie, Chuck another dead cat on the table, they'll be so horrified, they won't notice anything else you do. Did you know the gagging law went through the house of lords yesterday unopposed........... .....NO you didn't, and it won;t be in the newspapers either, Because THIS IS, THE DEAD CAT STORY.[/p][/quote]I see no mention of dead cats. And this is a newspaper designed to drive traffic to their site and generate sales. They know the working population are sick of people taking the mick with the benefit system more than some tinpot law about gagging therefore print a story about the later. But from a personal point of view I couldn't care if its 1% or whatever as any decrease in the benefit is welcome news in my eyes[/p][/quote]Woooooooosh! allinittogether
  • Score: 2

2:36pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Andy2010 says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Prisoner Cell Block A wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
It seems a lot of people are complaining that they've got up at the crack of dawn and sat in rush hour traffic to do a job they hate which is suprising as I would have thought if they were working reading and commenting on stories in the T&A would not be in many job descriptions. Why do you do it you ask? Well there's only you that can answer that but I presume it's because you don't fancy struggling by on job seekers allowance which even with housing benefit and council tax benefit wouldn't take you to £10k let alone £26k. So I ask again why are the claimants that Davies has chosen for his political point scoring excersize getting these sums. If no-one can answer due to the fact that they don't know the circumstances I suggest they shut up especially if their name is Philip Davies.
"Why do you do it you ask? Well there's only you that can answer that but I presume it's because you don't fancy struggling by on job seekers allowance "

Or they have pride? A feeling of self-worth and do not want to be either a burden on the state or a failure for their families? There are many reasons people go to work, the main one being to generate an income but not always.

We know of your circumstances but there is DEFINITELY a culture of 'the non-working class' and always has been, even when jobs were plentiful.
If their job is making them worse off than they would be on benefits then it would seem that their employers are exploiting them. It's a strange person who takes a pride in knowingly being exploited. We know this happens but why is the employer never critisised for offering poverty wages and leaving the taxpayer to subsidise the employees living costs? I know that money is not always the motivation. There are many people who work voluntarily but they will only do so if they can afford to do so.
Again rubbish

Most volunteers are people on benefits who are volunteering to gain experience.

Again let me flip your comment. you say employers are exploiting employees if they are better off on benefits. My view would be that if they are better off on benefits the Government are being far too generous with their benefits.
If the taxpayer is having to pay towards benefits for people in full time employment, which they are, how can you say that it is the benefits that are at fault rather than the pityful wages? Why is paying for someones employee acceptable?
Yes there wages are topped up by tax credits but in turn they are making further income tax payments so the nett effect on the benefit payment is actually a gain to the country.
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Prisoner Cell Block A[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: It seems a lot of people are complaining that they've got up at the crack of dawn and sat in rush hour traffic to do a job they hate which is suprising as I would have thought if they were working reading and commenting on stories in the T&A would not be in many job descriptions. Why do you do it you ask? Well there's only you that can answer that but I presume it's because you don't fancy struggling by on job seekers allowance which even with housing benefit and council tax benefit wouldn't take you to £10k let alone £26k. So I ask again why are the claimants that Davies has chosen for his political point scoring excersize getting these sums. If no-one can answer due to the fact that they don't know the circumstances I suggest they shut up especially if their name is Philip Davies.[/p][/quote]"Why do you do it you ask? Well there's only you that can answer that but I presume it's because you don't fancy struggling by on job seekers allowance " Or they have pride? A feeling of self-worth and do not want to be either a burden on the state or a failure for their families? There are many reasons people go to work, the main one being to generate an income but not always. We know of your circumstances but there is DEFINITELY a culture of 'the non-working class' and always has been, even when jobs were plentiful.[/p][/quote]If their job is making them worse off than they would be on benefits then it would seem that their employers are exploiting them. It's a strange person who takes a pride in knowingly being exploited. We know this happens but why is the employer never critisised for offering poverty wages and leaving the taxpayer to subsidise the employees living costs? I know that money is not always the motivation. There are many people who work voluntarily but they will only do so if they can afford to do so.[/p][/quote]Again rubbish Most volunteers are people on benefits who are volunteering to gain experience. Again let me flip your comment. you say employers are exploiting employees if they are better off on benefits. My view would be that if they are better off on benefits the Government are being far too generous with their benefits.[/p][/quote]If the taxpayer is having to pay towards benefits for people in full time employment, which they are, how can you say that it is the benefits that are at fault rather than the pityful wages? Why is paying for someones employee acceptable?[/p][/quote]Yes there wages are topped up by tax credits but in turn they are making further income tax payments so the nett effect on the benefit payment is actually a gain to the country. Andy2010
  • Score: -1

2:39pm Wed 29 Jan 14

dellorri says...

Andy2010 wrote:
dellorri wrote:
There is something about this thread that is irritating me in the extreme, gnawing away and it's the fact that, all through this comments section, no matter what is posted, what fact, what figure, it's all coming down to one thing, MONEY MONEY MONEY............
Are you all so cynical, so lacking in compassion, that labelling people is all you can do now. Following headlines and IDS's phony statistics, you jump on any little chance to complain about people on benefits.

THIS CAP AFFECTED A MINISCULE PERCENTAGE IN BRADFORD.
not even a tenth of 1%, yet it has caused this furore.
Can't you see it's ANOTHER DEAD CAT ON THE TABLE?
As advised by Lynton Crosbie, Chuck another dead cat on the table, they'll be so horrified, they won't notice anything else you do.

Did you know the gagging law went through the house of lords yesterday unopposed...........


.....NO you didn't, and it won;t be in the newspapers either, Because THIS IS, THE DEAD CAT STORY.
I see no mention of dead cats.

And this is a newspaper designed to drive traffic to their site and generate sales.

They know the working population are sick of people taking the mick with the benefit system more than some tinpot law about gagging therefore print a story about the later.

But from a personal point of view I couldn't care if its 1% or whatever as any decrease in the benefit is welcome news in my eyes
Oh how witty of you Andy "I see no mention of dead cats".
Plus you don't care about a "TINPOT" law............ A tinpot law that is going to remove the right to freedom of speech basically, stating how much campaign groups can use for funding, and that campaign groups may not campaign on ANY political stance in the year preceding a general election, although this will NOT apply to CORPORATE lobbying groups, or political parties.
Now you may think, "Oh goodie no left wing organisations going against the governmment", but this includes ALL charities as well, people like OXFAM, THE RED CROSS, BARNARDOS, HELP THE AGED, SCOPE, yes
EVERY organisation.
What a tin pot law eh? All those charities that do such good work, are now limited as to the funding they can raise in the year preceding an election. rushed through for this year, OH funny that, just happens to be a general election next year.
It also happens that a lot of those charities are OPPOSED to policies this government are driving through, to do with health, care and the community. They will now no longer be able to campaign against them this year.
But it's ok Andy, we understand..........
.....YOU DON'T CARE.

As to the decrease in benefits, Andy please learn from my experience, I had it all once, nice house, nice wife, nice kids good job...........
Think about it eh? IT CAN HAPPEN TO ANYONE.
[quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dellorri[/bold] wrote: There is something about this thread that is irritating me in the extreme, gnawing away and it's the fact that, all through this comments section, no matter what is posted, what fact, what figure, it's all coming down to one thing, MONEY MONEY MONEY............ Are you all so cynical, so lacking in compassion, that labelling people is all you can do now. Following headlines and IDS's phony statistics, you jump on any little chance to complain about people on benefits. THIS CAP AFFECTED A MINISCULE PERCENTAGE IN BRADFORD. not even a tenth of 1%, yet it has caused this furore. Can't you see it's ANOTHER DEAD CAT ON THE TABLE? As advised by Lynton Crosbie, Chuck another dead cat on the table, they'll be so horrified, they won't notice anything else you do. Did you know the gagging law went through the house of lords yesterday unopposed........... .....NO you didn't, and it won;t be in the newspapers either, Because THIS IS, THE DEAD CAT STORY.[/p][/quote]I see no mention of dead cats. And this is a newspaper designed to drive traffic to their site and generate sales. They know the working population are sick of people taking the mick with the benefit system more than some tinpot law about gagging therefore print a story about the later. But from a personal point of view I couldn't care if its 1% or whatever as any decrease in the benefit is welcome news in my eyes[/p][/quote]Oh how witty of you Andy "I see no mention of dead cats". Plus you don't care about a "TINPOT" law............ A tinpot law that is going to remove the right to freedom of speech basically, stating how much campaign groups can use for funding, and that campaign groups may not campaign on ANY political stance in the year preceding a general election, although this will NOT apply to CORPORATE lobbying groups, or political parties. Now you may think, "Oh goodie no left wing organisations going against the governmment", but this includes ALL charities as well, people like OXFAM, THE RED CROSS, BARNARDOS, HELP THE AGED, SCOPE, yes EVERY organisation. What a tin pot law eh? All those charities that do such good work, are now limited as to the funding they can raise in the year preceding an election. rushed through for this year, OH funny that, just happens to be a general election next year. It also happens that a lot of those charities are OPPOSED to policies this government are driving through, to do with health, care and the community. They will now no longer be able to campaign against them this year. But it's ok Andy, we understand.......... .....YOU DON'T CARE. As to the decrease in benefits, Andy please learn from my experience, I had it all once, nice house, nice wife, nice kids good job........... Think about it eh? IT CAN HAPPEN TO ANYONE. dellorri
  • Score: 4

2:47pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Andy2010 says...

dellorri wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
dellorri wrote:
There is something about this thread that is irritating me in the extreme, gnawing away and it's the fact that, all through this comments section, no matter what is posted, what fact, what figure, it's all coming down to one thing, MONEY MONEY MONEY............
Are you all so cynical, so lacking in compassion, that labelling people is all you can do now. Following headlines and IDS's phony statistics, you jump on any little chance to complain about people on benefits.

THIS CAP AFFECTED A MINISCULE PERCENTAGE IN BRADFORD.
not even a tenth of 1%, yet it has caused this furore.
Can't you see it's ANOTHER DEAD CAT ON THE TABLE?
As advised by Lynton Crosbie, Chuck another dead cat on the table, they'll be so horrified, they won't notice anything else you do.

Did you know the gagging law went through the house of lords yesterday unopposed...........



.....NO you didn't, and it won;t be in the newspapers either, Because THIS IS, THE DEAD CAT STORY.
I see no mention of dead cats.

And this is a newspaper designed to drive traffic to their site and generate sales.

They know the working population are sick of people taking the mick with the benefit system more than some tinpot law about gagging therefore print a story about the later.

But from a personal point of view I couldn't care if its 1% or whatever as any decrease in the benefit is welcome news in my eyes
Oh how witty of you Andy "I see no mention of dead cats".
Plus you don't care about a "TINPOT" law............ A tinpot law that is going to remove the right to freedom of speech basically, stating how much campaign groups can use for funding, and that campaign groups may not campaign on ANY political stance in the year preceding a general election, although this will NOT apply to CORPORATE lobbying groups, or political parties.
Now you may think, "Oh goodie no left wing organisations going against the governmment", but this includes ALL charities as well, people like OXFAM, THE RED CROSS, BARNARDOS, HELP THE AGED, SCOPE, yes
EVERY organisation.
What a tin pot law eh? All those charities that do such good work, are now limited as to the funding they can raise in the year preceding an election. rushed through for this year, OH funny that, just happens to be a general election next year.
It also happens that a lot of those charities are OPPOSED to policies this government are driving through, to do with health, care and the community. They will now no longer be able to campaign against them this year.
But it's ok Andy, we understand..........

.....YOU DON'T CARE.

As to the decrease in benefits, Andy please learn from my experience, I had it all once, nice house, nice wife, nice kids good job...........
Think about it eh? IT CAN HAPPEN TO ANYONE.
You mean these charities with CEO's on £200k salaries.

Macmillan for example....every £1 you donate....just 5p goes to actually the charity side of it. The rest is spent on salaries and overheads.
[quote][p][bold]dellorri[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dellorri[/bold] wrote: There is something about this thread that is irritating me in the extreme, gnawing away and it's the fact that, all through this comments section, no matter what is posted, what fact, what figure, it's all coming down to one thing, MONEY MONEY MONEY............ Are you all so cynical, so lacking in compassion, that labelling people is all you can do now. Following headlines and IDS's phony statistics, you jump on any little chance to complain about people on benefits. THIS CAP AFFECTED A MINISCULE PERCENTAGE IN BRADFORD. not even a tenth of 1%, yet it has caused this furore. Can't you see it's ANOTHER DEAD CAT ON THE TABLE? As advised by Lynton Crosbie, Chuck another dead cat on the table, they'll be so horrified, they won't notice anything else you do. Did you know the gagging law went through the house of lords yesterday unopposed........... .....NO you didn't, and it won;t be in the newspapers either, Because THIS IS, THE DEAD CAT STORY.[/p][/quote]I see no mention of dead cats. And this is a newspaper designed to drive traffic to their site and generate sales. They know the working population are sick of people taking the mick with the benefit system more than some tinpot law about gagging therefore print a story about the later. But from a personal point of view I couldn't care if its 1% or whatever as any decrease in the benefit is welcome news in my eyes[/p][/quote]Oh how witty of you Andy "I see no mention of dead cats". Plus you don't care about a "TINPOT" law............ A tinpot law that is going to remove the right to freedom of speech basically, stating how much campaign groups can use for funding, and that campaign groups may not campaign on ANY political stance in the year preceding a general election, although this will NOT apply to CORPORATE lobbying groups, or political parties. Now you may think, "Oh goodie no left wing organisations going against the governmment", but this includes ALL charities as well, people like OXFAM, THE RED CROSS, BARNARDOS, HELP THE AGED, SCOPE, yes EVERY organisation. What a tin pot law eh? All those charities that do such good work, are now limited as to the funding they can raise in the year preceding an election. rushed through for this year, OH funny that, just happens to be a general election next year. It also happens that a lot of those charities are OPPOSED to policies this government are driving through, to do with health, care and the community. They will now no longer be able to campaign against them this year. But it's ok Andy, we understand.......... .....YOU DON'T CARE. As to the decrease in benefits, Andy please learn from my experience, I had it all once, nice house, nice wife, nice kids good job........... Think about it eh? IT CAN HAPPEN TO ANYONE.[/p][/quote]You mean these charities with CEO's on £200k salaries. Macmillan for example....every £1 you donate....just 5p goes to actually the charity side of it. The rest is spent on salaries and overheads. Andy2010
  • Score: 2

2:48pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Prisoner Cell Block A says...

Andy2010 wrote:
OLDLAD wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Parz wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
tinytoonster wrote: “While seeking to demonise people on benefits, the Government is giving a tax cut to millionaires and doing nothing to stop the scandal of bankers’ bonuses – the very people who got us into this mess in the first place.” think you will find labour is the reason we are in this mess. open door immigration policy, gold selling at a silly low price, benefits for all, thousands of made up jobs which crippled councils, paying union reps in councils. need i go on? time to punish people with large families, drop benefits for every child over a permitted amount. say 3.
If they have large families will punishing them make their families smaller? Why do you want to "punish" people? Are you psychologically unbalanced? I have had my suspicions for some time.
Maybe not. But then the state should not be expected to pick up the tab for families having children they cannot afford to provide for. Benefits (in my opinion) should stop increasing beyond your first 2 children. If you have any more that's up to you, nobody can tell you not to. But finacially, you're on your own.
Here's a scenario for you. A man has a well paid job, four kids and rents a nice home in a leafy suberb. He looses his job. Does he start his quest to find a new job by taking a couple of the kids out the back and disposing of them or by packing up all his belongings to move home? He could be back in work in a month, six months or maybe it could take longer. Would loosing his home and stressing out over how to keep his children help or hinder his job search? If there were people crying out for employees I could understand the venom aimed at the benefit claimants but this is Bradford and the jobs are not there.
Reed have 4907 jobs in Bradford

http://www.reed.co.u



k/jobs?keywords=&amp
;
;
;job
titleonly=false&


loca
tion=bradford&sa


lary
From=&salaryTo=&
amp;
amp;
amp;perh
our=false

And Monster 1000 plus

http://jobsearch.mon



ster.co.uk/jobs/?cy=



uk&where=Bradfor


d__2
C-Yorkshire

Thats just two sites and doesnt take Leeds into account

There are jobs is people can bothered going out and looking for them

I'll await your usual responses
Reed and jobs! Have been on Reed's books for 12 months, and have higher qualifications, and in all that time all the jobs I have applied for I have never even had a call from them. When I popped in to speak to them they just said too qualified for the jobs applied for. Surely it's the employer that should make that decision.
Reed are generally a low level agency who deal in bottom of the ladder jobs but their website is actually a separate business entity who farms roles from all agencies of which this division takes a cut off if that make sense.

There are still a lot of agencies out there for the more qualified who do actually deal in jobs which aren't even advertised. Castlefield in Leeds for example work solely with candidates on their books and gain them employment through contacts rather than advertising.

Good to see you are one that is at least looking for work though
Upload a CV to jobsite or similar, I have been in my current role 13 years in March but have mine on there on the off chance something takes my eye. I receive 5-10 emails per week related to the keywords on my CV.
[quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OLDLAD[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parz[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tinytoonster[/bold] wrote: “While seeking to demonise people on benefits, the Government is giving a tax cut to millionaires and doing nothing to stop the scandal of bankers’ bonuses – the very people who got us into this mess in the first place.” think you will find labour is the reason we are in this mess. open door immigration policy, gold selling at a silly low price, benefits for all, thousands of made up jobs which crippled councils, paying union reps in councils. need i go on? time to punish people with large families, drop benefits for every child over a permitted amount. say 3.[/p][/quote]If they have large families will punishing them make their families smaller? Why do you want to "punish" people? Are you psychologically unbalanced? I have had my suspicions for some time.[/p][/quote]Maybe not. But then the state should not be expected to pick up the tab for families having children they cannot afford to provide for. Benefits (in my opinion) should stop increasing beyond your first 2 children. If you have any more that's up to you, nobody can tell you not to. But finacially, you're on your own.[/p][/quote]Here's a scenario for you. A man has a well paid job, four kids and rents a nice home in a leafy suberb. He looses his job. Does he start his quest to find a new job by taking a couple of the kids out the back and disposing of them or by packing up all his belongings to move home? He could be back in work in a month, six months or maybe it could take longer. Would loosing his home and stressing out over how to keep his children help or hinder his job search? If there were people crying out for employees I could understand the venom aimed at the benefit claimants but this is Bradford and the jobs are not there.[/p][/quote]Reed have 4907 jobs in Bradford http://www.reed.co.u k/jobs?keywords=& ; ; ;job titleonly=false& loca tion=bradford&sa lary From=&salaryTo=& amp; amp; amp;perh our=false And Monster 1000 plus http://jobsearch.mon ster.co.uk/jobs/?cy= uk&where=Bradfor d__2 C-Yorkshire Thats just two sites and doesnt take Leeds into account There are jobs is people can bothered going out and looking for them I'll await your usual responses[/p][/quote]Reed and jobs! Have been on Reed's books for 12 months, and have higher qualifications, and in all that time all the jobs I have applied for I have never even had a call from them. When I popped in to speak to them they just said too qualified for the jobs applied for. Surely it's the employer that should make that decision.[/p][/quote]Reed are generally a low level agency who deal in bottom of the ladder jobs but their website is actually a separate business entity who farms roles from all agencies of which this division takes a cut off if that make sense. There are still a lot of agencies out there for the more qualified who do actually deal in jobs which aren't even advertised. Castlefield in Leeds for example work solely with candidates on their books and gain them employment through contacts rather than advertising. Good to see you are one that is at least looking for work though[/p][/quote]Upload a CV to jobsite or similar, I have been in my current role 13 years in March but have mine on there on the off chance something takes my eye. I receive 5-10 emails per week related to the keywords on my CV. Prisoner Cell Block A
  • Score: 0

2:49pm Wed 29 Jan 14

ade_splat says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
Parz wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
tinytoonster wrote: “While seeking to demonise people on benefits, the Government is giving a tax cut to millionaires and doing nothing to stop the scandal of bankers’ bonuses – the very people who got us into this mess in the first place.” think you will find labour is the reason we are in this mess. open door immigration policy, gold selling at a silly low price, benefits for all, thousands of made up jobs which crippled councils, paying union reps in councils. need i go on? time to punish people with large families, drop benefits for every child over a permitted amount. say 3.
If they have large families will punishing them make their families smaller? Why do you want to "punish" people? Are you psychologically unbalanced? I have had my suspicions for some time.
Maybe not. But then the state should not be expected to pick up the tab for families having children they cannot afford to provide for. Benefits (in my opinion) should stop increasing beyond your first 2 children. If you have any more that's up to you, nobody can tell you not to. But finacially, you're on your own.
Here's a scenario for you. A man has a well paid job, four kids and rents a nice home in a leafy suberb. He looses his job. Does he start his quest to find a new job by taking a couple of the kids out the back and disposing of them or by packing up all his belongings to move home? He could be back in work in a month, six months or maybe it could take longer. Would loosing his home and stressing out over how to keep his children help or hinder his job search? If there were people crying out for employees I could understand the venom aimed at the benefit claimants but this is Bradford and the jobs are not there.
Why not relocate or else commute to where the jobs are?
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parz[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tinytoonster[/bold] wrote: “While seeking to demonise people on benefits, the Government is giving a tax cut to millionaires and doing nothing to stop the scandal of bankers’ bonuses – the very people who got us into this mess in the first place.” think you will find labour is the reason we are in this mess. open door immigration policy, gold selling at a silly low price, benefits for all, thousands of made up jobs which crippled councils, paying union reps in councils. need i go on? time to punish people with large families, drop benefits for every child over a permitted amount. say 3.[/p][/quote]If they have large families will punishing them make their families smaller? Why do you want to "punish" people? Are you psychologically unbalanced? I have had my suspicions for some time.[/p][/quote]Maybe not. But then the state should not be expected to pick up the tab for families having children they cannot afford to provide for. Benefits (in my opinion) should stop increasing beyond your first 2 children. If you have any more that's up to you, nobody can tell you not to. But finacially, you're on your own.[/p][/quote]Here's a scenario for you. A man has a well paid job, four kids and rents a nice home in a leafy suberb. He looses his job. Does he start his quest to find a new job by taking a couple of the kids out the back and disposing of them or by packing up all his belongings to move home? He could be back in work in a month, six months or maybe it could take longer. Would loosing his home and stressing out over how to keep his children help or hinder his job search? If there were people crying out for employees I could understand the venom aimed at the benefit claimants but this is Bradford and the jobs are not there.[/p][/quote]Why not relocate or else commute to where the jobs are? ade_splat
  • Score: 4

2:52pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Prisoner Cell Block A says...

Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Prisoner Cell Block A wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
It seems a lot of people are complaining that they've got up at the crack of dawn and sat in rush hour traffic to do a job they hate which is suprising as I would have thought if they were working reading and commenting on stories in the T&A would not be in many job descriptions. Why do you do it you ask? Well there's only you that can answer that but I presume it's because you don't fancy struggling by on job seekers allowance which even with housing benefit and council tax benefit wouldn't take you to £10k let alone £26k. So I ask again why are the claimants that Davies has chosen for his political point scoring excersize getting these sums. If no-one can answer due to the fact that they don't know the circumstances I suggest they shut up especially if their name is Philip Davies.
"Why do you do it you ask? Well there's only you that can answer that but I presume it's because you don't fancy struggling by on job seekers allowance "

Or they have pride? A feeling of self-worth and do not want to be either a burden on the state or a failure for their families? There are many reasons people go to work, the main one being to generate an income but not always.

We know of your circumstances but there is DEFINITELY a culture of 'the non-working class' and always has been, even when jobs were plentiful.
If their job is making them worse off than they would be on benefits then it would seem that their employers are exploiting them. It's a strange person who takes a pride in knowingly being exploited. We know this happens but why is the employer never critisised for offering poverty wages and leaving the taxpayer to subsidise the employees living costs? I know that money is not always the motivation. There are many people who work voluntarily but they will only do so if they can afford to do so.
Again rubbish

Most volunteers are people on benefits who are volunteering to gain experience.

Again let me flip your comment. you say employers are exploiting employees if they are better off on benefits. My view would be that if they are better off on benefits the Government are being far too generous with their benefits.
If the taxpayer is having to pay towards benefits for people in full time employment, which they are, how can you say that it is the benefits that are at fault rather than the pityful wages? Why is paying for someones employee acceptable?
Yes there wages are topped up by tax credits but in turn they are making further income tax payments so the nett effect on the benefit payment is actually a gain to the country.
But isn't really correct or right, the employees wage should be enough they can pay a decent amount of PAYE to make a bigger positive difference without top ups from a benefit pot and without impacting their right and freedoms after a working week. Surely? And this MUST be covered by employers not the country
[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]Prisoner Cell Block A[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: It seems a lot of people are complaining that they've got up at the crack of dawn and sat in rush hour traffic to do a job they hate which is suprising as I would have thought if they were working reading and commenting on stories in the T&A would not be in many job descriptions. Why do you do it you ask? Well there's only you that can answer that but I presume it's because you don't fancy struggling by on job seekers allowance which even with housing benefit and council tax benefit wouldn't take you to £10k let alone £26k. So I ask again why are the claimants that Davies has chosen for his political point scoring excersize getting these sums. If no-one can answer due to the fact that they don't know the circumstances I suggest they shut up especially if their name is Philip Davies.[/p][/quote]"Why do you do it you ask? Well there's only you that can answer that but I presume it's because you don't fancy struggling by on job seekers allowance " Or they have pride? A feeling of self-worth and do not want to be either a burden on the state or a failure for their families? There are many reasons people go to work, the main one being to generate an income but not always. We know of your circumstances but there is DEFINITELY a culture of 'the non-working class' and always has been, even when jobs were plentiful.[/p][/quote]If their job is making them worse off than they would be on benefits then it would seem that their employers are exploiting them. It's a strange person who takes a pride in knowingly being exploited. We know this happens but why is the employer never critisised for offering poverty wages and leaving the taxpayer to subsidise the employees living costs? I know that money is not always the motivation. There are many people who work voluntarily but they will only do so if they can afford to do so.[/p][/quote]Again rubbish Most volunteers are people on benefits who are volunteering to gain experience. Again let me flip your comment. you say employers are exploiting employees if they are better off on benefits. My view would be that if they are better off on benefits the Government are being far too generous with their benefits.[/p][/quote]If the taxpayer is having to pay towards benefits for people in full time employment, which they are, how can you say that it is the benefits that are at fault rather than the pityful wages? Why is paying for someones employee acceptable?[/p][/quote]Yes there wages are topped up by tax credits but in turn they are making further income tax payments so the nett effect on the benefit payment is actually a gain to the country.[/p][/quote]But isn't really correct or right, the employees wage should be enough they can pay a decent amount of PAYE to make a bigger positive difference without top ups from a benefit pot and without impacting their right and freedoms after a working week. Surely? And this MUST be covered by employers not the country Prisoner Cell Block A
  • Score: 5

3:03pm Wed 29 Jan 14

dellorri says...

Prisoner Cell Block A wrote:
"@dellorri

To be honest fella, those who have never worked but are able, who doss all day and booze/smoke etc all night, those depicted in the CH4 programme, and they do exist in society, really have no need to be alive, they offer nothing, serve no purpose and are a drain on those who actually do need to be supported by the benefits system."

Well, you were honest there, so I'll be honest with you, I'm not stupid, I know there are those out there, who are lazy barstewards who play the system, and those people I do not condone or defend one iota. But, and it's a big BUT, they are such a tiny minority of claimants. The media and IDS throw them out and magnify them, people see them and automatically, it becomes EVERY claimant is a "DOSSER" or a "SCROUNGER". That just is NOT the truth.
Did you know for instance, IDS says "I am cutting down on those who claim benefits." What he DOESN'T tell you is the fact that, there are MORE people WORKING FULL TIME who claim benefits, than unemployed.
George Osbourne says "I am making it easier to get work by cutting employment tax for first time employees." Hah employment tax is what he has labelled NI, so by ending NI contributions for the employee and employer, he makes it more attractive to take them on. The only trouble is, should that person ever become unemployed through illness, or if the company folds, they will NEVER have paid in any contributions, and will not be entitled to any benefits.
But I digress, for which I apologise, I will say this now as I have in the past, if you know of someone who is fraudulently claiming benefits I urge you to inform the DWP immediately, because I assure you wholeheartedly i would, and have done in the past. But I will also say, be 100% sure before you do, don't just do it on the basis that "they've got a big telly"
They might be getting it from brighthouse at £5 a week for 5 years and paying twice the normal price for the privilege, I.E. the cost of a couple of pints to any working person, but a luxury to them.
Prisoner Cell Block A wrote: "@dellorri To be honest fella, those who have never worked but are able, who doss all day and booze/smoke etc all night, those depicted in the CH4 programme, and they do exist in society, really have no need to be alive, they offer nothing, serve no purpose and are a drain on those who actually do need to be supported by the benefits system." Well, you were honest there, so I'll be honest with you, I'm not stupid, I know there are those out there, who are lazy barstewards who play the system, and those people I do not condone or defend one iota. But, and it's a big BUT, they are such a tiny minority of claimants. The media and IDS throw them out and magnify them, people see them and automatically, it becomes EVERY claimant is a "DOSSER" or a "SCROUNGER". That just is NOT the truth. Did you know for instance, IDS says "I am cutting down on those who claim benefits." What he DOESN'T tell you is the fact that, there are MORE people WORKING FULL TIME who claim benefits, than unemployed. George Osbourne says "I am making it easier to get work by cutting employment tax for first time employees." Hah employment tax is what he has labelled NI, so by ending NI contributions for the employee and employer, he makes it more attractive to take them on. The only trouble is, should that person ever become unemployed through illness, or if the company folds, they will NEVER have paid in any contributions, and will not be entitled to any benefits. But I digress, for which I apologise, I will say this now as I have in the past, if you know of someone who is fraudulently claiming benefits I urge you to inform the DWP immediately, because I assure you wholeheartedly i would, and have done in the past. But I will also say, be 100% sure before you do, don't just do it on the basis that "they've got a big telly" They might be getting it from brighthouse at £5 a week for 5 years and paying twice the normal price for the privilege, I.E. the cost of a couple of pints to any working person, but a luxury to them. dellorri
  • Score: 4

3:07pm Wed 29 Jan 14

eccythump says...

Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Parz wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
tinytoonster wrote: “While seeking to demonise people on benefits, the Government is giving a tax cut to millionaires and doing nothing to stop the scandal of bankers’ bonuses – the very people who got us into this mess in the first place.” think you will find labour is the reason we are in this mess. open door immigration policy, gold selling at a silly low price, benefits for all, thousands of made up jobs which crippled councils, paying union reps in councils. need i go on? time to punish people with large families, drop benefits for every child over a permitted amount. say 3.
If they have large families will punishing them make their families smaller? Why do you want to "punish" people? Are you psychologically unbalanced? I have had my suspicions for some time.
Maybe not. But then the state should not be expected to pick up the tab for families having children they cannot afford to provide for. Benefits (in my opinion) should stop increasing beyond your first 2 children. If you have any more that's up to you, nobody can tell you not to. But finacially, you're on your own.
Here's a scenario for you. A man has a well paid job, four kids and rents a nice home in a leafy suberb. He looses his job. Does he start his quest to find a new job by taking a couple of the kids out the back and disposing of them or by packing up all his belongings to move home? He could be back in work in a month, six months or maybe it could take longer. Would loosing his home and stressing out over how to keep his children help or hinder his job search? If there were people crying out for employees I could understand the venom aimed at the benefit claimants but this is Bradford and the jobs are not there.
Reed have 4907 jobs in Bradford

http://www.reed.co.u

k/jobs?keywords=&amp
;job
titleonly=false&
loca
tion=bradford&sa
lary
From=&salaryTo=&
amp;perh
our=false

And Monster 1000 plus

http://jobsearch.mon

ster.co.uk/jobs/?cy=

uk&where=Bradfor
d__2
C-Yorkshire

Thats just two sites and doesnt take Leeds into account

There are jobs is people can bothered going out and looking for them

I'll await your usual responses
My sister was made redundant a while ago. She is 60 and although a grafter all her life, she has Crohns disease and OCPD. She has applied for hundreds of jobs, doesn't even get a reply. She is now also clinically depressed.She has been turned down for ESA though and deemed 'fit fot work', Her Crohns has flared up so badly, due to the stress she now needs an operation and may lose all of her bowel. It matters not how many jobs there are being advertised, she would not get employed by anyone! There are a lot of people in the same boat. Just blithley saying: " All these scroungers should go get a job". Is just ridiculous.
[quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parz[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tinytoonster[/bold] wrote: “While seeking to demonise people on benefits, the Government is giving a tax cut to millionaires and doing nothing to stop the scandal of bankers’ bonuses – the very people who got us into this mess in the first place.” think you will find labour is the reason we are in this mess. open door immigration policy, gold selling at a silly low price, benefits for all, thousands of made up jobs which crippled councils, paying union reps in councils. need i go on? time to punish people with large families, drop benefits for every child over a permitted amount. say 3.[/p][/quote]If they have large families will punishing them make their families smaller? Why do you want to "punish" people? Are you psychologically unbalanced? I have had my suspicions for some time.[/p][/quote]Maybe not. But then the state should not be expected to pick up the tab for families having children they cannot afford to provide for. Benefits (in my opinion) should stop increasing beyond your first 2 children. If you have any more that's up to you, nobody can tell you not to. But finacially, you're on your own.[/p][/quote]Here's a scenario for you. A man has a well paid job, four kids and rents a nice home in a leafy suberb. He looses his job. Does he start his quest to find a new job by taking a couple of the kids out the back and disposing of them or by packing up all his belongings to move home? He could be back in work in a month, six months or maybe it could take longer. Would loosing his home and stressing out over how to keep his children help or hinder his job search? If there were people crying out for employees I could understand the venom aimed at the benefit claimants but this is Bradford and the jobs are not there.[/p][/quote]Reed have 4907 jobs in Bradford http://www.reed.co.u k/jobs?keywords=& ;job titleonly=false& loca tion=bradford&sa lary From=&salaryTo=& amp;perh our=false And Monster 1000 plus http://jobsearch.mon ster.co.uk/jobs/?cy= uk&where=Bradfor d__2 C-Yorkshire Thats just two sites and doesnt take Leeds into account There are jobs is people can bothered going out and looking for them I'll await your usual responses[/p][/quote]My sister was made redundant a while ago. She is 60 and although a grafter all her life, she has Crohns disease and OCPD. She has applied for hundreds of jobs, doesn't even get a reply. She is now also clinically depressed.She has been turned down for ESA though and deemed 'fit fot work', Her Crohns has flared up so badly, due to the stress she now needs an operation and may lose all of her bowel. It matters not how many jobs there are being advertised, she would not get employed by anyone! There are a lot of people in the same boat. Just blithley saying: " All these scroungers should go get a job". Is just ridiculous. eccythump
  • Score: 5

3:10pm Wed 29 Jan 14

webshow says...

dellorri wrote:
Oh and actually Webshow a lot of those young people no longer live with their families, because from October last year the government decided in it's wisdom, that they should be classed as NON_DEPENDENTS, and therefore if living in the parents home, then the parents would be charged as if the young person were paying them full rent.
But if they weren't living at home, I.E. leaving a bedroom empty, then a parent on housing benefit, would be penalised by the "spare room subsidy" penalty,
or if you prefer "the bedroom tax."
So you see, the government win, either way. Kind and compassionate aren't they?
The fact the govt gives anything at all shows some compassion, and you will not starve but the era of freeloaders is clearly finished. It is time for people to help themselves and improve their situation by re-training their skills or getting a job and if not suitable lowering their expectations and in most cases lowering their ego's to get a job. As long as it puts food on the table - work.
[quote][p][bold]dellorri[/bold] wrote: Oh and actually Webshow a lot of those young people no longer live with their families, because from October last year the government decided in it's wisdom, that they should be classed as NON_DEPENDENTS, and therefore if living in the parents home, then the parents would be charged as if the young person were paying them full rent. But if they weren't living at home, I.E. leaving a bedroom empty, then a parent on housing benefit, would be penalised by the "spare room subsidy" penalty, or if you prefer "the bedroom tax." So you see, the government win, either way. Kind and compassionate aren't they?[/p][/quote]The fact the govt gives anything at all shows some compassion, and you will not starve but the era of freeloaders is clearly finished. It is time for people to help themselves and improve their situation by re-training their skills or getting a job and if not suitable lowering their expectations and in most cases lowering their ego's to get a job. As long as it puts food on the table - work. webshow
  • Score: -2

3:12pm Wed 29 Jan 14

webshow says...

eccythump wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Parz wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
tinytoonster wrote: “While seeking to demonise people on benefits, the Government is giving a tax cut to millionaires and doing nothing to stop the scandal of bankers’ bonuses – the very people who got us into this mess in the first place.” think you will find labour is the reason we are in this mess. open door immigration policy, gold selling at a silly low price, benefits for all, thousands of made up jobs which crippled councils, paying union reps in councils. need i go on? time to punish people with large families, drop benefits for every child over a permitted amount. say 3.
If they have large families will punishing them make their families smaller? Why do you want to "punish" people? Are you psychologically unbalanced? I have had my suspicions for some time.
Maybe not. But then the state should not be expected to pick up the tab for families having children they cannot afford to provide for. Benefits (in my opinion) should stop increasing beyond your first 2 children. If you have any more that's up to you, nobody can tell you not to. But finacially, you're on your own.
Here's a scenario for you. A man has a well paid job, four kids and rents a nice home in a leafy suberb. He looses his job. Does he start his quest to find a new job by taking a couple of the kids out the back and disposing of them or by packing up all his belongings to move home? He could be back in work in a month, six months or maybe it could take longer. Would loosing his home and stressing out over how to keep his children help or hinder his job search? If there were people crying out for employees I could understand the venom aimed at the benefit claimants but this is Bradford and the jobs are not there.
Reed have 4907 jobs in Bradford

http://www.reed.co.u


k/jobs?keywords=&amp
;
;job
titleonly=false&

loca
tion=bradford&sa

lary
From=&salaryTo=&
amp;
amp;perh
our=false

And Monster 1000 plus

http://jobsearch.mon


ster.co.uk/jobs/?cy=


uk&where=Bradfor

d__2
C-Yorkshire

Thats just two sites and doesnt take Leeds into account

There are jobs is people can bothered going out and looking for them

I'll await your usual responses
My sister was made redundant a while ago. She is 60 and although a grafter all her life, she has Crohns disease and OCPD. She has applied for hundreds of jobs, doesn't even get a reply. She is now also clinically depressed.She has been turned down for ESA though and deemed 'fit fot work', Her Crohns has flared up so badly, due to the stress she now needs an operation and may lose all of her bowel. It matters not how many jobs there are being advertised, she would not get employed by anyone! There are a lot of people in the same boat. Just blithley saying: " All these scroungers should go get a job". Is just ridiculous.
Your sister in my opinion should get all the help available. Clearly she is not a scrounger and I am sure people like me who work full time and have worked continuously over several decades will have no qualms of her claiming benefits.
[quote][p][bold]eccythump[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parz[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tinytoonster[/bold] wrote: “While seeking to demonise people on benefits, the Government is giving a tax cut to millionaires and doing nothing to stop the scandal of bankers’ bonuses – the very people who got us into this mess in the first place.” think you will find labour is the reason we are in this mess. open door immigration policy, gold selling at a silly low price, benefits for all, thousands of made up jobs which crippled councils, paying union reps in councils. need i go on? time to punish people with large families, drop benefits for every child over a permitted amount. say 3.[/p][/quote]If they have large families will punishing them make their families smaller? Why do you want to "punish" people? Are you psychologically unbalanced? I have had my suspicions for some time.[/p][/quote]Maybe not. But then the state should not be expected to pick up the tab for families having children they cannot afford to provide for. Benefits (in my opinion) should stop increasing beyond your first 2 children. If you have any more that's up to you, nobody can tell you not to. But finacially, you're on your own.[/p][/quote]Here's a scenario for you. A man has a well paid job, four kids and rents a nice home in a leafy suberb. He looses his job. Does he start his quest to find a new job by taking a couple of the kids out the back and disposing of them or by packing up all his belongings to move home? He could be back in work in a month, six months or maybe it could take longer. Would loosing his home and stressing out over how to keep his children help or hinder his job search? If there were people crying out for employees I could understand the venom aimed at the benefit claimants but this is Bradford and the jobs are not there.[/p][/quote]Reed have 4907 jobs in Bradford http://www.reed.co.u k/jobs?keywords=& ; ;job titleonly=false& loca tion=bradford&sa lary From=&salaryTo=& amp; amp;perh our=false And Monster 1000 plus http://jobsearch.mon ster.co.uk/jobs/?cy= uk&where=Bradfor d__2 C-Yorkshire Thats just two sites and doesnt take Leeds into account There are jobs is people can bothered going out and looking for them I'll await your usual responses[/p][/quote]My sister was made redundant a while ago. She is 60 and although a grafter all her life, she has Crohns disease and OCPD. She has applied for hundreds of jobs, doesn't even get a reply. She is now also clinically depressed.She has been turned down for ESA though and deemed 'fit fot work', Her Crohns has flared up so badly, due to the stress she now needs an operation and may lose all of her bowel. It matters not how many jobs there are being advertised, she would not get employed by anyone! There are a lot of people in the same boat. Just blithley saying: " All these scroungers should go get a job". Is just ridiculous.[/p][/quote]Your sister in my opinion should get all the help available. Clearly she is not a scrounger and I am sure people like me who work full time and have worked continuously over several decades will have no qualms of her claiming benefits. webshow
  • Score: 4

3:21pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Bantambhoy says...

dellorri wrote:
Apollo wrote:
Working should always provide more financial incentive than any packages of benefits.

Otherwise why would anyone work? Oh! just remembered - millions in this country do not work vwho could and should. They rely on benefits paid for by the rest of us.

No more it seems and that is a good thing.

Choosing not to work should no longer be an acceptable lifestyle choice - if it ever was.
how many millions is that then Apollo, Because according to "Call me Dave" and his cohorts the figure is dropping daily, though I believe at the last count, it was officially 2.1 million, though this does not take into account, those on workfare, those currently sanctioned, those who are unemployed but not claiming (economically inactive). Which actually brings the figure nearer to 6.7 million. I also believe at the last count by the DWP there were officially 849,652 vacancies to be filled, so with that many out of work, and that amount of vacancies. Where does CHOICE come into the equation? Oh and if you think benefits is such and easy lifestyle CHOICE, why not go for it,
Become intentionally unemployed and you'll immediately be sanctioned for 26 weeks, i.e. NO BENEFITS, good choice eh? Choose to be on JSA, miss an advisor appointment by 5 minutes...........sa

nctioned for 4 weeks the first time, 13 weeks the second time, 3 years on a third time, good choice eh?
sick or disabled, too illl to work, no problem quick trip to ATOS and they will get you sorted, so you've got terminal cancer, but you're prognosis is that you will live for MORE THAN 7 MONTHS, "Sorry you'll have to go in the WRAG group" In the WRAG group you will be expected to attend work advisory meetings, go on non-time limited workfare up to 2 years, Should you fail in any of the tasks set for you during your time in WRAG, YOU WILL BE SANCTIONED. good choice eh?
The jobless, the sick, the disabled, are all suffering, Osbourne is saying he will cut the welfare bill by a firther £12 BILLION if they get back in.
Well who's he going it take it from? JSA counts for £3 billion, ESA for £3.9 billion, DLA/PIP for £13 billion housing benefit for £17 billion, the rest of the welfare budget aprroximately £37 billion is paid to pensioners.

In fact here's something to take a look at and think about, then consider benefits............

...

www.parasitestreet.c

o.uk
You must be close to suicide!!
[quote][p][bold]dellorri[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Apollo[/bold] wrote: Working should always provide more financial incentive than any packages of benefits. Otherwise why would anyone work? Oh! just remembered - millions in this country do not work vwho could and should. They rely on benefits paid for by the rest of us. No more it seems and that is a good thing. Choosing not to work should no longer be an acceptable lifestyle choice - if it ever was.[/p][/quote]how many millions is that then Apollo, Because according to "Call me Dave" and his cohorts the figure is dropping daily, though I believe at the last count, it was officially 2.1 million, though this does not take into account, those on workfare, those currently sanctioned, those who are unemployed but not claiming (economically inactive). Which actually brings the figure nearer to 6.7 million. I also believe at the last count by the DWP there were officially 849,652 vacancies to be filled, so with that many out of work, and that amount of vacancies. Where does CHOICE come into the equation? Oh and if you think benefits is such and easy lifestyle CHOICE, why not go for it, Become intentionally unemployed and you'll immediately be sanctioned for 26 weeks, i.e. NO BENEFITS, good choice eh? Choose to be on JSA, miss an advisor appointment by 5 minutes...........sa nctioned for 4 weeks the first time, 13 weeks the second time, 3 years on a third time, good choice eh? sick or disabled, too illl to work, no problem quick trip to ATOS and they will get you sorted, so you've got terminal cancer, but you're prognosis is that you will live for MORE THAN 7 MONTHS, "Sorry you'll have to go in the WRAG group" In the WRAG group you will be expected to attend work advisory meetings, go on non-time limited workfare up to 2 years, Should you fail in any of the tasks set for you during your time in WRAG, YOU WILL BE SANCTIONED. good choice eh? The jobless, the sick, the disabled, are all suffering, Osbourne is saying he will cut the welfare bill by a firther £12 BILLION if they get back in. Well who's he going it take it from? JSA counts for £3 billion, ESA for £3.9 billion, DLA/PIP for £13 billion housing benefit for £17 billion, the rest of the welfare budget aprroximately £37 billion is paid to pensioners. In fact here's something to take a look at and think about, then consider benefits............ ... www.parasitestreet.c o.uk[/p][/quote]You must be close to suicide!! Bantambhoy
  • Score: -1

3:24pm Wed 29 Jan 14

dellorri says...

Andy2010 wrote:
dellorri wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
dellorri wrote:
There is something about this thread that is irritating me in the extreme, gnawing away and it's the fact that, all through this comments section, no matter what is posted, what fact, what figure, it's all coming down to one thing, MONEY MONEY MONEY............
Are you all so cynical, so lacking in compassion, that labelling people is all you can do now. Following headlines and IDS's phony statistics, you jump on any little chance to complain about people on benefits.

THIS CAP AFFECTED A MINISCULE PERCENTAGE IN BRADFORD.
not even a tenth of 1%, yet it has caused this furore.
Can't you see it's ANOTHER DEAD CAT ON THE TABLE?
As advised by Lynton Crosbie, Chuck another dead cat on the table, they'll be so horrified, they won't notice anything else you do.

Did you know the gagging law went through the house of lords yesterday unopposed...........




.....NO you didn't, and it won;t be in the newspapers either, Because THIS IS, THE DEAD CAT STORY.
I see no mention of dead cats.

And this is a newspaper designed to drive traffic to their site and generate sales.

They know the working population are sick of people taking the mick with the benefit system more than some tinpot law about gagging therefore print a story about the later.

But from a personal point of view I couldn't care if its 1% or whatever as any decrease in the benefit is welcome news in my eyes
Oh how witty of you Andy "I see no mention of dead cats".
Plus you don't care about a "TINPOT" law............ A tinpot law that is going to remove the right to freedom of speech basically, stating how much campaign groups can use for funding, and that campaign groups may not campaign on ANY political stance in the year preceding a general election, although this will NOT apply to CORPORATE lobbying groups, or political parties.
Now you may think, "Oh goodie no left wing organisations going against the governmment", but this includes ALL charities as well, people like OXFAM, THE RED CROSS, BARNARDOS, HELP THE AGED, SCOPE, yes
EVERY organisation.
What a tin pot law eh? All those charities that do such good work, are now limited as to the funding they can raise in the year preceding an election. rushed through for this year, OH funny that, just happens to be a general election next year.
It also happens that a lot of those charities are OPPOSED to policies this government are driving through, to do with health, care and the community. They will now no longer be able to campaign against them this year.
But it's ok Andy, we understand..........


.....YOU DON'T CARE.

As to the decrease in benefits, Andy please learn from my experience, I had it all once, nice house, nice wife, nice kids good job...........
Think about it eh? IT CAN HAPPEN TO ANYONE.
You mean these charities with CEO's on £200k salaries.

Macmillan for example....every £1 you donate....just 5p goes to actually the charity side of it. The rest is spent on salaries and overheads.
Yes isn't it strange that it costs money to run things, especially things that should be funded by government like CANCER TREATMENT. But no it takes a charity to provide home nursing, which they do, in extremely difficult financial times, and bereavment counselling, All free at point of service, because it's charitable.
Yet in a Cheltenham hospital there are two machines, that could treat certain types of cancer with an 80% success rate, cutting the hospital stay from 7 weeks to one week, Up until April last year they were used 758 times.
When NHS ENGLAND took over the running of the funding decisions of NHS trusts in April they revised the funding for those machines, in total since then, they have been used 4 times.
Only 5p to the charity, but it seems the 5p is better spent than the money going to NHS ENGLAND, which is just what the ConDems want, because the more the NHS fails, the easier it is to sell.
So you carry on with your cynicism Andy, I hope your immortality never wears off. Sadly the rest of us live in the real world where the daily GRIND replaced the Mail a long time ago.
[quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dellorri[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dellorri[/bold] wrote: There is something about this thread that is irritating me in the extreme, gnawing away and it's the fact that, all through this comments section, no matter what is posted, what fact, what figure, it's all coming down to one thing, MONEY MONEY MONEY............ Are you all so cynical, so lacking in compassion, that labelling people is all you can do now. Following headlines and IDS's phony statistics, you jump on any little chance to complain about people on benefits. THIS CAP AFFECTED A MINISCULE PERCENTAGE IN BRADFORD. not even a tenth of 1%, yet it has caused this furore. Can't you see it's ANOTHER DEAD CAT ON THE TABLE? As advised by Lynton Crosbie, Chuck another dead cat on the table, they'll be so horrified, they won't notice anything else you do. Did you know the gagging law went through the house of lords yesterday unopposed........... .....NO you didn't, and it won;t be in the newspapers either, Because THIS IS, THE DEAD CAT STORY.[/p][/quote]I see no mention of dead cats. And this is a newspaper designed to drive traffic to their site and generate sales. They know the working population are sick of people taking the mick with the benefit system more than some tinpot law about gagging therefore print a story about the later. But from a personal point of view I couldn't care if its 1% or whatever as any decrease in the benefit is welcome news in my eyes[/p][/quote]Oh how witty of you Andy "I see no mention of dead cats". Plus you don't care about a "TINPOT" law............ A tinpot law that is going to remove the right to freedom of speech basically, stating how much campaign groups can use for funding, and that campaign groups may not campaign on ANY political stance in the year preceding a general election, although this will NOT apply to CORPORATE lobbying groups, or political parties. Now you may think, "Oh goodie no left wing organisations going against the governmment", but this includes ALL charities as well, people like OXFAM, THE RED CROSS, BARNARDOS, HELP THE AGED, SCOPE, yes EVERY organisation. What a tin pot law eh? All those charities that do such good work, are now limited as to the funding they can raise in the year preceding an election. rushed through for this year, OH funny that, just happens to be a general election next year. It also happens that a lot of those charities are OPPOSED to policies this government are driving through, to do with health, care and the community. They will now no longer be able to campaign against them this year. But it's ok Andy, we understand.......... .....YOU DON'T CARE. As to the decrease in benefits, Andy please learn from my experience, I had it all once, nice house, nice wife, nice kids good job........... Think about it eh? IT CAN HAPPEN TO ANYONE.[/p][/quote]You mean these charities with CEO's on £200k salaries. Macmillan for example....every £1 you donate....just 5p goes to actually the charity side of it. The rest is spent on salaries and overheads.[/p][/quote]Yes isn't it strange that it costs money to run things, especially things that should be funded by government like CANCER TREATMENT. But no it takes a charity to provide home nursing, which they do, in extremely difficult financial times, and bereavment counselling, All free at point of service, because it's charitable. Yet in a Cheltenham hospital there are two machines, that could treat certain types of cancer with an 80% success rate, cutting the hospital stay from 7 weeks to one week, Up until April last year they were used 758 times. When NHS ENGLAND took over the running of the funding decisions of NHS trusts in April they revised the funding for those machines, in total since then, they have been used 4 times. Only 5p to the charity, but it seems the 5p is better spent than the money going to NHS ENGLAND, which is just what the ConDems want, because the more the NHS fails, the easier it is to sell. So you carry on with your cynicism Andy, I hope your immortality never wears off. Sadly the rest of us live in the real world where the daily GRIND replaced the Mail a long time ago. dellorri
  • Score: 3

3:31pm Wed 29 Jan 14

dellorri says...

Bantambhoy wrote:
dellorri wrote:
Apollo wrote:
Working should always provide more financial incentive than any packages of benefits.

Otherwise why would anyone work? Oh! just remembered - millions in this country do not work vwho could and should. They rely on benefits paid for by the rest of us.

No more it seems and that is a good thing.

Choosing not to work should no longer be an acceptable lifestyle choice - if it ever was.
how many millions is that then Apollo, Because according to "Call me Dave" and his cohorts the figure is dropping daily, though I believe at the last count, it was officially 2.1 million, though this does not take into account, those on workfare, those currently sanctioned, those who are unemployed but not claiming (economically inactive). Which actually brings the figure nearer to 6.7 million. I also believe at the last count by the DWP there were officially 849,652 vacancies to be filled, so with that many out of work, and that amount of vacancies. Where does CHOICE come into the equation? Oh and if you think benefits is such and easy lifestyle CHOICE, why not go for it,
Become intentionally unemployed and you'll immediately be sanctioned for 26 weeks, i.e. NO BENEFITS, good choice eh? Choose to be on JSA, miss an advisor appointment by 5 minutes...........sa


nctioned for 4 weeks the first time, 13 weeks the second time, 3 years on a third time, good choice eh?
sick or disabled, too illl to work, no problem quick trip to ATOS and they will get you sorted, so you've got terminal cancer, but you're prognosis is that you will live for MORE THAN 7 MONTHS, "Sorry you'll have to go in the WRAG group" In the WRAG group you will be expected to attend work advisory meetings, go on non-time limited workfare up to 2 years, Should you fail in any of the tasks set for you during your time in WRAG, YOU WILL BE SANCTIONED. good choice eh?
The jobless, the sick, the disabled, are all suffering, Osbourne is saying he will cut the welfare bill by a firther £12 BILLION if they get back in.
Well who's he going it take it from? JSA counts for £3 billion, ESA for £3.9 billion, DLA/PIP for £13 billion housing benefit for £17 billion, the rest of the welfare budget aprroximately £37 billion is paid to pensioners.

In fact here's something to take a look at and think about, then consider benefits............


...

www.parasitestreet.c


o.uk
You must be close to suicide!!
No why would you like me to be? You see Andy 2010 seem s to think I'm a drama queen, But I do get so tired of pointing out FACTS and FIGURES and OFFICIAL DWP documents to people who then ignore them.
Especially the people who have just been quoting the so-called DWP figures "I SAW IN THE PAPER" which are generally a load of BS as has been PROVEN by several parliamentary committees.
[quote][p][bold]Bantambhoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dellorri[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Apollo[/bold] wrote: Working should always provide more financial incentive than any packages of benefits. Otherwise why would anyone work? Oh! just remembered - millions in this country do not work vwho could and should. They rely on benefits paid for by the rest of us. No more it seems and that is a good thing. Choosing not to work should no longer be an acceptable lifestyle choice - if it ever was.[/p][/quote]how many millions is that then Apollo, Because according to "Call me Dave" and his cohorts the figure is dropping daily, though I believe at the last count, it was officially 2.1 million, though this does not take into account, those on workfare, those currently sanctioned, those who are unemployed but not claiming (economically inactive). Which actually brings the figure nearer to 6.7 million. I also believe at the last count by the DWP there were officially 849,652 vacancies to be filled, so with that many out of work, and that amount of vacancies. Where does CHOICE come into the equation? Oh and if you think benefits is such and easy lifestyle CHOICE, why not go for it, Become intentionally unemployed and you'll immediately be sanctioned for 26 weeks, i.e. NO BENEFITS, good choice eh? Choose to be on JSA, miss an advisor appointment by 5 minutes...........sa nctioned for 4 weeks the first time, 13 weeks the second time, 3 years on a third time, good choice eh? sick or disabled, too illl to work, no problem quick trip to ATOS and they will get you sorted, so you've got terminal cancer, but you're prognosis is that you will live for MORE THAN 7 MONTHS, "Sorry you'll have to go in the WRAG group" In the WRAG group you will be expected to attend work advisory meetings, go on non-time limited workfare up to 2 years, Should you fail in any of the tasks set for you during your time in WRAG, YOU WILL BE SANCTIONED. good choice eh? The jobless, the sick, the disabled, are all suffering, Osbourne is saying he will cut the welfare bill by a firther £12 BILLION if they get back in. Well who's he going it take it from? JSA counts for £3 billion, ESA for £3.9 billion, DLA/PIP for £13 billion housing benefit for £17 billion, the rest of the welfare budget aprroximately £37 billion is paid to pensioners. In fact here's something to take a look at and think about, then consider benefits............ ... www.parasitestreet.c o.uk[/p][/quote]You must be close to suicide!![/p][/quote]No why would you like me to be? You see Andy 2010 seem s to think I'm a drama queen, But I do get so tired of pointing out FACTS and FIGURES and OFFICIAL DWP documents to people who then ignore them. Especially the people who have just been quoting the so-called DWP figures "I SAW IN THE PAPER" which are generally a load of BS as has been PROVEN by several parliamentary committees. dellorri
  • Score: 4

3:32pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Bantambhoy says...

dellorri wrote:
Look why don't you all just say what you and IDS are really thinking eh? get it out in the open and have done with it, even though you KNOW there aren;t enough jobs out there, and that the disabled aren;t suddenly going to be cured of lifelong conditions, just say what you're all thinking and get it over with, or shall I say it for you eh? because you're all alluding to it pretty well,

"ALL PEOPLE ON BENEFITS ARE SCUM THEY DON'T DESERVE TO LIVE"

There, that about seems to fit your thinking, some of the venom that you people espouse on this paper daily for others disgusts me, Tell you what why not build nice camps in the country as someone suggested once on here, where all the jobless and disabled can live in dormitories, that was the suggestion.
I wonder how long it would take until it became too expensive to run, keeping an eye on the inmates, and a different solution might be needed.
It's all been done before you see.
In the 30's the unemployed were sent away to work camps, to "earn" their benefits.
In the 30's The sick and disabled in Germany were taken to "special clinics" where over a hundred thousand of them disappeared, never to be seen again by their family during AKTION T4.
So why don't you just say what you really want to say, at least then we'll know where we stand. or in our disabled case fall.
You are suicidal !!!!
By the way, it is happening in N Korea, China and Russia right now.
So where is your 'politik'
[quote][p][bold]dellorri[/bold] wrote: Look why don't you all just say what you and IDS are really thinking eh? get it out in the open and have done with it, even though you KNOW there aren;t enough jobs out there, and that the disabled aren;t suddenly going to be cured of lifelong conditions, just say what you're all thinking and get it over with, or shall I say it for you eh? because you're all alluding to it pretty well, "ALL PEOPLE ON BENEFITS ARE SCUM THEY DON'T DESERVE TO LIVE" There, that about seems to fit your thinking, some of the venom that you people espouse on this paper daily for others disgusts me, Tell you what why not build nice camps in the country as someone suggested once on here, where all the jobless and disabled can live in dormitories, that was the suggestion. I wonder how long it would take until it became too expensive to run, keeping an eye on the inmates, and a different solution might be needed. It's all been done before you see. In the 30's the unemployed were sent away to work camps, to "earn" their benefits. In the 30's The sick and disabled in Germany were taken to "special clinics" where over a hundred thousand of them disappeared, never to be seen again by their family during AKTION T4. So why don't you just say what you really want to say, at least then we'll know where we stand. or in our disabled case fall.[/p][/quote]You are suicidal !!!! By the way, it is happening in N Korea, China and Russia right now. So where is your 'politik' Bantambhoy
  • Score: -4

3:35pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Prisoner Cell Block A says...

dellorri wrote:
Prisoner Cell Block A wrote:
"@dellorri

To be honest fella, those who have never worked but are able, who doss all day and booze/smoke etc all night, those depicted in the CH4 programme, and they do exist in society, really have no need to be alive, they offer nothing, serve no purpose and are a drain on those who actually do need to be supported by the benefits system."

Well, you were honest there, so I'll be honest with you, I'm not stupid, I know there are those out there, who are lazy barstewards who play the system, and those people I do not condone or defend one iota. But, and it's a big BUT, they are such a tiny minority of claimants. The media and IDS throw them out and magnify them, people see them and automatically, it becomes EVERY claimant is a "DOSSER" or a "SCROUNGER". That just is NOT the truth.
Did you know for instance, IDS says "I am cutting down on those who claim benefits." What he DOESN'T tell you is the fact that, there are MORE people WORKING FULL TIME who claim benefits, than unemployed.
George Osbourne says "I am making it easier to get work by cutting employment tax for first time employees." Hah employment tax is what he has labelled NI, so by ending NI contributions for the employee and employer, he makes it more attractive to take them on. The only trouble is, should that person ever become unemployed through illness, or if the company folds, they will NEVER have paid in any contributions, and will not be entitled to any benefits.
But I digress, for which I apologise, I will say this now as I have in the past, if you know of someone who is fraudulently claiming benefits I urge you to inform the DWP immediately, because I assure you wholeheartedly i would, and have done in the past. But I will also say, be 100% sure before you do, don't just do it on the basis that "they've got a big telly"
They might be getting it from brighthouse at £5 a week for 5 years and paying twice the normal price for the privilege, I.E. the cost of a couple of pints to any working person, but a luxury to them.
I'm not arguing on any of your points, and we all know this government are twisting and turning every figure to suit their agenda, INCLUDING the gagging law you mentioned earlier, something else I am not in favour of.

There are people who need the support of the benefit system, long term, short term, who will never ever be able to work, and I do not begrudge one bit giving my support to them, it may be me one day. I do not, never have classed all people on benefits as DOSSERS or SCROUNGERS.

I am also not stupid and realise that the tv programmes are part of that agenda to magnify the issue but the reality is they do exist, and I despise that sort of person. They are truly scum and take from the social pot required to support those in need.

I still think that food stamps and heat stamps/vouchers are a way forward, it provides the necessities and ensures that children are fed and warm and not parents habits funded instead, this isn't a generalistation about all on benefits just one method that could be easily employed.
[quote][p][bold]dellorri[/bold] wrote: Prisoner Cell Block A wrote: "@dellorri To be honest fella, those who have never worked but are able, who doss all day and booze/smoke etc all night, those depicted in the CH4 programme, and they do exist in society, really have no need to be alive, they offer nothing, serve no purpose and are a drain on those who actually do need to be supported by the benefits system." Well, you were honest there, so I'll be honest with you, I'm not stupid, I know there are those out there, who are lazy barstewards who play the system, and those people I do not condone or defend one iota. But, and it's a big BUT, they are such a tiny minority of claimants. The media and IDS throw them out and magnify them, people see them and automatically, it becomes EVERY claimant is a "DOSSER" or a "SCROUNGER". That just is NOT the truth. Did you know for instance, IDS says "I am cutting down on those who claim benefits." What he DOESN'T tell you is the fact that, there are MORE people WORKING FULL TIME who claim benefits, than unemployed. George Osbourne says "I am making it easier to get work by cutting employment tax for first time employees." Hah employment tax is what he has labelled NI, so by ending NI contributions for the employee and employer, he makes it more attractive to take them on. The only trouble is, should that person ever become unemployed through illness, or if the company folds, they will NEVER have paid in any contributions, and will not be entitled to any benefits. But I digress, for which I apologise, I will say this now as I have in the past, if you know of someone who is fraudulently claiming benefits I urge you to inform the DWP immediately, because I assure you wholeheartedly i would, and have done in the past. But I will also say, be 100% sure before you do, don't just do it on the basis that "they've got a big telly" They might be getting it from brighthouse at £5 a week for 5 years and paying twice the normal price for the privilege, I.E. the cost of a couple of pints to any working person, but a luxury to them.[/p][/quote]I'm not arguing on any of your points, and we all know this government are twisting and turning every figure to suit their agenda, INCLUDING the gagging law you mentioned earlier, something else I am not in favour of. There are people who need the support of the benefit system, long term, short term, who will never ever be able to work, and I do not begrudge one bit giving my support to them, it may be me one day. I do not, never have classed all people on benefits as DOSSERS or SCROUNGERS. I am also not stupid and realise that the tv programmes are part of that agenda to magnify the issue but the reality is they do exist, and I despise that sort of person. They are truly scum and take from the social pot required to support those in need. I still think that food stamps and heat stamps/vouchers are a way forward, it provides the necessities and ensures that children are fed and warm and not parents habits funded instead, this isn't a generalistation about all on benefits just one method that could be easily employed. Prisoner Cell Block A
  • Score: 3

3:39pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Bantambhoy says...

dellorri wrote:
There is something about this thread that is irritating me in the extreme, gnawing away and it's the fact that, all through this comments section, no matter what is posted, what fact, what figure, it's all coming down to one thing, MONEY MONEY MONEY............
Are you all so cynical, so lacking in compassion, that labelling people is all you can do now. Following headlines and IDS's phony statistics, you jump on any little chance to complain about people on benefits.

THIS CAP AFFECTED A MINISCULE PERCENTAGE IN BRADFORD.
not even a tenth of 1%, yet it has caused this furore.
Can't you see it's ANOTHER DEAD CAT ON THE TABLE?
As advised by Lynton Crosbie, Chuck another dead cat on the table, they'll be so horrified, they won't notice anything else you do.

Did you know the gagging law went through the house of lords yesterday unopposed...........

.....NO you didn't, and it won;t be in the newspapers either, Because THIS IS, THE DEAD CAT STORY.
By the time this comment is posted........I think you will have done the deed!
[quote][p][bold]dellorri[/bold] wrote: There is something about this thread that is irritating me in the extreme, gnawing away and it's the fact that, all through this comments section, no matter what is posted, what fact, what figure, it's all coming down to one thing, MONEY MONEY MONEY............ Are you all so cynical, so lacking in compassion, that labelling people is all you can do now. Following headlines and IDS's phony statistics, you jump on any little chance to complain about people on benefits. THIS CAP AFFECTED A MINISCULE PERCENTAGE IN BRADFORD. not even a tenth of 1%, yet it has caused this furore. Can't you see it's ANOTHER DEAD CAT ON THE TABLE? As advised by Lynton Crosbie, Chuck another dead cat on the table, they'll be so horrified, they won't notice anything else you do. Did you know the gagging law went through the house of lords yesterday unopposed........... .....NO you didn't, and it won;t be in the newspapers either, Because THIS IS, THE DEAD CAT STORY.[/p][/quote]By the time this comment is posted........I think you will have done the deed! Bantambhoy
  • Score: -6

3:46pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Prisoner Cell Block A says...

Bantambhoy wrote:
dellorri wrote:
There is something about this thread that is irritating me in the extreme, gnawing away and it's the fact that, all through this comments section, no matter what is posted, what fact, what figure, it's all coming down to one thing, MONEY MONEY MONEY............
Are you all so cynical, so lacking in compassion, that labelling people is all you can do now. Following headlines and IDS's phony statistics, you jump on any little chance to complain about people on benefits.

THIS CAP AFFECTED A MINISCULE PERCENTAGE IN BRADFORD.
not even a tenth of 1%, yet it has caused this furore.
Can't you see it's ANOTHER DEAD CAT ON THE TABLE?
As advised by Lynton Crosbie, Chuck another dead cat on the table, they'll be so horrified, they won't notice anything else you do.

Did you know the gagging law went through the house of lords yesterday unopposed...........


.....NO you didn't, and it won;t be in the newspapers either, Because THIS IS, THE DEAD CAT STORY.
By the time this comment is posted........I think you will have done the deed!
Any need?
[quote][p][bold]Bantambhoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dellorri[/bold] wrote: There is something about this thread that is irritating me in the extreme, gnawing away and it's the fact that, all through this comments section, no matter what is posted, what fact, what figure, it's all coming down to one thing, MONEY MONEY MONEY............ Are you all so cynical, so lacking in compassion, that labelling people is all you can do now. Following headlines and IDS's phony statistics, you jump on any little chance to complain about people on benefits. THIS CAP AFFECTED A MINISCULE PERCENTAGE IN BRADFORD. not even a tenth of 1%, yet it has caused this furore. Can't you see it's ANOTHER DEAD CAT ON THE TABLE? As advised by Lynton Crosbie, Chuck another dead cat on the table, they'll be so horrified, they won't notice anything else you do. Did you know the gagging law went through the house of lords yesterday unopposed........... .....NO you didn't, and it won;t be in the newspapers either, Because THIS IS, THE DEAD CAT STORY.[/p][/quote]By the time this comment is posted........I think you will have done the deed![/p][/quote]Any need? Prisoner Cell Block A
  • Score: 3

3:51pm Wed 29 Jan 14

dellorri says...

Prisoner Cell Block A wrote:
dellorri wrote:
Prisoner Cell Block A wrote:
"@dellorri

To be honest fella, those who have never worked but are able, who doss all day and booze/smoke etc all night, those depicted in the CH4 programme, and they do exist in society, really have no need to be alive, they offer nothing, serve no purpose and are a drain on those who actually do need to be supported by the benefits system."

Well, you were honest there, so I'll be honest with you, I'm not stupid, I know there are those out there, who are lazy barstewards who play the system, and those people I do not condone or defend one iota. But, and it's a big BUT, they are such a tiny minority of claimants. The media and IDS throw them out and magnify them, people see them and automatically, it becomes EVERY claimant is a "DOSSER" or a "SCROUNGER". That just is NOT the truth.
Did you know for instance, IDS says "I am cutting down on those who claim benefits." What he DOESN'T tell you is the fact that, there are MORE people WORKING FULL TIME who claim benefits, than unemployed.
George Osbourne says "I am making it easier to get work by cutting employment tax for first time employees." Hah employment tax is what he has labelled NI, so by ending NI contributions for the employee and employer, he makes it more attractive to take them on. The only trouble is, should that person ever become unemployed through illness, or if the company folds, they will NEVER have paid in any contributions, and will not be entitled to any benefits.
But I digress, for which I apologise, I will say this now as I have in the past, if you know of someone who is fraudulently claiming benefits I urge you to inform the DWP immediately, because I assure you wholeheartedly i would, and have done in the past. But I will also say, be 100% sure before you do, don't just do it on the basis that "they've got a big telly"
They might be getting it from brighthouse at £5 a week for 5 years and paying twice the normal price for the privilege, I.E. the cost of a couple of pints to any working person, but a luxury to them.
I'm not arguing on any of your points, and we all know this government are twisting and turning every figure to suit their agenda, INCLUDING the gagging law you mentioned earlier, something else I am not in favour of.

There are people who need the support of the benefit system, long term, short term, who will never ever be able to work, and I do not begrudge one bit giving my support to them, it may be me one day. I do not, never have classed all people on benefits as DOSSERS or SCROUNGERS.

I am also not stupid and realise that the tv programmes are part of that agenda to magnify the issue but the reality is they do exist, and I despise that sort of person. They are truly scum and take from the social pot required to support those in need.

I still think that food stamps and heat stamps/vouchers are a way forward, it provides the necessities and ensures that children are fed and warm and not parents habits funded instead, this isn't a generalistation about all on benefits just one method that could be easily employed.
I agree with you to an extent about the vouchers etc. But I feel they should only be used where the person has been identified as having, how can i put it, an addictive need that is harming their family, be it alcohol or drugs, this should also be coupled with other treatment and therapy. After all addiction is an illness and often a symptom of other ailments such as depression etc.
Whats the classic line of a drunk..... "I drink to forget my problems".
So help to treat the problems as well, This troubled families scheme was along the right lines, but should have been more LOCAL community oriented. rather than local authority run. Some people might see it as pandering to them, but if it helps end their dependencies, on drugs, drinks etc. then it's got to be of benefit, not only to them and their family, but to the community as a whole.
[quote][p][bold]Prisoner Cell Block A[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dellorri[/bold] wrote: Prisoner Cell Block A wrote: "@dellorri To be honest fella, those who have never worked but are able, who doss all day and booze/smoke etc all night, those depicted in the CH4 programme, and they do exist in society, really have no need to be alive, they offer nothing, serve no purpose and are a drain on those who actually do need to be supported by the benefits system." Well, you were honest there, so I'll be honest with you, I'm not stupid, I know there are those out there, who are lazy barstewards who play the system, and those people I do not condone or defend one iota. But, and it's a big BUT, they are such a tiny minority of claimants. The media and IDS throw them out and magnify them, people see them and automatically, it becomes EVERY claimant is a "DOSSER" or a "SCROUNGER". That just is NOT the truth. Did you know for instance, IDS says "I am cutting down on those who claim benefits." What he DOESN'T tell you is the fact that, there are MORE people WORKING FULL TIME who claim benefits, than unemployed. George Osbourne says "I am making it easier to get work by cutting employment tax for first time employees." Hah employment tax is what he has labelled NI, so by ending NI contributions for the employee and employer, he makes it more attractive to take them on. The only trouble is, should that person ever become unemployed through illness, or if the company folds, they will NEVER have paid in any contributions, and will not be entitled to any benefits. But I digress, for which I apologise, I will say this now as I have in the past, if you know of someone who is fraudulently claiming benefits I urge you to inform the DWP immediately, because I assure you wholeheartedly i would, and have done in the past. But I will also say, be 100% sure before you do, don't just do it on the basis that "they've got a big telly" They might be getting it from brighthouse at £5 a week for 5 years and paying twice the normal price for the privilege, I.E. the cost of a couple of pints to any working person, but a luxury to them.[/p][/quote]I'm not arguing on any of your points, and we all know this government are twisting and turning every figure to suit their agenda, INCLUDING the gagging law you mentioned earlier, something else I am not in favour of. There are people who need the support of the benefit system, long term, short term, who will never ever be able to work, and I do not begrudge one bit giving my support to them, it may be me one day. I do not, never have classed all people on benefits as DOSSERS or SCROUNGERS. I am also not stupid and realise that the tv programmes are part of that agenda to magnify the issue but the reality is they do exist, and I despise that sort of person. They are truly scum and take from the social pot required to support those in need. I still think that food stamps and heat stamps/vouchers are a way forward, it provides the necessities and ensures that children are fed and warm and not parents habits funded instead, this isn't a generalistation about all on benefits just one method that could be easily employed.[/p][/quote]I agree with you to an extent about the vouchers etc. But I feel they should only be used where the person has been identified as having, how can i put it, an addictive need that is harming their family, be it alcohol or drugs, this should also be coupled with other treatment and therapy. After all addiction is an illness and often a symptom of other ailments such as depression etc. Whats the classic line of a drunk..... "I drink to forget my problems". So help to treat the problems as well, This troubled families scheme was along the right lines, but should have been more LOCAL community oriented. rather than local authority run. Some people might see it as pandering to them, but if it helps end their dependencies, on drugs, drinks etc. then it's got to be of benefit, not only to them and their family, but to the community as a whole. dellorri
  • Score: 1

3:54pm Wed 29 Jan 14

dellorri says...

Bantambhoy wrote:
dellorri wrote:
Look why don't you all just say what you and IDS are really thinking eh? get it out in the open and have done with it, even though you KNOW there aren;t enough jobs out there, and that the disabled aren;t suddenly going to be cured of lifelong conditions, just say what you're all thinking and get it over with, or shall I say it for you eh? because you're all alluding to it pretty well,

"ALL PEOPLE ON BENEFITS ARE SCUM THEY DON'T DESERVE TO LIVE"

There, that about seems to fit your thinking, some of the venom that you people espouse on this paper daily for others disgusts me, Tell you what why not build nice camps in the country as someone suggested once on here, where all the jobless and disabled can live in dormitories, that was the suggestion.
I wonder how long it would take until it became too expensive to run, keeping an eye on the inmates, and a different solution might be needed.
It's all been done before you see.
In the 30's the unemployed were sent away to work camps, to "earn" their benefits.
In the 30's The sick and disabled in Germany were taken to "special clinics" where over a hundred thousand of them disappeared, never to be seen again by their family during AKTION T4.
So why don't you just say what you really want to say, at least then we'll know where we stand. or in our disabled case fall.
You are suicidal !!!!
By the way, it is happening in N Korea, China and Russia right now.
So where is your 'politik'
It may be happening in those countries, but we aren't there are we. As to my "poloitik" I'm a humanist pal. you won't have met many of me.
[quote][p][bold]Bantambhoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dellorri[/bold] wrote: Look why don't you all just say what you and IDS are really thinking eh? get it out in the open and have done with it, even though you KNOW there aren;t enough jobs out there, and that the disabled aren;t suddenly going to be cured of lifelong conditions, just say what you're all thinking and get it over with, or shall I say it for you eh? because you're all alluding to it pretty well, "ALL PEOPLE ON BENEFITS ARE SCUM THEY DON'T DESERVE TO LIVE" There, that about seems to fit your thinking, some of the venom that you people espouse on this paper daily for others disgusts me, Tell you what why not build nice camps in the country as someone suggested once on here, where all the jobless and disabled can live in dormitories, that was the suggestion. I wonder how long it would take until it became too expensive to run, keeping an eye on the inmates, and a different solution might be needed. It's all been done before you see. In the 30's the unemployed were sent away to work camps, to "earn" their benefits. In the 30's The sick and disabled in Germany were taken to "special clinics" where over a hundred thousand of them disappeared, never to be seen again by their family during AKTION T4. So why don't you just say what you really want to say, at least then we'll know where we stand. or in our disabled case fall.[/p][/quote]You are suicidal !!!! By the way, it is happening in N Korea, China and Russia right now. So where is your 'politik'[/p][/quote]It may be happening in those countries, but we aren't there are we. As to my "poloitik" I'm a humanist pal. you won't have met many of me. dellorri
  • Score: 4

4:11pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Andy2010 says...

dellorri wrote:
Bantambhoy wrote:
dellorri wrote:
Apollo wrote:
Working should always provide more financial incentive than any packages of benefits.

Otherwise why would anyone work? Oh! just remembered - millions in this country do not work vwho could and should. They rely on benefits paid for by the rest of us.

No more it seems and that is a good thing.

Choosing not to work should no longer be an acceptable lifestyle choice - if it ever was.
how many millions is that then Apollo, Because according to "Call me Dave" and his cohorts the figure is dropping daily, though I believe at the last count, it was officially 2.1 million, though this does not take into account, those on workfare, those currently sanctioned, those who are unemployed but not claiming (economically inactive). Which actually brings the figure nearer to 6.7 million. I also believe at the last count by the DWP there were officially 849,652 vacancies to be filled, so with that many out of work, and that amount of vacancies. Where does CHOICE come into the equation? Oh and if you think benefits is such and easy lifestyle CHOICE, why not go for it,
Become intentionally unemployed and you'll immediately be sanctioned for 26 weeks, i.e. NO BENEFITS, good choice eh? Choose to be on JSA, miss an advisor appointment by 5 minutes...........sa



nctioned for 4 weeks the first time, 13 weeks the second time, 3 years on a third time, good choice eh?
sick or disabled, too illl to work, no problem quick trip to ATOS and they will get you sorted, so you've got terminal cancer, but you're prognosis is that you will live for MORE THAN 7 MONTHS, "Sorry you'll have to go in the WRAG group" In the WRAG group you will be expected to attend work advisory meetings, go on non-time limited workfare up to 2 years, Should you fail in any of the tasks set for you during your time in WRAG, YOU WILL BE SANCTIONED. good choice eh?
The jobless, the sick, the disabled, are all suffering, Osbourne is saying he will cut the welfare bill by a firther £12 BILLION if they get back in.
Well who's he going it take it from? JSA counts for £3 billion, ESA for £3.9 billion, DLA/PIP for £13 billion housing benefit for £17 billion, the rest of the welfare budget aprroximately £37 billion is paid to pensioners.

In fact here's something to take a look at and think about, then consider benefits............



...

www.parasitestreet.c



o.uk
You must be close to suicide!!
No why would you like me to be? You see Andy 2010 seem s to think I'm a drama queen, But I do get so tired of pointing out FACTS and FIGURES and OFFICIAL DWP documents to people who then ignore them.
Especially the people who have just been quoting the so-called DWP figures "I SAW IN THE PAPER" which are generally a load of BS as has been PROVEN by several parliamentary committees.
You also need a new caps lock button
[quote][p][bold]dellorri[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bantambhoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dellorri[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Apollo[/bold] wrote: Working should always provide more financial incentive than any packages of benefits. Otherwise why would anyone work? Oh! just remembered - millions in this country do not work vwho could and should. They rely on benefits paid for by the rest of us. No more it seems and that is a good thing. Choosing not to work should no longer be an acceptable lifestyle choice - if it ever was.[/p][/quote]how many millions is that then Apollo, Because according to "Call me Dave" and his cohorts the figure is dropping daily, though I believe at the last count, it was officially 2.1 million, though this does not take into account, those on workfare, those currently sanctioned, those who are unemployed but not claiming (economically inactive). Which actually brings the figure nearer to 6.7 million. I also believe at the last count by the DWP there were officially 849,652 vacancies to be filled, so with that many out of work, and that amount of vacancies. Where does CHOICE come into the equation? Oh and if you think benefits is such and easy lifestyle CHOICE, why not go for it, Become intentionally unemployed and you'll immediately be sanctioned for 26 weeks, i.e. NO BENEFITS, good choice eh? Choose to be on JSA, miss an advisor appointment by 5 minutes...........sa nctioned for 4 weeks the first time, 13 weeks the second time, 3 years on a third time, good choice eh? sick or disabled, too illl to work, no problem quick trip to ATOS and they will get you sorted, so you've got terminal cancer, but you're prognosis is that you will live for MORE THAN 7 MONTHS, "Sorry you'll have to go in the WRAG group" In the WRAG group you will be expected to attend work advisory meetings, go on non-time limited workfare up to 2 years, Should you fail in any of the tasks set for you during your time in WRAG, YOU WILL BE SANCTIONED. good choice eh? The jobless, the sick, the disabled, are all suffering, Osbourne is saying he will cut the welfare bill by a firther £12 BILLION if they get back in. Well who's he going it take it from? JSA counts for £3 billion, ESA for £3.9 billion, DLA/PIP for £13 billion housing benefit for £17 billion, the rest of the welfare budget aprroximately £37 billion is paid to pensioners. In fact here's something to take a look at and think about, then consider benefits............ ... www.parasitestreet.c o.uk[/p][/quote]You must be close to suicide!![/p][/quote]No why would you like me to be? You see Andy 2010 seem s to think I'm a drama queen, But I do get so tired of pointing out FACTS and FIGURES and OFFICIAL DWP documents to people who then ignore them. Especially the people who have just been quoting the so-called DWP figures "I SAW IN THE PAPER" which are generally a load of BS as has been PROVEN by several parliamentary committees.[/p][/quote]You also need a new caps lock button Andy2010
  • Score: 0

4:11pm Wed 29 Jan 14

alive and awake says...

What a stupid headline for this article. Of course hundreds of families are hit, why else would it have brought in in the first place? duh!
What a stupid headline for this article. Of course hundreds of families are hit, why else would it have brought in in the first place? duh! alive and awake
  • Score: 1

4:21pm Wed 29 Jan 14

allinittogether says...

alive and awake wrote:
What a stupid headline for this article. Of course hundreds of families are hit, why else would it have brought in in the first place? duh!
Yeah ".001% of families hit by new 'cap' on benefits" wouldn't have had quite the same impact or fit the agenda would it?
[quote][p][bold]alive and awake[/bold] wrote: What a stupid headline for this article. Of course hundreds of families are hit, why else would it have brought in in the first place? duh![/p][/quote]Yeah ".001% of families hit by new 'cap' on benefits" wouldn't have had quite the same impact or fit the agenda would it? allinittogether
  • Score: 1

4:28pm Wed 29 Jan 14

dellorri says...

dellorri wrote:
Bantambhoy wrote:
dellorri wrote:
Look why don't you all just say what you and IDS are really thinking eh? get it out in the open and have done with it, even though you KNOW there aren;t enough jobs out there, and that the disabled aren;t suddenly going to be cured of lifelong conditions, just say what you're all thinking and get it over with, or shall I say it for you eh? because you're all alluding to it pretty well,

"ALL PEOPLE ON BENEFITS ARE SCUM THEY DON'T DESERVE TO LIVE"

There, that about seems to fit your thinking, some of the venom that you people espouse on this paper daily for others disgusts me, Tell you what why not build nice camps in the country as someone suggested once on here, where all the jobless and disabled can live in dormitories, that was the suggestion.
I wonder how long it would take until it became too expensive to run, keeping an eye on the inmates, and a different solution might be needed.
It's all been done before you see.
In the 30's the unemployed were sent away to work camps, to "earn" their benefits.
In the 30's The sick and disabled in Germany were taken to "special clinics" where over a hundred thousand of them disappeared, never to be seen again by their family during AKTION T4.
So why don't you just say what you really want to say, at least then we'll know where we stand. or in our disabled case fall.
You are suicidal !!!!
By the way, it is happening in N Korea, China and Russia right now.
So where is your 'politik'
It may be happening in those countries, but we aren't there are we. As to my "poloitik" I'm a humanist pal. you won't have met many of me.
Oh I nearly forgot to tell you bantamBOY, your little subliminal messaging thing, I should forget it if I were you, it went out with the ark ;-)
[quote][p][bold]dellorri[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bantambhoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dellorri[/bold] wrote: Look why don't you all just say what you and IDS are really thinking eh? get it out in the open and have done with it, even though you KNOW there aren;t enough jobs out there, and that the disabled aren;t suddenly going to be cured of lifelong conditions, just say what you're all thinking and get it over with, or shall I say it for you eh? because you're all alluding to it pretty well, "ALL PEOPLE ON BENEFITS ARE SCUM THEY DON'T DESERVE TO LIVE" There, that about seems to fit your thinking, some of the venom that you people espouse on this paper daily for others disgusts me, Tell you what why not build nice camps in the country as someone suggested once on here, where all the jobless and disabled can live in dormitories, that was the suggestion. I wonder how long it would take until it became too expensive to run, keeping an eye on the inmates, and a different solution might be needed. It's all been done before you see. In the 30's the unemployed were sent away to work camps, to "earn" their benefits. In the 30's The sick and disabled in Germany were taken to "special clinics" where over a hundred thousand of them disappeared, never to be seen again by their family during AKTION T4. So why don't you just say what you really want to say, at least then we'll know where we stand. or in our disabled case fall.[/p][/quote]You are suicidal !!!! By the way, it is happening in N Korea, China and Russia right now. So where is your 'politik'[/p][/quote]It may be happening in those countries, but we aren't there are we. As to my "poloitik" I'm a humanist pal. you won't have met many of me.[/p][/quote]Oh I nearly forgot to tell you bantamBOY, your little subliminal messaging thing, I should forget it if I were you, it went out with the ark ;-) dellorri
  • Score: 1

4:28pm Wed 29 Jan 14

alive and awake says...

allinittogether wrote:
alive and awake wrote:
What a stupid headline for this article. Of course hundreds of families are hit, why else would it have brought in in the first place? duh!
Yeah ".001% of families hit by new 'cap' on benefits" wouldn't have had quite the same impact or fit the agenda would it?
T&A could have said " ONLY A FEW HUNDRED OF FAMILIES HAVE BEEN HIT BY BENIFIT CAP"
[quote][p][bold]allinittogether[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alive and awake[/bold] wrote: What a stupid headline for this article. Of course hundreds of families are hit, why else would it have brought in in the first place? duh![/p][/quote]Yeah ".001% of families hit by new 'cap' on benefits" wouldn't have had quite the same impact or fit the agenda would it?[/p][/quote]T&A could have said " ONLY A FEW HUNDRED OF FAMILIES HAVE BEEN HIT BY BENIFIT CAP" alive and awake
  • Score: 1

4:58pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Bantambhoy says...

dellorri wrote:
dellorri wrote:
Bantambhoy wrote:
dellorri wrote:
Look why don't you all just say what you and IDS are really thinking eh? get it out in the open and have done with it, even though you KNOW there aren;t enough jobs out there, and that the disabled aren;t suddenly going to be cured of lifelong conditions, just say what you're all thinking and get it over with, or shall I say it for you eh? because you're all alluding to it pretty well,

"ALL PEOPLE ON BENEFITS ARE SCUM THEY DON'T DESERVE TO LIVE"

There, that about seems to fit your thinking, some of the venom that you people espouse on this paper daily for others disgusts me, Tell you what why not build nice camps in the country as someone suggested once on here, where all the jobless and disabled can live in dormitories, that was the suggestion.
I wonder how long it would take until it became too expensive to run, keeping an eye on the inmates, and a different solution might be needed.
It's all been done before you see.
In the 30's the unemployed were sent away to work camps, to "earn" their benefits.
In the 30's The sick and disabled in Germany were taken to "special clinics" where over a hundred thousand of them disappeared, never to be seen again by their family during AKTION T4.
So why don't you just say what you really want to say, at least then we'll know where we stand. or in our disabled case fall.
You are suicidal !!!!
By the way, it is happening in N Korea, China and Russia right now.
So where is your 'politik'
It may be happening in those countries, but we aren't there are we. As to my "poloitik" I'm a humanist pal. you won't have met many of me.
Oh I nearly forgot to tell you bantamBOY, your little subliminal messaging thing, I should forget it if I were you, it went out with the ark ;-)
Get the name right fella, it's bhoy; and are you the Hoi Poloi tic?
As for the subliminal bit? you truly are off on one and in need of help.
[quote][p][bold]dellorri[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dellorri[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bantambhoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dellorri[/bold] wrote: Look why don't you all just say what you and IDS are really thinking eh? get it out in the open and have done with it, even though you KNOW there aren;t enough jobs out there, and that the disabled aren;t suddenly going to be cured of lifelong conditions, just say what you're all thinking and get it over with, or shall I say it for you eh? because you're all alluding to it pretty well, "ALL PEOPLE ON BENEFITS ARE SCUM THEY DON'T DESERVE TO LIVE" There, that about seems to fit your thinking, some of the venom that you people espouse on this paper daily for others disgusts me, Tell you what why not build nice camps in the country as someone suggested once on here, where all the jobless and disabled can live in dormitories, that was the suggestion. I wonder how long it would take until it became too expensive to run, keeping an eye on the inmates, and a different solution might be needed. It's all been done before you see. In the 30's the unemployed were sent away to work camps, to "earn" their benefits. In the 30's The sick and disabled in Germany were taken to "special clinics" where over a hundred thousand of them disappeared, never to be seen again by their family during AKTION T4. So why don't you just say what you really want to say, at least then we'll know where we stand. or in our disabled case fall.[/p][/quote]You are suicidal !!!! By the way, it is happening in N Korea, China and Russia right now. So where is your 'politik'[/p][/quote]It may be happening in those countries, but we aren't there are we. As to my "poloitik" I'm a humanist pal. you won't have met many of me.[/p][/quote]Oh I nearly forgot to tell you bantamBOY, your little subliminal messaging thing, I should forget it if I were you, it went out with the ark ;-)[/p][/quote]Get the name right fella, it's bhoy; and are you the Hoi Poloi tic? As for the subliminal bit? you truly are off on one and in need of help. Bantambhoy
  • Score: -4

5:02pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Baildon girl says...

dellorri wrote:
Baildon girl wrote:
Deffinately agree te cap needs to be even lower. Taken in to account they also dont have to worry about rent or if they do its not full rent, they get help with council tax, school dinners, winter fuel etc etc. Yet low income families on less arent entitled to anything.

I have nothing against benefits as such but it needs to stop been so appealing.. My sister has 4 children and her or her partner dont work and she claims to have around £100 a week spare which goes on luxuries. Im not a bitter person but when my kids ask why they cant have an ipad and their cousins have 2 in their house it does annoy me
Baildon girl wrote: "Yet low income families on less aren't entitled to anything."
Where do you get that idea from then? Are you totally unaware of the fact that 78% of the people claiming housing benefit are people in FULL time work on a LOW INCOME. Plus the fact that if you are working for 24 hours or more and on a low income you can claim WORKING TAX CREDITS, this in turn if you have children of pre-school age allows you to claim up to £75 per week for child care per child. Oh and while we're at it, you might also like to know that ANYONE working or not who is in receipt of housing benefit automatically becomes entitled to school uniform vouchers for their children, and to free school meals.
EVERY YEAR £16 BILLION goes unclaimed in benefits, because people don't know they can claim them, just like you obviously didn't.
The DWP and HMRC don't make that public though because that figure kind of dwarves the £1.2 billion lost through the 0.7% fraud and 0.9% ERROR on their behalf. So why don't you see if you're eligible, you may well be surprised, and you won't be a scrounger, you'll get what you're paying in for, and what you're ENTITLED to.
We are entitled to £2.00 Housing benefit per week according to benefit calculator its hardly worth the hassel of form filling etc.
[quote][p][bold]dellorri[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Baildon girl[/bold] wrote: Deffinately agree te cap needs to be even lower. Taken in to account they also dont have to worry about rent or if they do its not full rent, they get help with council tax, school dinners, winter fuel etc etc. Yet low income families on less arent entitled to anything. I have nothing against benefits as such but it needs to stop been so appealing.. My sister has 4 children and her or her partner dont work and she claims to have around £100 a week spare which goes on luxuries. Im not a bitter person but when my kids ask why they cant have an ipad and their cousins have 2 in their house it does annoy me[/p][/quote]Baildon girl wrote: "Yet low income families on less aren't entitled to anything." Where do you get that idea from then? Are you totally unaware of the fact that 78% of the people claiming housing benefit are people in FULL time work on a LOW INCOME. Plus the fact that if you are working for 24 hours or more and on a low income you can claim WORKING TAX CREDITS, this in turn if you have children of pre-school age allows you to claim up to £75 per week for child care per child. Oh and while we're at it, you might also like to know that ANYONE working or not who is in receipt of housing benefit automatically becomes entitled to school uniform vouchers for their children, and to free school meals. EVERY YEAR £16 BILLION goes unclaimed in benefits, because people don't know they can claim them, just like you obviously didn't. The DWP and HMRC don't make that public though because that figure kind of dwarves the £1.2 billion lost through the 0.7% fraud and 0.9% ERROR on their behalf. So why don't you see if you're eligible, you may well be surprised, and you won't be a scrounger, you'll get what you're paying in for, and what you're ENTITLED to.[/p][/quote]We are entitled to £2.00 Housing benefit per week according to benefit calculator its hardly worth the hassel of form filling etc. Baildon girl
  • Score: 3

5:15pm Wed 29 Jan 14

dellorri says...

Baildon girl wrote:
dellorri wrote:
Baildon girl wrote:
Deffinately agree te cap needs to be even lower. Taken in to account they also dont have to worry about rent or if they do its not full rent, they get help with council tax, school dinners, winter fuel etc etc. Yet low income families on less arent entitled to anything.

I have nothing against benefits as such but it needs to stop been so appealing.. My sister has 4 children and her or her partner dont work and she claims to have around £100 a week spare which goes on luxuries. Im not a bitter person but when my kids ask why they cant have an ipad and their cousins have 2 in their house it does annoy me
Baildon girl wrote: "Yet low income families on less aren't entitled to anything."
Where do you get that idea from then? Are you totally unaware of the fact that 78% of the people claiming housing benefit are people in FULL time work on a LOW INCOME. Plus the fact that if you are working for 24 hours or more and on a low income you can claim WORKING TAX CREDITS, this in turn if you have children of pre-school age allows you to claim up to £75 per week for child care per child. Oh and while we're at it, you might also like to know that ANYONE working or not who is in receipt of housing benefit automatically becomes entitled to school uniform vouchers for their children, and to free school meals.
EVERY YEAR £16 BILLION goes unclaimed in benefits, because people don't know they can claim them, just like you obviously didn't.
The DWP and HMRC don't make that public though because that figure kind of dwarves the £1.2 billion lost through the 0.7% fraud and 0.9% ERROR on their behalf. So why don't you see if you're eligible, you may well be surprised, and you won't be a scrounger, you'll get what you're paying in for, and what you're ENTITLED to.
We are entitled to £2.00 Housing benefit per week according to benefit calculator its hardly worth the hassel of form filling etc.
You may well think that, but if you have children, housing benefit, is a passport benefit, to school uniform vouchers, and free school meals also. If receiving housing benefit and you have children, you will automatically be entitled to these.
[quote][p][bold]Baildon girl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dellorri[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Baildon girl[/bold] wrote: Deffinately agree te cap needs to be even lower. Taken in to account they also dont have to worry about rent or if they do its not full rent, they get help with council tax, school dinners, winter fuel etc etc. Yet low income families on less arent entitled to anything. I have nothing against benefits as such but it needs to stop been so appealing.. My sister has 4 children and her or her partner dont work and she claims to have around £100 a week spare which goes on luxuries. Im not a bitter person but when my kids ask why they cant have an ipad and their cousins have 2 in their house it does annoy me[/p][/quote]Baildon girl wrote: "Yet low income families on less aren't entitled to anything." Where do you get that idea from then? Are you totally unaware of the fact that 78% of the people claiming housing benefit are people in FULL time work on a LOW INCOME. Plus the fact that if you are working for 24 hours or more and on a low income you can claim WORKING TAX CREDITS, this in turn if you have children of pre-school age allows you to claim up to £75 per week for child care per child. Oh and while we're at it, you might also like to know that ANYONE working or not who is in receipt of housing benefit automatically becomes entitled to school uniform vouchers for their children, and to free school meals. EVERY YEAR £16 BILLION goes unclaimed in benefits, because people don't know they can claim them, just like you obviously didn't. The DWP and HMRC don't make that public though because that figure kind of dwarves the £1.2 billion lost through the 0.7% fraud and 0.9% ERROR on their behalf. So why don't you see if you're eligible, you may well be surprised, and you won't be a scrounger, you'll get what you're paying in for, and what you're ENTITLED to.[/p][/quote]We are entitled to £2.00 Housing benefit per week according to benefit calculator its hardly worth the hassel of form filling etc.[/p][/quote]You may well think that, but if you have children, housing benefit, is a passport benefit, to school uniform vouchers, and free school meals also. If receiving housing benefit and you have children, you will automatically be entitled to these. dellorri
  • Score: 4

5:17pm Wed 29 Jan 14

dellorri says...

dellorri wrote:
Baildon girl wrote:
dellorri wrote:
Baildon girl wrote:
Deffinately agree te cap needs to be even lower. Taken in to account they also dont have to worry about rent or if they do its not full rent, they get help with council tax, school dinners, winter fuel etc etc. Yet low income families on less arent entitled to anything.

I have nothing against benefits as such but it needs to stop been so appealing.. My sister has 4 children and her or her partner dont work and she claims to have around £100 a week spare which goes on luxuries. Im not a bitter person but when my kids ask why they cant have an ipad and their cousins have 2 in their house it does annoy me
Baildon girl wrote: "Yet low income families on less aren't entitled to anything."
Where do you get that idea from then? Are you totally unaware of the fact that 78% of the people claiming housing benefit are people in FULL time work on a LOW INCOME. Plus the fact that if you are working for 24 hours or more and on a low income you can claim WORKING TAX CREDITS, this in turn if you have children of pre-school age allows you to claim up to £75 per week for child care per child. Oh and while we're at it, you might also like to know that ANYONE working or not who is in receipt of housing benefit automatically becomes entitled to school uniform vouchers for their children, and to free school meals.
EVERY YEAR £16 BILLION goes unclaimed in benefits, because people don't know they can claim them, just like you obviously didn't.
The DWP and HMRC don't make that public though because that figure kind of dwarves the £1.2 billion lost through the 0.7% fraud and 0.9% ERROR on their behalf. So why don't you see if you're eligible, you may well be surprised, and you won't be a scrounger, you'll get what you're paying in for, and what you're ENTITLED to.
We are entitled to £2.00 Housing benefit per week according to benefit calculator its hardly worth the hassel of form filling etc.
You may well think that, but if you have children, housing benefit, is a passport benefit, to school uniform vouchers, and free school meals also. If receiving housing benefit and you have children, you will automatically be entitled to these.
Sorry I should have said also, if you are entitled to help with housing benefit, it is highly likely you will be entitled to working tax credits.
[quote][p][bold]dellorri[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Baildon girl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dellorri[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Baildon girl[/bold] wrote: Deffinately agree te cap needs to be even lower. Taken in to account they also dont have to worry about rent or if they do its not full rent, they get help with council tax, school dinners, winter fuel etc etc. Yet low income families on less arent entitled to anything. I have nothing against benefits as such but it needs to stop been so appealing.. My sister has 4 children and her or her partner dont work and she claims to have around £100 a week spare which goes on luxuries. Im not a bitter person but when my kids ask why they cant have an ipad and their cousins have 2 in their house it does annoy me[/p][/quote]Baildon girl wrote: "Yet low income families on less aren't entitled to anything." Where do you get that idea from then? Are you totally unaware of the fact that 78% of the people claiming housing benefit are people in FULL time work on a LOW INCOME. Plus the fact that if you are working for 24 hours or more and on a low income you can claim WORKING TAX CREDITS, this in turn if you have children of pre-school age allows you to claim up to £75 per week for child care per child. Oh and while we're at it, you might also like to know that ANYONE working or not who is in receipt of housing benefit automatically becomes entitled to school uniform vouchers for their children, and to free school meals. EVERY YEAR £16 BILLION goes unclaimed in benefits, because people don't know they can claim them, just like you obviously didn't. The DWP and HMRC don't make that public though because that figure kind of dwarves the £1.2 billion lost through the 0.7% fraud and 0.9% ERROR on their behalf. So why don't you see if you're eligible, you may well be surprised, and you won't be a scrounger, you'll get what you're paying in for, and what you're ENTITLED to.[/p][/quote]We are entitled to £2.00 Housing benefit per week according to benefit calculator its hardly worth the hassel of form filling etc.[/p][/quote]You may well think that, but if you have children, housing benefit, is a passport benefit, to school uniform vouchers, and free school meals also. If receiving housing benefit and you have children, you will automatically be entitled to these.[/p][/quote]Sorry I should have said also, if you are entitled to help with housing benefit, it is highly likely you will be entitled to working tax credits. dellorri
  • Score: 5

5:24pm Wed 29 Jan 14

ade_splat says...

Andy2010 wrote:
dellorri wrote:
Bantambhoy wrote:
dellorri wrote:
Apollo wrote:
Working should always provide more financial incentive than any packages of benefits.

Otherwise why would anyone work? Oh! just remembered - millions in this country do not work vwho could and should. They rely on benefits paid for by the rest of us.

No more it seems and that is a good thing.

Choosing not to work should no longer be an acceptable lifestyle choice - if it ever was.
how many millions is that then Apollo, Because according to "Call me Dave" and his cohorts the figure is dropping daily, though I believe at the last count, it was officially 2.1 million, though this does not take into account, those on workfare, those currently sanctioned, those who are unemployed but not claiming (economically inactive). Which actually brings the figure nearer to 6.7 million. I also believe at the last count by the DWP there were officially 849,652 vacancies to be filled, so with that many out of work, and that amount of vacancies. Where does CHOICE come into the equation? Oh and if you think benefits is such and easy lifestyle CHOICE, why not go for it,
Become intentionally unemployed and you'll immediately be sanctioned for 26 weeks, i.e. NO BENEFITS, good choice eh? Choose to be on JSA, miss an advisor appointment by 5 minutes...........sa




nctioned for 4 weeks the first time, 13 weeks the second time, 3 years on a third time, good choice eh?
sick or disabled, too illl to work, no problem quick trip to ATOS and they will get you sorted, so you've got terminal cancer, but you're prognosis is that you will live for MORE THAN 7 MONTHS, "Sorry you'll have to go in the WRAG group" In the WRAG group you will be expected to attend work advisory meetings, go on non-time limited workfare up to 2 years, Should you fail in any of the tasks set for you during your time in WRAG, YOU WILL BE SANCTIONED. good choice eh?
The jobless, the sick, the disabled, are all suffering, Osbourne is saying he will cut the welfare bill by a firther £12 BILLION if they get back in.
Well who's he going it take it from? JSA counts for £3 billion, ESA for £3.9 billion, DLA/PIP for £13 billion housing benefit for £17 billion, the rest of the welfare budget aprroximately £37 billion is paid to pensioners.

In fact here's something to take a look at and think about, then consider benefits............




...

www.parasitestreet.c




o.uk
You must be close to suicide!!
No why would you like me to be? You see Andy 2010 seem s to think I'm a drama queen, But I do get so tired of pointing out FACTS and FIGURES and OFFICIAL DWP documents to people who then ignore them.
Especially the people who have just been quoting the so-called DWP figures "I SAW IN THE PAPER" which are generally a load of BS as has been PROVEN by several parliamentary committees.
You also need a new caps lock button
Shouting (using a caps lock) does not make your argument any better
[quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dellorri[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bantambhoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dellorri[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Apollo[/bold] wrote: Working should always provide more financial incentive than any packages of benefits. Otherwise why would anyone work? Oh! just remembered - millions in this country do not work vwho could and should. They rely on benefits paid for by the rest of us. No more it seems and that is a good thing. Choosing not to work should no longer be an acceptable lifestyle choice - if it ever was.[/p][/quote]how many millions is that then Apollo, Because according to "Call me Dave" and his cohorts the figure is dropping daily, though I believe at the last count, it was officially 2.1 million, though this does not take into account, those on workfare, those currently sanctioned, those who are unemployed but not claiming (economically inactive). Which actually brings the figure nearer to 6.7 million. I also believe at the last count by the DWP there were officially 849,652 vacancies to be filled, so with that many out of work, and that amount of vacancies. Where does CHOICE come into the equation? Oh and if you think benefits is such and easy lifestyle CHOICE, why not go for it, Become intentionally unemployed and you'll immediately be sanctioned for 26 weeks, i.e. NO BENEFITS, good choice eh? Choose to be on JSA, miss an advisor appointment by 5 minutes...........sa nctioned for 4 weeks the first time, 13 weeks the second time, 3 years on a third time, good choice eh? sick or disabled, too illl to work, no problem quick trip to ATOS and they will get you sorted, so you've got terminal cancer, but you're prognosis is that you will live for MORE THAN 7 MONTHS, "Sorry you'll have to go in the WRAG group" In the WRAG group you will be expected to attend work advisory meetings, go on non-time limited workfare up to 2 years, Should you fail in any of the tasks set for you during your time in WRAG, YOU WILL BE SANCTIONED. good choice eh? The jobless, the sick, the disabled, are all suffering, Osbourne is saying he will cut the welfare bill by a firther £12 BILLION if they get back in. Well who's he going it take it from? JSA counts for £3 billion, ESA for £3.9 billion, DLA/PIP for £13 billion housing benefit for £17 billion, the rest of the welfare budget aprroximately £37 billion is paid to pensioners. In fact here's something to take a look at and think about, then consider benefits............ ... www.parasitestreet.c o.uk[/p][/quote]You must be close to suicide!![/p][/quote]No why would you like me to be? You see Andy 2010 seem s to think I'm a drama queen, But I do get so tired of pointing out FACTS and FIGURES and OFFICIAL DWP documents to people who then ignore them. Especially the people who have just been quoting the so-called DWP figures "I SAW IN THE PAPER" which are generally a load of BS as has been PROVEN by several parliamentary committees.[/p][/quote]You also need a new caps lock button[/p][/quote]Shouting (using a caps lock) does not make your argument any better ade_splat
  • Score: 0

6:01pm Wed 29 Jan 14

RollandSmoke says...

Well I guess that will be just about it for the comments now all these "hard workers" have finished for the day and gone home to subject their other halves to their compassionate point of view as they flick through their daily mail for their special little version of reality. Ignorance is bliss so why are they so grumpy when they have such a level of ignorance? I blame someone who I've never met and who's circumstances I'm unaware of. It's the done thing.
Well I guess that will be just about it for the comments now all these "hard workers" have finished for the day and gone home to subject their other halves to their compassionate point of view as they flick through their daily mail for their special little version of reality. Ignorance is bliss so why are they so grumpy when they have such a level of ignorance? I blame someone who I've never met and who's circumstances I'm unaware of. It's the done thing. RollandSmoke
  • Score: 4

7:28pm Wed 29 Jan 14

alive and awake says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
Well I guess that will be just about it for the comments now all these "hard workers" have finished for the day and gone home to subject their other halves to their compassionate point of view as they flick through their daily mail for their special little version of reality. Ignorance is bliss so why are they so grumpy when they have such a level of ignorance? I blame someone who I've never met and who's circumstances I'm unaware of. It's the done thing.
RS. Do you really want Milliband and Balls digging our Country into a bigger hole? Maybe you don't have any children or grandchildren to care about, which makes you very, very selfish, with a grab what you can when you can mentality. You think you know who will give you the biggest hand out, and sod the rest of us. I think that makes you very greedy indeed.
Labour are so desperate its wonder they aren't promising blue badges for anybody who votes for them, what about free gas/electric? they sound so pathetic. wake up and smell the s**t.
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: Well I guess that will be just about it for the comments now all these "hard workers" have finished for the day and gone home to subject their other halves to their compassionate point of view as they flick through their daily mail for their special little version of reality. Ignorance is bliss so why are they so grumpy when they have such a level of ignorance? I blame someone who I've never met and who's circumstances I'm unaware of. It's the done thing.[/p][/quote]RS. Do you really want Milliband and Balls digging our Country into a bigger hole? Maybe you don't have any children or grandchildren to care about, which makes you very, very selfish, with a grab what you can when you can mentality. You think you know who will give you the biggest hand out, and sod the rest of us. I think that makes you very greedy indeed. Labour are so desperate its wonder they aren't promising blue badges for anybody who votes for them, what about free gas/electric? they sound so pathetic. wake up and smell the s**t. alive and awake
  • Score: -2

7:47pm Wed 29 Jan 14

RollandSmoke says...

alive and awake wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Well I guess that will be just about it for the comments now all these "hard workers" have finished for the day and gone home to subject their other halves to their compassionate point of view as they flick through their daily mail for their special little version of reality. Ignorance is bliss so why are they so grumpy when they have such a level of ignorance? I blame someone who I've never met and who's circumstances I'm unaware of. It's the done thing.
RS. Do you really want Milliband and Balls digging our Country into a bigger hole? Maybe you don't have any children or grandchildren to care about, which makes you very, very selfish, with a grab what you can when you can mentality. You think you know who will give you the biggest hand out, and sod the rest of us. I think that makes you very greedy indeed.
Labour are so desperate its wonder they aren't promising blue badges for anybody who votes for them, what about free gas/electric? they sound so pathetic. wake up and smell the s**t.
What was the national debt in 2010 (2 years after the financial crash)? What is it today? How many foodbanks were there in 2010? how many now? You like to sing the praises of the Tories, please explain how you are measuring their success? What have they achieved? Try to be specific and avoid the boring and meaningless waffle that you are so fond of.
[quote][p][bold]alive and awake[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: Well I guess that will be just about it for the comments now all these "hard workers" have finished for the day and gone home to subject their other halves to their compassionate point of view as they flick through their daily mail for their special little version of reality. Ignorance is bliss so why are they so grumpy when they have such a level of ignorance? I blame someone who I've never met and who's circumstances I'm unaware of. It's the done thing.[/p][/quote]RS. Do you really want Milliband and Balls digging our Country into a bigger hole? Maybe you don't have any children or grandchildren to care about, which makes you very, very selfish, with a grab what you can when you can mentality. You think you know who will give you the biggest hand out, and sod the rest of us. I think that makes you very greedy indeed. Labour are so desperate its wonder they aren't promising blue badges for anybody who votes for them, what about free gas/electric? they sound so pathetic. wake up and smell the s**t.[/p][/quote]What was the national debt in 2010 (2 years after the financial crash)? What is it today? How many foodbanks were there in 2010? how many now? You like to sing the praises of the Tories, please explain how you are measuring their success? What have they achieved? Try to be specific and avoid the boring and meaningless waffle that you are so fond of. RollandSmoke
  • Score: 4

8:20pm Wed 29 Jan 14

alive and awake says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
alive and awake wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Well I guess that will be just about it for the comments now all these "hard workers" have finished for the day and gone home to subject their other halves to their compassionate point of view as they flick through their daily mail for their special little version of reality. Ignorance is bliss so why are they so grumpy when they have such a level of ignorance? I blame someone who I've never met and who's circumstances I'm unaware of. It's the done thing.
RS. Do you really want Milliband and Balls digging our Country into a bigger hole? Maybe you don't have any children or grandchildren to care about, which makes you very, very selfish, with a grab what you can when you can mentality. You think you know who will give you the biggest hand out, and sod the rest of us. I think that makes you very greedy indeed.
Labour are so desperate its wonder they aren't promising blue badges for anybody who votes for them, what about free gas/electric? they sound so pathetic. wake up and smell the s**t.
What was the national debt in 2010 (2 years after the financial crash)? What is it today? How many foodbanks were there in 2010? how many now? You like to sing the praises of the Tories, please explain how you are measuring their success? What have they achieved? Try to be specific and avoid the boring and meaningless waffle that you are so fond of.
This Coalition has saved us from a massive devaluation of the pound, also saved us from massive unaffordable interest rates that would leave most of the population in a terrible mess. Anyone not on benefits at all has paid the blunt of this. Some how the Coalition has managed to increase basic tax allowance, a huge boost to take home pay. The top 1% of earners pay 30% of all income tax, they have most disposable income, spending another 20% of their earnings in VAT. They have froze tax increases on fuel, that Labour had planned. They probably saved us from another war in Seria that Labour would have taken us into. Make no mistake the people who , have been hit the hardest from the financial collapse are the so called middle classes, a lot of them Tory voters, and most of them understand why. The ones who have been hit the least are the GENUINE benefit claimers, the will not even notice there has been a crises. The CHEATS and FRAUDTRERS are the ones that feel they are worse off and badly done to.
One thing that the Tories are hopeless at is to explain to people, get their point across, they assume everybody knows the situation, this is not the case and people need it spelling out and explaining.
All Labour spout is what they think people want to hear, 50p tax They don't mention too often the fact they increased the 10p tax to 20p.
Labour will get trounce at the next election, I just hope Ed Balls is still about to see it.
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alive and awake[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: Well I guess that will be just about it for the comments now all these "hard workers" have finished for the day and gone home to subject their other halves to their compassionate point of view as they flick through their daily mail for their special little version of reality. Ignorance is bliss so why are they so grumpy when they have such a level of ignorance? I blame someone who I've never met and who's circumstances I'm unaware of. It's the done thing.[/p][/quote]RS. Do you really want Milliband and Balls digging our Country into a bigger hole? Maybe you don't have any children or grandchildren to care about, which makes you very, very selfish, with a grab what you can when you can mentality. You think you know who will give you the biggest hand out, and sod the rest of us. I think that makes you very greedy indeed. Labour are so desperate its wonder they aren't promising blue badges for anybody who votes for them, what about free gas/electric? they sound so pathetic. wake up and smell the s**t.[/p][/quote]What was the national debt in 2010 (2 years after the financial crash)? What is it today? How many foodbanks were there in 2010? how many now? You like to sing the praises of the Tories, please explain how you are measuring their success? What have they achieved? Try to be specific and avoid the boring and meaningless waffle that you are so fond of.[/p][/quote]This Coalition has saved us from a massive devaluation of the pound, also saved us from massive unaffordable interest rates that would leave most of the population in a terrible mess. Anyone not on benefits at all has paid the blunt of this. Some how the Coalition has managed to increase basic tax allowance, a huge boost to take home pay. The top 1% of earners pay 30% of all income tax, they have most disposable income, spending another 20% of their earnings in VAT. They have froze tax increases on fuel, that Labour had planned. They probably saved us from another war in Seria that Labour would have taken us into. Make no mistake the people who , have been hit the hardest from the financial collapse are the so called middle classes, a lot of them Tory voters, and most of them understand why. The ones who have been hit the least are the GENUINE benefit claimers, the will not even notice there has been a crises. The CHEATS and FRAUDTRERS are the ones that feel they are worse off and badly done to. One thing that the Tories are hopeless at is to explain to people, get their point across, they assume everybody knows the situation, this is not the case and people need it spelling out and explaining. All Labour spout is what they think people want to hear, 50p tax They don't mention too often the fact they increased the 10p tax to 20p. Labour will get trounce at the next election, I just hope Ed Balls is still about to see it. alive and awake
  • Score: -2

8:56pm Wed 29 Jan 14

RollandSmoke says...

alive and awake wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
alive and awake wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Well I guess that will be just about it for the comments now all these "hard workers" have finished for the day and gone home to subject their other halves to their compassionate point of view as they flick through their daily mail for their special little version of reality. Ignorance is bliss so why are they so grumpy when they have such a level of ignorance? I blame someone who I've never met and who's circumstances I'm unaware of. It's the done thing.
RS. Do you really want Milliband and Balls digging our Country into a bigger hole? Maybe you don't have any children or grandchildren to care about, which makes you very, very selfish, with a grab what you can when you can mentality. You think you know who will give you the biggest hand out, and sod the rest of us. I think that makes you very greedy indeed.
Labour are so desperate its wonder they aren't promising blue badges for anybody who votes for them, what about free gas/electric? they sound so pathetic. wake up and smell the s**t.
What was the national debt in 2010 (2 years after the financial crash)? What is it today? How many foodbanks were there in 2010? how many now? You like to sing the praises of the Tories, please explain how you are measuring their success? What have they achieved? Try to be specific and avoid the boring and meaningless waffle that you are so fond of.
This Coalition has saved us from a massive devaluation of the pound, also saved us from massive unaffordable interest rates that would leave most of the population in a terrible mess. Anyone not on benefits at all has paid the blunt of this. Some how the Coalition has managed to increase basic tax allowance, a huge boost to take home pay. The top 1% of earners pay 30% of all income tax, they have most disposable income, spending another 20% of their earnings in VAT. They have froze tax increases on fuel, that Labour had planned. They probably saved us from another war in Seria that Labour would have taken us into. Make no mistake the people who , have been hit the hardest from the financial collapse are the so called middle classes, a lot of them Tory voters, and most of them understand why. The ones who have been hit the least are the GENUINE benefit claimers, the will not even notice there has been a crises. The CHEATS and FRAUDTRERS are the ones that feel they are worse off and badly done to.
One thing that the Tories are hopeless at is to explain to people, get their point across, they assume everybody knows the situation, this is not the case and people need it spelling out and explaining.
All Labour spout is what they think people want to hear, 50p tax They don't mention too often the fact they increased the 10p tax to 20p.
Labour will get trounce at the next election, I just hope Ed Balls is still about to see it.
you missed the questions that I started with so I will repeat them. What was the national debt in 2010 (2 years after the financial crash)? What is it today? How many foodbanks were there in 2010? how many now? You have no evidence that the pound would have devalued or that interest rates would have risen under a Labour government as they certainly didn't in the 2 years after the financial crash when Labour were still in office. Apparently if the jobless total gets fiddled down to 7% the Bank of England will be considering raising interest rates anyway. They upped the VAT to 20% from 17.5%. Changed the goalposts to give themselves a fixed 5 year term and rewrote the rules for a vote of no confidence. They tried to drag us into a war in Syria and funded the Al Qaeda terrorists fighting there in contravention of international law. The cost of living has soared above pay rises throughout this parliament. You obviously have no idea how benefit claimants have been effected but suddenly having to find the money for 25% of their council tax as well as bedroom tax (I know you'll say it's the removal of the spare room subsidy but you would have had to be receiving a subsidy for it to be removed) doesn't go un-noticed. Fact of the matter is the vast majority of people in this country are worse off under this shambles. You may not be which is why you don't give a toss about those who have been effected. The suicide rates are soaring as are the number of homeless. The list of things that the Tories are useless at extends well beyond getting their point across.
[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: Well I guess that will be just about it for the comments now all these "hard workers" have finished for the day and gone home to subject their other halves to their compassionate point of view as they flick through their daily mail for their special little version of reality. Ignorance is bliss so why are they so grumpy when they have such a level of ignorance? I blame someone who I've never met and who's circumstances I'm unaware of. It's the done thing.[/p][/quote]RS. Do you really want Milliband and Balls digging our Country into a bigger hole? Maybe you don't have any children or grandchildren to care about, which makes you very, very selfish, with a grab what you can when you can mentality. You think you know who will give you the biggest hand out, and sod the rest of us. I think that makes you very greedy indeed. Labour are so desperate its wonder they aren't promising blue badges for anybody who votes for them, what about free gas/electric? they sound so pathetic. wake up and smell the s**t.[/p][/quote]What was the national debt in 2010 (2 years after the financial crash)? What is it today? How many foodbanks were there in 2010? how many now? You like to sing the praises of the Tories, please explain how you are measuring their success? What have they achieved? Try to be specific and avoid the boring and meaningless waffle that you are so fond of.[/p][/quote]This Coalition has saved us from a massive devaluation of the pound, also saved us from massive unaffordable interest rates that would leave most of the population in a terrible mess. Anyone not on benefits at all has paid the blunt of this. Some how the Coalition has managed to increase basic tax allowance, a huge boost to take home pay. The top 1% of earners pay 30% of all income tax, they have most disposable income, spending another 20% of their earnings in VAT. They have froze tax increases on fuel, that Labour had planned. They probably saved us from another war in Seria that Labour would have taken us into. Make no mistake the people who , have been hit the hardest from the financial collapse are the so called middle classes, a lot of them Tory voters, and most of them understand why. The ones who have been hit the least are the GENUINE benefit claimers, the will not even notice there has been a crises. The CHEATS and FRAUDTRERS are the ones that feel they are worse off and badly done to. One thing that the Tories are hopeless at is to explain to people, get their point across, they assume everybody knows the situation, this is not the case and people need it spelling out and explaining. All Labour spout is what they think people want to hear, 50p tax They don't mention too often the fact they increased the 10p tax to 20p. Labour will get trounce at the next election, I just hope Ed Balls is still about to see it.[/p][/quote]you missed the questions that I started with so I will repeat them. What was the national debt in 2010 (2 years after the financial crash)? What is it today? How many foodbanks were there in 2010? how many now? You have no evidence that the pound would have devalued or that interest rates would have risen under a Labour government as they certainly didn't in the 2 years after the financial crash when Labour were still in office. Apparently if the jobless total gets fiddled down to 7% the Bank of England will be considering raising interest rates anyway. They upped the VAT to 20% from 17.5%. Changed the goalposts to give themselves a fixed 5 year term and rewrote the rules for a vote of no confidence. They tried to drag us into a war in Syria and funded the Al Qaeda terrorists fighting there in contravention of international law. The cost of living has soared above pay rises throughout this parliament. You obviously have no idea how benefit claimants have been effected but suddenly having to find the money for 25% of their council tax as well as bedroom tax (I know you'll say it's the removal of the spare room subsidy but you would have had to be receiving a subsidy for it to be removed) doesn't go un-noticed. Fact of the matter is the vast majority of people in this country are worse off under this shambles. You may not be which is why you don't give a toss about those who have been effected. The suicide rates are soaring as are the number of homeless. The list of things that the Tories are useless at extends well beyond getting their point across. RollandSmoke
  • Score: 4

9:06pm Wed 29 Jan 14

alive and awake says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
alive and awake wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
alive and awake wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Well I guess that will be just about it for the comments now all these "hard workers" have finished for the day and gone home to subject their other halves to their compassionate point of view as they flick through their daily mail for their special little version of reality. Ignorance is bliss so why are they so grumpy when they have such a level of ignorance? I blame someone who I've never met and who's circumstances I'm unaware of. It's the done thing.
RS. Do you really want Milliband and Balls digging our Country into a bigger hole? Maybe you don't have any children or grandchildren to care about, which makes you very, very selfish, with a grab what you can when you can mentality. You think you know who will give you the biggest hand out, and sod the rest of us. I think that makes you very greedy indeed.
Labour are so desperate its wonder they aren't promising blue badges for anybody who votes for them, what about free gas/electric? they sound so pathetic. wake up and smell the s**t.
What was the national debt in 2010 (2 years after the financial crash)? What is it today? How many foodbanks were there in 2010? how many now? You like to sing the praises of the Tories, please explain how you are measuring their success? What have they achieved? Try to be specific and avoid the boring and meaningless waffle that you are so fond of.
This Coalition has saved us from a massive devaluation of the pound, also saved us from massive unaffordable interest rates that would leave most of the population in a terrible mess. Anyone not on benefits at all has paid the blunt of this. Some how the Coalition has managed to increase basic tax allowance, a huge boost to take home pay. The top 1% of earners pay 30% of all income tax, they have most disposable income, spending another 20% of their earnings in VAT. They have froze tax increases on fuel, that Labour had planned. They probably saved us from another war in Seria that Labour would have taken us into. Make no mistake the people who , have been hit the hardest from the financial collapse are the so called middle classes, a lot of them Tory voters, and most of them understand why. The ones who have been hit the least are the GENUINE benefit claimers, the will not even notice there has been a crises. The CHEATS and FRAUDTRERS are the ones that feel they are worse off and badly done to.
One thing that the Tories are hopeless at is to explain to people, get their point across, they assume everybody knows the situation, this is not the case and people need it spelling out and explaining.
All Labour spout is what they think people want to hear, 50p tax They don't mention too often the fact they increased the 10p tax to 20p.
Labour will get trounce at the next election, I just hope Ed Balls is still about to see it.
you missed the questions that I started with so I will repeat them. What was the national debt in 2010 (2 years after the financial crash)? What is it today? How many foodbanks were there in 2010? how many now? You have no evidence that the pound would have devalued or that interest rates would have risen under a Labour government as they certainly didn't in the 2 years after the financial crash when Labour were still in office. Apparently if the jobless total gets fiddled down to 7% the Bank of England will be considering raising interest rates anyway. They upped the VAT to 20% from 17.5%. Changed the goalposts to give themselves a fixed 5 year term and rewrote the rules for a vote of no confidence. They tried to drag us into a war in Syria and funded the Al Qaeda terrorists fighting there in contravention of international law. The cost of living has soared above pay rises throughout this parliament. You obviously have no idea how benefit claimants have been effected but suddenly having to find the money for 25% of their council tax as well as bedroom tax (I know you'll say it's the removal of the spare room subsidy but you would have had to be receiving a subsidy for it to be removed) doesn't go un-noticed. Fact of the matter is the vast majority of people in this country are worse off under this shambles. You may not be which is why you don't give a toss about those who have been effected. The suicide rates are soaring as are the number of homeless. The list of things that the Tories are useless at extends well beyond getting their point across.
You really have no idea have you RS. you are deluded, as for what I have lost over the last 6 years, would astound you, but I know it would be much worse under Labour, most people I know will have lost similar and some will have lost much more. The ones who have lost nothing are the ones who had nothing to lose, and these are the ones doing the most screaming.
[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: Well I guess that will be just about it for the comments now all these "hard workers" have finished for the day and gone home to subject their other halves to their compassionate point of view as they flick through their daily mail for their special little version of reality. Ignorance is bliss so why are they so grumpy when they have such a level of ignorance? I blame someone who I've never met and who's circumstances I'm unaware of. It's the done thing.[/p][/quote]RS. Do you really want Milliband and Balls digging our Country into a bigger hole? Maybe you don't have any children or grandchildren to care about, which makes you very, very selfish, with a grab what you can when you can mentality. You think you know who will give you the biggest hand out, and sod the rest of us. I think that makes you very greedy indeed. Labour are so desperate its wonder they aren't promising blue badges for anybody who votes for them, what about free gas/electric? they sound so pathetic. wake up and smell the s**t.[/p][/quote]What was the national debt in 2010 (2 years after the financial crash)? What is it today? How many foodbanks were there in 2010? how many now? You like to sing the praises of the Tories, please explain how you are measuring their success? What have they achieved? Try to be specific and avoid the boring and meaningless waffle that you are so fond of.[/p][/quote]This Coalition has saved us from a massive devaluation of the pound, also saved us from massive unaffordable interest rates that would leave most of the population in a terrible mess. Anyone not on benefits at all has paid the blunt of this. Some how the Coalition has managed to increase basic tax allowance, a huge boost to take home pay. The top 1% of earners pay 30% of all income tax, they have most disposable income, spending another 20% of their earnings in VAT. They have froze tax increases on fuel, that Labour had planned. They probably saved us from another war in Seria that Labour would have taken us into. Make no mistake the people who , have been hit the hardest from the financial collapse are the so called middle classes, a lot of them Tory voters, and most of them understand why. The ones who have been hit the least are the GENUINE benefit claimers, the will not even notice there has been a crises. The CHEATS and FRAUDTRERS are the ones that feel they are worse off and badly done to. One thing that the Tories are hopeless at is to explain to people, get their point across, they assume everybody knows the situation, this is not the case and people need it spelling out and explaining. All Labour spout is what they think people want to hear, 50p tax They don't mention too often the fact they increased the 10p tax to 20p. Labour will get trounce at the next election, I just hope Ed Balls is still about to see it.[/p][/quote]you missed the questions that I started with so I will repeat them. What was the national debt in 2010 (2 years after the financial crash)? What is it today? How many foodbanks were there in 2010? how many now? You have no evidence that the pound would have devalued or that interest rates would have risen under a Labour government as they certainly didn't in the 2 years after the financial crash when Labour were still in office. Apparently if the jobless total gets fiddled down to 7% the Bank of England will be considering raising interest rates anyway. They upped the VAT to 20% from 17.5%. Changed the goalposts to give themselves a fixed 5 year term and rewrote the rules for a vote of no confidence. They tried to drag us into a war in Syria and funded the Al Qaeda terrorists fighting there in contravention of international law. The cost of living has soared above pay rises throughout this parliament. You obviously have no idea how benefit claimants have been effected but suddenly having to find the money for 25% of their council tax as well as bedroom tax (I know you'll say it's the removal of the spare room subsidy but you would have had to be receiving a subsidy for it to be removed) doesn't go un-noticed. Fact of the matter is the vast majority of people in this country are worse off under this shambles. You may not be which is why you don't give a toss about those who have been effected. The suicide rates are soaring as are the number of homeless. The list of things that the Tories are useless at extends well beyond getting their point across.[/p][/quote]You really have no idea have you RS. you are deluded, as for what I have lost over the last 6 years, would astound you, but I know it would be much worse under Labour, most people I know will have lost similar and some will have lost much more. The ones who have lost nothing are the ones who had nothing to lose, and these are the ones doing the most screaming. alive and awake
  • Score: -5

9:22pm Wed 29 Jan 14

RollandSmoke says...

alive and awake wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
alive and awake wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
alive and awake wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Well I guess that will be just about it for the comments now all these "hard workers" have finished for the day and gone home to subject their other halves to their compassionate point of view as they flick through their daily mail for their special little version of reality. Ignorance is bliss so why are they so grumpy when they have such a level of ignorance? I blame someone who I've never met and who's circumstances I'm unaware of. It's the done thing.
RS. Do you really want Milliband and Balls digging our Country into a bigger hole? Maybe you don't have any children or grandchildren to care about, which makes you very, very selfish, with a grab what you can when you can mentality. You think you know who will give you the biggest hand out, and sod the rest of us. I think that makes you very greedy indeed.
Labour are so desperate its wonder they aren't promising blue badges for anybody who votes for them, what about free gas/electric? they sound so pathetic. wake up and smell the s**t.
What was the national debt in 2010 (2 years after the financial crash)? What is it today? How many foodbanks were there in 2010? how many now? You like to sing the praises of the Tories, please explain how you are measuring their success? What have they achieved? Try to be specific and avoid the boring and meaningless waffle that you are so fond of.
This Coalition has saved us from a massive devaluation of the pound, also saved us from massive unaffordable interest rates that would leave most of the population in a terrible mess. Anyone not on benefits at all has paid the blunt of this. Some how the Coalition has managed to increase basic tax allowance, a huge boost to take home pay. The top 1% of earners pay 30% of all income tax, they have most disposable income, spending another 20% of their earnings in VAT. They have froze tax increases on fuel, that Labour had planned. They probably saved us from another war in Seria that Labour would have taken us into. Make no mistake the people who , have been hit the hardest from the financial collapse are the so called middle classes, a lot of them Tory voters, and most of them understand why. The ones who have been hit the least are the GENUINE benefit claimers, the will not even notice there has been a crises. The CHEATS and FRAUDTRERS are the ones that feel they are worse off and badly done to.
One thing that the Tories are hopeless at is to explain to people, get their point across, they assume everybody knows the situation, this is not the case and people need it spelling out and explaining.
All Labour spout is what they think people want to hear, 50p tax They don't mention too often the fact they increased the 10p tax to 20p.
Labour will get trounce at the next election, I just hope Ed Balls is still about to see it.
you missed the questions that I started with so I will repeat them. What was the national debt in 2010 (2 years after the financial crash)? What is it today? How many foodbanks were there in 2010? how many now? You have no evidence that the pound would have devalued or that interest rates would have risen under a Labour government as they certainly didn't in the 2 years after the financial crash when Labour were still in office. Apparently if the jobless total gets fiddled down to 7% the Bank of England will be considering raising interest rates anyway. They upped the VAT to 20% from 17.5%. Changed the goalposts to give themselves a fixed 5 year term and rewrote the rules for a vote of no confidence. They tried to drag us into a war in Syria and funded the Al Qaeda terrorists fighting there in contravention of international law. The cost of living has soared above pay rises throughout this parliament. You obviously have no idea how benefit claimants have been effected but suddenly having to find the money for 25% of their council tax as well as bedroom tax (I know you'll say it's the removal of the spare room subsidy but you would have had to be receiving a subsidy for it to be removed) doesn't go un-noticed. Fact of the matter is the vast majority of people in this country are worse off under this shambles. You may not be which is why you don't give a toss about those who have been effected. The suicide rates are soaring as are the number of homeless. The list of things that the Tories are useless at extends well beyond getting their point across.
You really have no idea have you RS. you are deluded, as for what I have lost over the last 6 years, would astound you, but I know it would be much worse under Labour, most people I know will have lost similar and some will have lost much more. The ones who have lost nothing are the ones who had nothing to lose, and these are the ones doing the most screaming.
Go on astound me. Have you still got enough to see you from one week to the next? Should we be feeling sorry for you? How much have you lost in the last 4 years? How much was lost through gambling on the stock market? Do gamblers deserve sympathy when they lose?
[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: Well I guess that will be just about it for the comments now all these "hard workers" have finished for the day and gone home to subject their other halves to their compassionate point of view as they flick through their daily mail for their special little version of reality. Ignorance is bliss so why are they so grumpy when they have such a level of ignorance? I blame someone who I've never met and who's circumstances I'm unaware of. It's the done thing.[/p][/quote]RS. Do you really want Milliband and Balls digging our Country into a bigger hole? Maybe you don't have any children or grandchildren to care about, which makes you very, very selfish, with a grab what you can when you can mentality. You think you know who will give you the biggest hand out, and sod the rest of us. I think that makes you very greedy indeed. Labour are so desperate its wonder they aren't promising blue badges for anybody who votes for them, what about free gas/electric? they sound so pathetic. wake up and smell the s**t.[/p][/quote]What was the national debt in 2010 (2 years after the financial crash)? What is it today? How many foodbanks were there in 2010? how many now? You like to sing the praises of the Tories, please explain how you are measuring their success? What have they achieved? Try to be specific and avoid the boring and meaningless waffle that you are so fond of.[/p][/quote]This Coalition has saved us from a massive devaluation of the pound, also saved us from massive unaffordable interest rates that would leave most of the population in a terrible mess. Anyone not on benefits at all has paid the blunt of this. Some how the Coalition has managed to increase basic tax allowance, a huge boost to take home pay. The top 1% of earners pay 30% of all income tax, they have most disposable income, spending another 20% of their earnings in VAT. They have froze tax increases on fuel, that Labour had planned. They probably saved us from another war in Seria that Labour would have taken us into. Make no mistake the people who , have been hit the hardest from the financial collapse are the so called middle classes, a lot of them Tory voters, and most of them understand why. The ones who have been hit the least are the GENUINE benefit claimers, the will not even notice there has been a crises. The CHEATS and FRAUDTRERS are the ones that feel they are worse off and badly done to. One thing that the Tories are hopeless at is to explain to people, get their point across, they assume everybody knows the situation, this is not the case and people need it spelling out and explaining. All Labour spout is what they think people want to hear, 50p tax They don't mention too often the fact they increased the 10p tax to 20p. Labour will get trounce at the next election, I just hope Ed Balls is still about to see it.[/p][/quote]you missed the questions that I started with so I will repeat them. What was the national debt in 2010 (2 years after the financial crash)? What is it today? How many foodbanks were there in 2010? how many now? You have no evidence that the pound would have devalued or that interest rates would have risen under a Labour government as they certainly didn't in the 2 years after the financial crash when Labour were still in office. Apparently if the jobless total gets fiddled down to 7% the Bank of England will be considering raising interest rates anyway. They upped the VAT to 20% from 17.5%. Changed the goalposts to give themselves a fixed 5 year term and rewrote the rules for a vote of no confidence. They tried to drag us into a war in Syria and funded the Al Qaeda terrorists fighting there in contravention of international law. The cost of living has soared above pay rises throughout this parliament. You obviously have no idea how benefit claimants have been effected but suddenly having to find the money for 25% of their council tax as well as bedroom tax (I know you'll say it's the removal of the spare room subsidy but you would have had to be receiving a subsidy for it to be removed) doesn't go un-noticed. Fact of the matter is the vast majority of people in this country are worse off under this shambles. You may not be which is why you don't give a toss about those who have been effected. The suicide rates are soaring as are the number of homeless. The list of things that the Tories are useless at extends well beyond getting their point across.[/p][/quote]You really have no idea have you RS. you are deluded, as for what I have lost over the last 6 years, would astound you, but I know it would be much worse under Labour, most people I know will have lost similar and some will have lost much more. The ones who have lost nothing are the ones who had nothing to lose, and these are the ones doing the most screaming.[/p][/quote]Go on astound me. Have you still got enough to see you from one week to the next? Should we be feeling sorry for you? How much have you lost in the last 4 years? How much was lost through gambling on the stock market? Do gamblers deserve sympathy when they lose? RollandSmoke
  • Score: 2

9:31pm Wed 29 Jan 14

alive and awake says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
alive and awake wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
alive and awake wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
alive and awake wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Well I guess that will be just about it for the comments now all these "hard workers" have finished for the day and gone home to subject their other halves to their compassionate point of view as they flick through their daily mail for their special little version of reality. Ignorance is bliss so why are they so grumpy when they have such a level of ignorance? I blame someone who I've never met and who's circumstances I'm unaware of. It's the done thing.
RS. Do you really want Milliband and Balls digging our Country into a bigger hole? Maybe you don't have any children or grandchildren to care about, which makes you very, very selfish, with a grab what you can when you can mentality. You think you know who will give you the biggest hand out, and sod the rest of us. I think that makes you very greedy indeed.
Labour are so desperate its wonder they aren't promising blue badges for anybody who votes for them, what about free gas/electric? they sound so pathetic. wake up and smell the s**t.
What was the national debt in 2010 (2 years after the financial crash)? What is it today? How many foodbanks were there in 2010? how many now? You like to sing the praises of the Tories, please explain how you are measuring their success? What have they achieved? Try to be specific and avoid the boring and meaningless waffle that you are so fond of.
This Coalition has saved us from a massive devaluation of the pound, also saved us from massive unaffordable interest rates that would leave most of the population in a terrible mess. Anyone not on benefits at all has paid the blunt of this. Some how the Coalition has managed to increase basic tax allowance, a huge boost to take home pay. The top 1% of earners pay 30% of all income tax, they have most disposable income, spending another 20% of their earnings in VAT. They have froze tax increases on fuel, that Labour had planned. They probably saved us from another war in Seria that Labour would have taken us into. Make no mistake the people who , have been hit the hardest from the financial collapse are the so called middle classes, a lot of them Tory voters, and most of them understand why. The ones who have been hit the least are the GENUINE benefit claimers, the will not even notice there has been a crises. The CHEATS and FRAUDTRERS are the ones that feel they are worse off and badly done to.
One thing that the Tories are hopeless at is to explain to people, get their point across, they assume everybody knows the situation, this is not the case and people need it spelling out and explaining.
All Labour spout is what they think people want to hear, 50p tax They don't mention too often the fact they increased the 10p tax to 20p.
Labour will get trounce at the next election, I just hope Ed Balls is still about to see it.
you missed the questions that I started with so I will repeat them. What was the national debt in 2010 (2 years after the financial crash)? What is it today? How many foodbanks were there in 2010? how many now? You have no evidence that the pound would have devalued or that interest rates would have risen under a Labour government as they certainly didn't in the 2 years after the financial crash when Labour were still in office. Apparently if the jobless total gets fiddled down to 7% the Bank of England will be considering raising interest rates anyway. They upped the VAT to 20% from 17.5%. Changed the goalposts to give themselves a fixed 5 year term and rewrote the rules for a vote of no confidence. They tried to drag us into a war in Syria and funded the Al Qaeda terrorists fighting there in contravention of international law. The cost of living has soared above pay rises throughout this parliament. You obviously have no idea how benefit claimants have been effected but suddenly having to find the money for 25% of their council tax as well as bedroom tax (I know you'll say it's the removal of the spare room subsidy but you would have had to be receiving a subsidy for it to be removed) doesn't go un-noticed. Fact of the matter is the vast majority of people in this country are worse off under this shambles. You may not be which is why you don't give a toss about those who have been effected. The suicide rates are soaring as are the number of homeless. The list of things that the Tories are useless at extends well beyond getting their point across.
You really have no idea have you RS. you are deluded, as for what I have lost over the last 6 years, would astound you, but I know it would be much worse under Labour, most people I know will have lost similar and some will have lost much more. The ones who have lost nothing are the ones who had nothing to lose, and these are the ones doing the most screaming.
Go on astound me. Have you still got enough to see you from one week to the next? Should we be feeling sorry for you? How much have you lost in the last 4 years? How much was lost through gambling on the stock market? Do gamblers deserve sympathy when they lose?
Life is a gamble, as for the stock exchange it has done very well the last 2 years. Thanks to the Coalition. Are you one of the ones who wishes we had 7% interest rates on savings? I once did have, but for the sake of the people with mortgages I am happy for next to nothing % because the whole Country would be in a right mess if it rises if it rises any time soon, but being a socialist economics will be a bit over your head. lets double benefits tomorrow eh?
[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: Well I guess that will be just about it for the comments now all these "hard workers" have finished for the day and gone home to subject their other halves to their compassionate point of view as they flick through their daily mail for their special little version of reality. Ignorance is bliss so why are they so grumpy when they have such a level of ignorance? I blame someone who I've never met and who's circumstances I'm unaware of. It's the done thing.[/p][/quote]RS. Do you really want Milliband and Balls digging our Country into a bigger hole? Maybe you don't have any children or grandchildren to care about, which makes you very, very selfish, with a grab what you can when you can mentality. You think you know who will give you the biggest hand out, and sod the rest of us. I think that makes you very greedy indeed. Labour are so desperate its wonder they aren't promising blue badges for anybody who votes for them, what about free gas/electric? they sound so pathetic. wake up and smell the s**t.[/p][/quote]What was the national debt in 2010 (2 years after the financial crash)? What is it today? How many foodbanks were there in 2010? how many now? You like to sing the praises of the Tories, please explain how you are measuring their success? What have they achieved? Try to be specific and avoid the boring and meaningless waffle that you are so fond of.[/p][/quote]This Coalition has saved us from a massive devaluation of the pound, also saved us from massive unaffordable interest rates that would leave most of the population in a terrible mess. Anyone not on benefits at all has paid the blunt of this. Some how the Coalition has managed to increase basic tax allowance, a huge boost to take home pay. The top 1% of earners pay 30% of all income tax, they have most disposable income, spending another 20% of their earnings in VAT. They have froze tax increases on fuel, that Labour had planned. They probably saved us from another war in Seria that Labour would have taken us into. Make no mistake the people who , have been hit the hardest from the financial collapse are the so called middle classes, a lot of them Tory voters, and most of them understand why. The ones who have been hit the least are the GENUINE benefit claimers, the will not even notice there has been a crises. The CHEATS and FRAUDTRERS are the ones that feel they are worse off and badly done to. One thing that the Tories are hopeless at is to explain to people, get their point across, they assume everybody knows the situation, this is not the case and people need it spelling out and explaining. All Labour spout is what they think people want to hear, 50p tax They don't mention too often the fact they increased the 10p tax to 20p. Labour will get trounce at the next election, I just hope Ed Balls is still about to see it.[/p][/quote]you missed the questions that I started with so I will repeat them. What was the national debt in 2010 (2 years after the financial crash)? What is it today? How many foodbanks were there in 2010? how many now? You have no evidence that the pound would have devalued or that interest rates would have risen under a Labour government as they certainly didn't in the 2 years after the financial crash when Labour were still in office. Apparently if the jobless total gets fiddled down to 7% the Bank of England will be considering raising interest rates anyway. They upped the VAT to 20% from 17.5%. Changed the goalposts to give themselves a fixed 5 year term and rewrote the rules for a vote of no confidence. They tried to drag us into a war in Syria and funded the Al Qaeda terrorists fighting there in contravention of international law. The cost of living has soared above pay rises throughout this parliament. You obviously have no idea how benefit claimants have been effected but suddenly having to find the money for 25% of their council tax as well as bedroom tax (I know you'll say it's the removal of the spare room subsidy but you would have had to be receiving a subsidy for it to be removed) doesn't go un-noticed. Fact of the matter is the vast majority of people in this country are worse off under this shambles. You may not be which is why you don't give a toss about those who have been effected. The suicide rates are soaring as are the number of homeless. The list of things that the Tories are useless at extends well beyond getting their point across.[/p][/quote]You really have no idea have you RS. you are deluded, as for what I have lost over the last 6 years, would astound you, but I know it would be much worse under Labour, most people I know will have lost similar and some will have lost much more. The ones who have lost nothing are the ones who had nothing to lose, and these are the ones doing the most screaming.[/p][/quote]Go on astound me. Have you still got enough to see you from one week to the next? Should we be feeling sorry for you? How much have you lost in the last 4 years? How much was lost through gambling on the stock market? Do gamblers deserve sympathy when they lose?[/p][/quote]Life is a gamble, as for the stock exchange it has done very well the last 2 years. Thanks to the Coalition. Are you one of the ones who wishes we had 7% interest rates on savings? I once did have, but for the sake of the people with mortgages I am happy for next to nothing % because the whole Country would be in a right mess if it rises if it rises any time soon, but being a socialist economics will be a bit over your head. lets double benefits tomorrow eh? alive and awake
  • Score: -1

9:49pm Wed 29 Jan 14

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:
Well I guess that will be just about it for the comments now all these "hard workers" have finished for the day and gone home to subject their other halves to their compassionate point of view as they flick through their daily mail for their special little version of reality. Ignorance is bliss so why are they so grumpy when they have such a level of ignorance? I blame someone who I've never met and who's circumstances I'm unaware of. It's the done thing.
RS. Do you really want Milliband and Balls digging our Country into a bigger hole? Maybe you don't have any children or grandchildren to care about, which makes you very, very selfish, with a grab what you can when you can mentality. You think you know who will give you the biggest hand out, and sod the rest of us. I think that makes you very greedy indeed.
Labour are so desperate its wonder they aren't promising blue badges for anybody who votes for them, what about free gas/electric? they sound so pathetic. wake up and smell the s**t.
What was the national debt in 2010 (2 years after the financial crash)? What is it today? How many foodbanks were there in 2010? how many now? You like to sing the praises of the Tories, please explain how you are measuring their success? What have they achieved? Try to be specific and avoid the boring and meaningless waffle that you are so fond of.
This Coalition has saved us from a massive devaluation of the pound, also saved us from massive unaffordable interest rates that would leave most of the population in a terrible mess. Anyone not on benefits at all has paid the blunt of this. Some how the Coalition has managed to increase basic tax allowance, a huge boost to take home pay. The top 1% of earners pay 30% of all income tax, they have most disposable income, spending another 20% of their earnings in VAT. They have froze tax increases on fuel, that Labour had planned. They probably saved us from another war in Seria that Labour would have taken us into. Make no mistake the people who , have been hit the hardest from the financial collapse are the so called middle classes, a lot of them Tory voters, and most of them understand why. The ones who have been hit the least are the GENUINE benefit claimers, the will not even notice there has been a crises. The CHEATS and FRAUDTRERS are the ones that feel they are worse off and badly done to.
One thing that the Tories are hopeless at is to explain to people, get their point across, they assume everybody knows the situation, this is not the case and people need it spelling out and explaining.
All Labour spout is what they think people want to hear, 50p tax They don't mention too often the fact they increased the 10p tax to 20p.
Labour will get trounce at the next election, I just hope Ed Balls is still about to see it.
you missed the questions that I started with so I will repeat them. What was the national debt in 2010 (2 years after the financial crash)? What is it today? How many foodbanks were there in 2010? how many now? You have no evidence that the pound would have devalued or that interest rates would have risen under a Labour government as they certainly didn't in the 2 years after the financial crash when Labour were still in office. Apparently if the jobless total gets fiddled down to 7% the Bank of England will be considering raising interest rates anyway. They upped the VAT to 20% from 17.5%. Changed the goalposts to give themselves a fixed 5 year term and rewrote the rules for a vote of no confidence. They tried to drag us into a war in Syria and funded the Al Qaeda terrorists fighting there in contravention of international law. The cost of living has soared above pay rises throughout this parliament. You obviously have no idea how benefit claimants have been effected but suddenly having to find the money for 25% of their council tax as well as bedroom tax (I know you'll say it's the removal of the spare room subsidy but you would have had to be receiving a subsidy for it to be removed) doesn't go un-noticed. Fact of the matter is the vast majority of people in this country are worse off under this shambles. You may not be which is why you don't give a toss about those who have been effected. The suicide rates are soaring as are the number of homeless. The list of things that the Tories are useless at extends well beyond getting their point across.
You really have no idea have you RS. you are deluded, as for what I have lost over the last 6 years, would astound you, but I know it would be much worse under Labour, most people I know will have lost similar and some will have lost much more. The ones who have lost nothing are the ones who had nothing to lose, and these are the ones doing the most screaming.
Go on astound me. Have you still got enough to see you from one week to the next? Should we be feeling sorry for you? How much have you lost in the last 4 years? How much was lost through gambling on the stock market? Do gamblers deserve sympathy when they lose?
Life is a gamble, as for the stock exchange it has done very well the last 2 years. Thanks to the Coalition. Are you one of the ones who wishes we had 7% interest rates on savings? I once did have, but for the sake of the people with mortgages I am happy for next to nothing % because the whole Country would be in a right mess if it rises if it rises any time soon, but being a socialist economics will be a bit over your head. lets double benefits tomorrow eh?
I have a qualification in economics, have you? More to the point has Osborne?
[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: Well I guess that will be just about it for the comments now all these "hard workers" have finished for the day and gone home to subject their other halves to their compassionate point of view as they flick through their daily mail for their special little version of reality. Ignorance is bliss so why are they so grumpy when they have such a level of ignorance? I blame someone who I've never met and who's circumstances I'm unaware of. It's the done thing.[/p][/quote]RS. Do you really want Milliband and Balls digging our Country into a bigger hole? Maybe you don't have any children or grandchildren to care about, which makes you very, very selfish, with a grab what you can when you can mentality. You think you know who will give you the biggest hand out, and sod the rest of us. I think that makes you very greedy indeed. Labour are so desperate its wonder they aren't promising blue badges for anybody who votes for them, what about free gas/electric? they sound so pathetic. wake up and smell the s**t.[/p][/quote]What was the national debt in 2010 (2 years after the financial crash)? What is it today? How many foodbanks were there in 2010? how many now? You like to sing the praises of the Tories, please explain how you are measuring their success? What have they achieved? Try to be specific and avoid the boring and meaningless waffle that you are so fond of.[/p][/quote]This Coalition has saved us from a massive devaluation of the pound, also saved us from massive unaffordable interest rates that would leave most of the population in a terrible mess. Anyone not on benefits at all has paid the blunt of this. Some how the Coalition has managed to increase basic tax allowance, a huge boost to take home pay. The top 1% of earners pay 30% of all income tax, they have most disposable income, spending another 20% of their earnings in VAT. They have froze tax increases on fuel, that Labour had planned. They probably saved us from another war in Seria that Labour would have taken us into. Make no mistake the people who , have been hit the hardest from the financial collapse are the so called middle classes, a lot of them Tory voters, and most of them understand why. The ones who have been hit the least are the GENUINE benefit claimers, the will not even notice there has been a crises. The CHEATS and FRAUDTRERS are the ones that feel they are worse off and badly done to. One thing that the Tories are hopeless at is to explain to people, get their point across, they assume everybody knows the situation, this is not the case and people need it spelling out and explaining. All Labour spout is what they think people want to hear, 50p tax They don't mention too often the fact they increased the 10p tax to 20p. Labour will get trounce at the next election, I just hope Ed Balls is still about to see it.[/p][/quote]you missed the questions that I started with so I will repeat them. What was the national debt in 2010 (2 years after the financial crash)? What is it today? How many foodbanks were there in 2010? how many now? You have no evidence that the pound would have devalued or that interest rates would have risen under a Labour government as they certainly didn't in the 2 years after the financial crash when Labour were still in office. Apparently if the jobless total gets fiddled down to 7% the Bank of England will be considering raising interest rates anyway. They upped the VAT to 20% from 17.5%. Changed the goalposts to give themselves a fixed 5 year term and rewrote the rules for a vote of no confidence. They tried to drag us into a war in Syria and funded the Al Qaeda terrorists fighting there in contravention of international law. The cost of living has soared above pay rises throughout this parliament. You obviously have no idea how benefit claimants have been effected but suddenly having to find the money for 25% of their council tax as well as bedroom tax (I know you'll say it's the removal of the spare room subsidy but you would have had to be receiving a subsidy for it to be removed) doesn't go un-noticed. Fact of the matter is the vast majority of people in this country are worse off under this shambles. You may not be which is why you don't give a toss about those who have been effected. The suicide rates are soaring as are the number of homeless. The list of things that the Tories are useless at extends well beyond getting their point across.[/p][/quote]You really have no idea have you RS. you are deluded, as for what I have lost over the last 6 years, would astound you, but I know it would be much worse under Labour, most people I know will have lost similar and some will have lost much more. The ones who have lost nothing are the ones who had nothing to lose, and these are the ones doing the most screaming.[/p][/quote]Go on astound me. Have you still got enough to see you from one week to the next? Should we be feeling sorry for you? How much have you lost in the last 4 years? How much was lost through gambling on the stock market? Do gamblers deserve sympathy when they lose?[/p][/quote]Life is a gamble, as for the stock exchange it has done very well the last 2 years. Thanks to the Coalition. Are you one of the ones who wishes we had 7% interest rates on savings? I once did have, but for the sake of the people with mortgages I am happy for next to nothing % because the whole Country would be in a right mess if it rises if it rises any time soon, but being a socialist economics will be a bit over your head. lets double benefits tomorrow eh?[/p][/quote]I have a qualification in economics, have you? More to the point has Osborne? RollandSmoke
  • Score: -1

9:55pm Wed 29 Jan 14

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:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Well I guess that will be just about it for the comments now all these "hard workers" have finished for the day and gone home to subject their other halves to their compassionate point of view as they flick through their daily mail for their special little version of reality. Ignorance is bliss so why are they so grumpy when they have such a level of ignorance? I blame someone who I've never met and who's circumstances I'm unaware of. It's the done thing.
RS. Do you really want Milliband and Balls digging our Country into a bigger hole? Maybe you don't have any children or grandchildren to care about, which makes you very, very selfish, with a grab what you can when you can mentality. You think you know who will give you the biggest hand out, and sod the rest of us. I think that makes you very greedy indeed.
Labour are so desperate its wonder they aren't promising blue badges for anybody who votes for them, what about free gas/electric? they sound so pathetic. wake up and smell the s**t.
What was the national debt in 2010 (2 years after the financial crash)? What is it today? How many foodbanks were there in 2010? how many now? You like to sing the praises of the Tories, please explain how you are measuring their success? What have they achieved? Try to be specific and avoid the boring and meaningless waffle that you are so fond of.
This Coalition has saved us from a massive devaluation of the pound, also saved us from massive unaffordable interest rates that would leave most of the population in a terrible mess. Anyone not on benefits at all has paid the blunt of this. Some how the Coalition has managed to increase basic tax allowance, a huge boost to take home pay. The top 1% of earners pay 30% of all income tax, they have most disposable income, spending another 20% of their earnings in VAT. They have froze tax increases on fuel, that Labour had planned. They probably saved us from another war in Seria that Labour would have taken us into. Make no mistake the people who , have been hit the hardest from the financial collapse are the so called middle classes, a lot of them Tory voters, and most of them understand why. The ones who have been hit the least are the GENUINE benefit claimers, the will not even notice there has been a crises. The CHEATS and FRAUDTRERS are the ones that feel they are worse off and badly done to.
One thing that the Tories are hopeless at is to explain to people, get their point across, they assume everybody knows the situation, this is not the case and people need it spelling out and explaining.
All Labour spout is what they think people want to hear, 50p tax They don't mention too often the fact they increased the 10p tax to 20p.
Labour will get trounce at the next election, I just hope Ed Balls is still about to see it.
you missed the questions that I started with so I will repeat them. What was the national debt in 2010 (2 years after the financial crash)? What is it today? How many foodbanks were there in 2010? how many now? You have no evidence that the pound would have devalued or that interest rates would have risen under a Labour government as they certainly didn't in the 2 years after the financial crash when Labour were still in office. Apparently if the jobless total gets fiddled down to 7% the Bank of England will be considering raising interest rates anyway. They upped the VAT to 20% from 17.5%. Changed the goalposts to give themselves a fixed 5 year term and rewrote the rules for a vote of no confidence. They tried to drag us into a war in Syria and funded the Al Qaeda terrorists fighting there in contravention of international law. The cost of living has soared above pay rises throughout this parliament. You obviously have no idea how benefit claimants have been effected but suddenly having to find the money for 25% of their council tax as well as bedroom tax (I know you'll say it's the removal of the spare room subsidy but you would have had to be receiving a subsidy for it to be removed) doesn't go un-noticed. Fact of the matter is the vast majority of people in this country are worse off under this shambles. You may not be which is why you don't give a toss about those who have been effected. The suicide rates are soaring as are the number of homeless. The list of things that the Tories are useless at extends well beyond getting their point across.
You really have no idea have you RS. you are deluded, as for what I have lost over the last 6 years, would astound you, but I know it would be much worse under Labour, most people I know will have lost similar and some will have lost much more. The ones who have lost nothing are the ones who had nothing to lose, and these are the ones doing the most screaming.
Go on astound me. Have you still got enough to see you from one week to the next? Should we be feeling sorry for you? How much have you lost in the last 4 years? How much was lost through gambling on the stock market? Do gamblers deserve sympathy when they lose?
Life is a gamble, as for the stock exchange it has done very well the last 2 years. Thanks to the Coalition. Are you one of the ones who wishes we had 7% interest rates on savings? I once did have, but for the sake of the people with mortgages I am happy for next to nothing % because the whole Country would be in a right mess if it rises if it rises any time soon, but being a socialist economics will be a bit over your head. lets double benefits tomorrow eh?
I have a qualification in economics, have you? More to the point has Osborne?
I don't believe you, if you had you wouldn't spout the rubbish you do.
Mind you Ed Balls is just the same.
[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: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: Well I guess that will be just about it for the comments now all these "hard workers" have finished for the day and gone home to subject their other halves to their compassionate point of view as they flick through their daily mail for their special little version of reality. Ignorance is bliss so why are they so grumpy when they have such a level of ignorance? I blame someone who I've never met and who's circumstances I'm unaware of. It's the done thing.[/p][/quote]RS. Do you really want Milliband and Balls digging our Country into a bigger hole? Maybe you don't have any children or grandchildren to care about, which makes you very, very selfish, with a grab what you can when you can mentality. You think you know who will give you the biggest hand out, and sod the rest of us. I think that makes you very greedy indeed. Labour are so desperate its wonder they aren't promising blue badges for anybody who votes for them, what about free gas/electric? they sound so pathetic. wake up and smell the s**t.[/p][/quote]What was the national debt in 2010 (2 years after the financial crash)? What is it today? How many foodbanks were there in 2010? how many now? You like to sing the praises of the Tories, please explain how you are measuring their success? What have they achieved? Try to be specific and avoid the boring and meaningless waffle that you are so fond of.[/p][/quote]This Coalition has saved us from a massive devaluation of the pound, also saved us from massive unaffordable interest rates that would leave most of the population in a terrible mess. Anyone not on benefits at all has paid the blunt of this. Some how the Coalition has managed to increase basic tax allowance, a huge boost to take home pay. The top 1% of earners pay 30% of all income tax, they have most disposable income, spending another 20% of their earnings in VAT. They have froze tax increases on fuel, that Labour had planned. They probably saved us from another war in Seria that Labour would have taken us into. Make no mistake the people who , have been hit the hardest from the financial collapse are the so called middle classes, a lot of them Tory voters, and most of them understand why. The ones who have been hit the least are the GENUINE benefit claimers, the will not even notice there has been a crises. The CHEATS and FRAUDTRERS are the ones that feel they are worse off and badly done to. One thing that the Tories are hopeless at is to explain to people, get their point across, they assume everybody knows the situation, this is not the case and people need it spelling out and explaining. All Labour spout is what they think people want to hear, 50p tax They don't mention too often the fact they increased the 10p tax to 20p. Labour will get trounce at the next election, I just hope Ed Balls is still about to see it.[/p][/quote]you missed the questions that I started with so I will repeat them. What was the national debt in 2010 (2 years after the financial crash)? What is it today? How many foodbanks were there in 2010? how many now? You have no evidence that the pound would have devalued or that interest rates would have risen under a Labour government as they certainly didn't in the 2 years after the financial crash when Labour were still in office. Apparently if the jobless total gets fiddled down to 7% the Bank of England will be considering raising interest rates anyway. They upped the VAT to 20% from 17.5%. Changed the goalposts to give themselves a fixed 5 year term and rewrote the rules for a vote of no confidence. They tried to drag us into a war in Syria and funded the Al Qaeda terrorists fighting there in contravention of international law. The cost of living has soared above pay rises throughout this parliament. You obviously have no idea how benefit claimants have been effected but suddenly having to find the money for 25% of their council tax as well as bedroom tax (I know you'll say it's the removal of the spare room subsidy but you would have had to be receiving a subsidy for it to be removed) doesn't go un-noticed. Fact of the matter is the vast majority of people in this country are worse off under this shambles. You may not be which is why you don't give a toss about those who have been effected. The suicide rates are soaring as are the number of homeless. The list of things that the Tories are useless at extends well beyond getting their point across.[/p][/quote]You really have no idea have you RS. you are deluded, as for what I have lost over the last 6 years, would astound you, but I know it would be much worse under Labour, most people I know will have lost similar and some will have lost much more. The ones who have lost nothing are the ones who had nothing to lose, and these are the ones doing the most screaming.[/p][/quote]Go on astound me. Have you still got enough to see you from one week to the next? Should we be feeling sorry for you? How much have you lost in the last 4 years? How much was lost through gambling on the stock market? Do gamblers deserve sympathy when they lose?[/p][/quote]Life is a gamble, as for the stock exchange it has done very well the last 2 years. Thanks to the Coalition. Are you one of the ones who wishes we had 7% interest rates on savings? I once did have, but for the sake of the people with mortgages I am happy for next to nothing % because the whole Country would be in a right mess if it rises if it rises any time soon, but being a socialist economics will be a bit over your head. lets double benefits tomorrow eh?[/p][/quote]I have a qualification in economics, have you? More to the point has Osborne?[/p][/quote]I don't believe you, if you had you wouldn't spout the rubbish you do. Mind you Ed Balls is just the same. alive and awake
  • Score: 2

12:35am Thu 30 Jan 14

dellorri says...

I'll answer your questions for you Rolly.............

Deficit in 2010 When the coalition came to power £895 billion
Deficit today in 2014 £1.3 TRILLION

Growth in 2010 when the coaliton took over stood at 2.7% of GDP
Growth today in 2014 1.6% of GDP after 3.5 years of austerity

Unemployment in 2010 After the 2008 crash stood at 1.9 million
The current figures supplied by the DWP show 2.1 million unemployed this after the government claims a million new jobs since last year, which MUST mean last year there were 3.1 million officially unemployed.

Also take into account that government borrowing has more than TREBLED their original estimates in 3 years, for what they predicted to borrow for the entire parliamentary period.
Austerity has not worked, as Osbourne originally promised to end the deficit in the lifetime of this parliament, Now he is saying it may not end until 2018 or even beyond that.

You see the tories may have wiped their promises off of their website and out of their archives, but some of us don't forget the FACTS, and some of us WON'T forget the promises made and then broken as soon as they were elected.
I'll answer your questions for you Rolly............. Deficit in 2010 When the coalition came to power £895 billion Deficit today in 2014 £1.3 TRILLION Growth in 2010 when the coaliton took over stood at 2.7% of GDP Growth today in 2014 1.6% of GDP after 3.5 years of austerity Unemployment in 2010 After the 2008 crash stood at 1.9 million The current figures supplied by the DWP show 2.1 million unemployed this after the government claims a million new jobs since last year, which MUST mean last year there were 3.1 million officially unemployed. Also take into account that government borrowing has more than TREBLED their original estimates in 3 years, for what they predicted to borrow for the entire parliamentary period. Austerity has not worked, as Osbourne originally promised to end the deficit in the lifetime of this parliament, Now he is saying it may not end until 2018 or even beyond that. You see the tories may have wiped their promises off of their website and out of their archives, but some of us don't forget the FACTS, and some of us WON'T forget the promises made and then broken as soon as they were elected. dellorri
  • Score: 4

12:40am Thu 30 Jan 14

dellorri says...

Oh nearly forgot Rolly, sorry, according to the trussell trust history, in 2010 there were approximately 43 food banks up and down the country, mainly catering to asylum seekers, and destitutes referred by social workers.
There are now over 584 food banks in the country, with at least 4 attempting to open every week, at the last count they had helped nearly 600,000 people in the last year.
There I think that answered your questions, and maybe elucidated things for people who don't want to think about such things.
Oh nearly forgot Rolly, sorry, according to the trussell trust history, in 2010 there were approximately 43 food banks up and down the country, mainly catering to asylum seekers, and destitutes referred by social workers. There are now over 584 food banks in the country, with at least 4 attempting to open every week, at the last count they had helped nearly 600,000 people in the last year. There I think that answered your questions, and maybe elucidated things for people who don't want to think about such things. dellorri
  • Score: 4

1:47am Thu 30 Jan 14

bobbyo says...

dellorri wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
dellorri wrote: There is something about this thread that is irritating me in the extreme, gnawing away and it's the fact that, all through this comments section, no matter what is posted, what fact, what figure, it's all coming down to one thing, MONEY MONEY MONEY............ Are you all so cynical, so lacking in compassion, that labelling people is all you can do now. Following headlines and IDS's phony statistics, you jump on any little chance to complain about people on benefits. THIS CAP AFFECTED A MINISCULE PERCENTAGE IN BRADFORD. not even a tenth of 1%, yet it has caused this furore. Can't you see it's ANOTHER DEAD CAT ON THE TABLE? As advised by Lynton Crosbie, Chuck another dead cat on the table, they'll be so horrified, they won't notice anything else you do. Did you know the gagging law went through the house of lords yesterday unopposed........... .....NO you didn't, and it won;t be in the newspapers either, Because THIS IS, THE DEAD CAT STORY.
I see no mention of dead cats. And this is a newspaper designed to drive traffic to their site and generate sales. They know the working population are sick of people taking the mick with the benefit system more than some tinpot law about gagging therefore print a story about the later. But from a personal point of view I couldn't care if its 1% or whatever as any decrease in the benefit is welcome news in my eyes
Oh how witty of you Andy "I see no mention of dead cats". Plus you don't care about a "TINPOT" law............ A tinpot law that is going to remove the right to freedom of speech basically, stating how much campaign groups can use for funding, and that campaign groups may not campaign on ANY political stance in the year preceding a general election, although this will NOT apply to CORPORATE lobbying groups, or political parties. Now you may think, "Oh goodie no left wing organisations going against the governmment", but this includes ALL charities as well, people like OXFAM, THE RED CROSS, BARNARDOS, HELP THE AGED, SCOPE, yes EVERY organisation. What a tin pot law eh? All those charities that do such good work, are now limited as to the funding they can raise in the year preceding an election. rushed through for this year, OH funny that, just happens to be a general election next year. It also happens that a lot of those charities are OPPOSED to policies this government are driving through, to do with health, care and the community. They will now no longer be able to campaign against them this year. But it's ok Andy, we understand.......... .....YOU DON'T CARE. As to the decrease in benefits, Andy please learn from my experience, I had it all once, nice house, nice wife, nice kids good job........... Think about it eh? IT CAN HAPPEN TO ANYONE.
I too had a nice job,nice detached home, nice wife and nice children, AND worked ALL my life since leaving school! I,m 59, suffered a bit of ill health recently, lost my job, my home , and now live in a poxy bedsit!!
[quote][p][bold]dellorri[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dellorri[/bold] wrote: There is something about this thread that is irritating me in the extreme, gnawing away and it's the fact that, all through this comments section, no matter what is posted, what fact, what figure, it's all coming down to one thing, MONEY MONEY MONEY............ Are you all so cynical, so lacking in compassion, that labelling people is all you can do now. Following headlines and IDS's phony statistics, you jump on any little chance to complain about people on benefits. THIS CAP AFFECTED A MINISCULE PERCENTAGE IN BRADFORD. not even a tenth of 1%, yet it has caused this furore. Can't you see it's ANOTHER DEAD CAT ON THE TABLE? As advised by Lynton Crosbie, Chuck another dead cat on the table, they'll be so horrified, they won't notice anything else you do. Did you know the gagging law went through the house of lords yesterday unopposed........... .....NO you didn't, and it won;t be in the newspapers either, Because THIS IS, THE DEAD CAT STORY.[/p][/quote]I see no mention of dead cats. And this is a newspaper designed to drive traffic to their site and generate sales. They know the working population are sick of people taking the mick with the benefit system more than some tinpot law about gagging therefore print a story about the later. But from a personal point of view I couldn't care if its 1% or whatever as any decrease in the benefit is welcome news in my eyes[/p][/quote]Oh how witty of you Andy "I see no mention of dead cats". Plus you don't care about a "TINPOT" law............ A tinpot law that is going to remove the right to freedom of speech basically, stating how much campaign groups can use for funding, and that campaign groups may not campaign on ANY political stance in the year preceding a general election, although this will NOT apply to CORPORATE lobbying groups, or political parties. Now you may think, "Oh goodie no left wing organisations going against the governmment", but this includes ALL charities as well, people like OXFAM, THE RED CROSS, BARNARDOS, HELP THE AGED, SCOPE, yes EVERY organisation. What a tin pot law eh? All those charities that do such good work, are now limited as to the funding they can raise in the year preceding an election. rushed through for this year, OH funny that, just happens to be a general election next year. It also happens that a lot of those charities are OPPOSED to policies this government are driving through, to do with health, care and the community. They will now no longer be able to campaign against them this year. But it's ok Andy, we understand.......... .....YOU DON'T CARE. As to the decrease in benefits, Andy please learn from my experience, I had it all once, nice house, nice wife, nice kids good job........... Think about it eh? IT CAN HAPPEN TO ANYONE.[/p][/quote]I too had a nice job,nice detached home, nice wife and nice children, AND worked ALL my life since leaving school! I,m 59, suffered a bit of ill health recently, lost my job, my home , and now live in a poxy bedsit!! bobbyo
  • Score: 2

2:12am Thu 30 Jan 14

bobbyo says...

dellorri wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
dellorri wrote: There is something about this thread that is irritating me in the extreme, gnawing away and it's the fact that, all through this comments section, no matter what is posted, what fact, what figure, it's all coming down to one thing, MONEY MONEY MONEY............ Are you all so cynical, so lacking in compassion, that labelling people is all you can do now. Following headlines and IDS's phony statistics, you jump on any little chance to complain about people on benefits. THIS CAP AFFECTED A MINISCULE PERCENTAGE IN BRADFORD. not even a tenth of 1%, yet it has caused this furore. Can't you see it's ANOTHER DEAD CAT ON THE TABLE? As advised by Lynton Crosbie, Chuck another dead cat on the table, they'll be so horrified, they won't notice anything else you do. Did you know the gagging law went through the house of lords yesterday unopposed........... .....NO you didn't, and it won;t be in the newspapers either, Because THIS IS, THE DEAD CAT STORY.
I see no mention of dead cats. And this is a newspaper designed to drive traffic to their site and generate sales. They know the working population are sick of people taking the mick with the benefit system more than some tinpot law about gagging therefore print a story about the later. But from a personal point of view I couldn't care if its 1% or whatever as any decrease in the benefit is welcome news in my eyes
Oh how witty of you Andy "I see no mention of dead cats". Plus you don't care about a "TINPOT" law............ A tinpot law that is going to remove the right to freedom of speech basically, stating how much campaign groups can use for funding, and that campaign groups may not campaign on ANY political stance in the year preceding a general election, although this will NOT apply to CORPORATE lobbying groups, or political parties. Now you may think, "Oh goodie no left wing organisations going against the governmment", but this includes ALL charities as well, people like OXFAM, THE RED CROSS, BARNARDOS, HELP THE AGED, SCOPE, yes EVERY organisation. What a tin pot law eh? All those charities that do such good work, are now limited as to the funding they can raise in the year preceding an election. rushed through for this year, OH funny that, just happens to be a general election next year. It also happens that a lot of those charities are OPPOSED to policies this government are driving through, to do with health, care and the community. They will now no longer be able to campaign against them this year. But it's ok Andy, we understand.......... .....YOU DON'T CARE. As to the decrease in benefits, Andy please learn from my experience, I had it all once, nice house, nice wife, nice kids good job........... Think about it eh? IT CAN HAPPEN TO ANYONE.
I too had a nice job,nice detached home, nice wife and nice children, AND worked ALL my life since leaving school! I,m 59, suffered a bit of ill health recently, lost my job, my home , and now live in a poxy bedsit!!
[quote][p][bold]dellorri[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dellorri[/bold] wrote: There is something about this thread that is irritating me in the extreme, gnawing away and it's the fact that, all through this comments section, no matter what is posted, what fact, what figure, it's all coming down to one thing, MONEY MONEY MONEY............ Are you all so cynical, so lacking in compassion, that labelling people is all you can do now. Following headlines and IDS's phony statistics, you jump on any little chance to complain about people on benefits. THIS CAP AFFECTED A MINISCULE PERCENTAGE IN BRADFORD. not even a tenth of 1%, yet it has caused this furore. Can't you see it's ANOTHER DEAD CAT ON THE TABLE? As advised by Lynton Crosbie, Chuck another dead cat on the table, they'll be so horrified, they won't notice anything else you do. Did you know the gagging law went through the house of lords yesterday unopposed........... .....NO you didn't, and it won;t be in the newspapers either, Because THIS IS, THE DEAD CAT STORY.[/p][/quote]I see no mention of dead cats. And this is a newspaper designed to drive traffic to their site and generate sales. They know the working population are sick of people taking the mick with the benefit system more than some tinpot law about gagging therefore print a story about the later. But from a personal point of view I couldn't care if its 1% or whatever as any decrease in the benefit is welcome news in my eyes[/p][/quote]Oh how witty of you Andy "I see no mention of dead cats". Plus you don't care about a "TINPOT" law............ A tinpot law that is going to remove the right to freedom of speech basically, stating how much campaign groups can use for funding, and that campaign groups may not campaign on ANY political stance in the year preceding a general election, although this will NOT apply to CORPORATE lobbying groups, or political parties. Now you may think, "Oh goodie no left wing organisations going against the governmment", but this includes ALL charities as well, people like OXFAM, THE RED CROSS, BARNARDOS, HELP THE AGED, SCOPE, yes EVERY organisation. What a tin pot law eh? All those charities that do such good work, are now limited as to the funding they can raise in the year preceding an election. rushed through for this year, OH funny that, just happens to be a general election next year. It also happens that a lot of those charities are OPPOSED to policies this government are driving through, to do with health, care and the community. They will now no longer be able to campaign against them this year. But it's ok Andy, we understand.......... .....YOU DON'T CARE. As to the decrease in benefits, Andy please learn from my experience, I had it all once, nice house, nice wife, nice kids good job........... Think about it eh? IT CAN HAPPEN TO ANYONE.[/p][/quote]I too had a nice job,nice detached home, nice wife and nice children, AND worked ALL my life since leaving school! I,m 59, suffered a bit of ill health recently, lost my job, my home , and now live in a poxy bedsit!! bobbyo
  • Score: -1

7:48am Thu 30 Jan 14

SinnerSaint says...

dellorri wrote:
I'll answer your questions for you Rolly.............

Deficit in 2010 When the coalition came to power £895 billion
Deficit today in 2014 £1.3 TRILLION

Growth in 2010 when the coaliton took over stood at 2.7% of GDP
Growth today in 2014 1.6% of GDP after 3.5 years of austerity

Unemployment in 2010 After the 2008 crash stood at 1.9 million
The current figures supplied by the DWP show 2.1 million unemployed this after the government claims a million new jobs since last year, which MUST mean last year there were 3.1 million officially unemployed.

Also take into account that government borrowing has more than TREBLED their original estimates in 3 years, for what they predicted to borrow for the entire parliamentary period.
Austerity has not worked, as Osbourne originally promised to end the deficit in the lifetime of this parliament, Now he is saying it may not end until 2018 or even beyond that.

You see the tories may have wiped their promises off of their website and out of their archives, but some of us don't forget the FACTS, and some of us WON'T forget the promises made and then broken as soon as they were elected.
Blah blah Tories, blah blah bankers, blah blah Thatcher, blah blah.

BLAH BLAH OSBOURNE.... Blah blah BONUSES... blah

There you go, I wrote a post for you. Now, I'm off to do a hard day's work because it puts money in the bank, food on the table and a smile on my face. You should try it instead of wallowing in that incredible, all consuming bitterness.
[quote][p][bold]dellorri[/bold] wrote: I'll answer your questions for you Rolly............. Deficit in 2010 When the coalition came to power £895 billion Deficit today in 2014 £1.3 TRILLION Growth in 2010 when the coaliton took over stood at 2.7% of GDP Growth today in 2014 1.6% of GDP after 3.5 years of austerity Unemployment in 2010 After the 2008 crash stood at 1.9 million The current figures supplied by the DWP show 2.1 million unemployed this after the government claims a million new jobs since last year, which MUST mean last year there were 3.1 million officially unemployed. Also take into account that government borrowing has more than TREBLED their original estimates in 3 years, for what they predicted to borrow for the entire parliamentary period. Austerity has not worked, as Osbourne originally promised to end the deficit in the lifetime of this parliament, Now he is saying it may not end until 2018 or even beyond that. You see the tories may have wiped their promises off of their website and out of their archives, but some of us don't forget the FACTS, and some of us WON'T forget the promises made and then broken as soon as they were elected.[/p][/quote]Blah blah Tories, blah blah bankers, blah blah Thatcher, blah blah. BLAH BLAH OSBOURNE.... Blah blah BONUSES... blah There you go, I wrote a post for you. Now, I'm off to do a hard day's work because it puts money in the bank, food on the table and a smile on my face. You should try it instead of wallowing in that incredible, all consuming bitterness. SinnerSaint
  • Score: 0

8:13am Thu 30 Jan 14

allinittogether says...

SinnerSaint wrote:
dellorri wrote:
I'll answer your questions for you Rolly.............

Deficit in 2010 When the coalition came to power £895 billion
Deficit today in 2014 £1.3 TRILLION

Growth in 2010 when the coaliton took over stood at 2.7% of GDP
Growth today in 2014 1.6% of GDP after 3.5 years of austerity

Unemployment in 2010 After the 2008 crash stood at 1.9 million
The current figures supplied by the DWP show 2.1 million unemployed this after the government claims a million new jobs since last year, which MUST mean last year there were 3.1 million officially unemployed.

Also take into account that government borrowing has more than TREBLED their original estimates in 3 years, for what they predicted to borrow for the entire parliamentary period.
Austerity has not worked, as Osbourne originally promised to end the deficit in the lifetime of this parliament, Now he is saying it may not end until 2018 or even beyond that.

You see the tories may have wiped their promises off of their website and out of their archives, but some of us don't forget the FACTS, and some of us WON'T forget the promises made and then broken as soon as they were elected.
Blah blah Tories, blah blah bankers, blah blah Thatcher, blah blah.

BLAH BLAH OSBOURNE.... Blah blah BONUSES... blah

There you go, I wrote a post for you. Now, I'm off to do a hard day's work because it puts money in the bank, food on the table and a smile on my face. You should try it instead of wallowing in that incredible, all consuming bitterness.
You're just the kind of guy the Tories love; you even smile whilst you're getting shafted.
[quote][p][bold]SinnerSaint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dellorri[/bold] wrote: I'll answer your questions for you Rolly............. Deficit in 2010 When the coalition came to power £895 billion Deficit today in 2014 £1.3 TRILLION Growth in 2010 when the coaliton took over stood at 2.7% of GDP Growth today in 2014 1.6% of GDP after 3.5 years of austerity Unemployment in 2010 After the 2008 crash stood at 1.9 million The current figures supplied by the DWP show 2.1 million unemployed this after the government claims a million new jobs since last year, which MUST mean last year there were 3.1 million officially unemployed. Also take into account that government borrowing has more than TREBLED their original estimates in 3 years, for what they predicted to borrow for the entire parliamentary period. Austerity has not worked, as Osbourne originally promised to end the deficit in the lifetime of this parliament, Now he is saying it may not end until 2018 or even beyond that. You see the tories may have wiped their promises off of their website and out of their archives, but some of us don't forget the FACTS, and some of us WON'T forget the promises made and then broken as soon as they were elected.[/p][/quote]Blah blah Tories, blah blah bankers, blah blah Thatcher, blah blah. BLAH BLAH OSBOURNE.... Blah blah BONUSES... blah There you go, I wrote a post for you. Now, I'm off to do a hard day's work because it puts money in the bank, food on the table and a smile on my face. You should try it instead of wallowing in that incredible, all consuming bitterness.[/p][/quote]You're just the kind of guy the Tories love; you even smile whilst you're getting shafted. allinittogether
  • Score: 0

8:23am Thu 30 Jan 14

SinnerSaint says...

allinittogether wrote:
SinnerSaint wrote:
dellorri wrote:
I'll answer your questions for you Rolly.............

Deficit in 2010 When the coalition came to power £895 billion
Deficit today in 2014 £1.3 TRILLION

Growth in 2010 when the coaliton took over stood at 2.7% of GDP
Growth today in 2014 1.6% of GDP after 3.5 years of austerity

Unemployment in 2010 After the 2008 crash stood at 1.9 million
The current figures supplied by the DWP show 2.1 million unemployed this after the government claims a million new jobs since last year, which MUST mean last year there were 3.1 million officially unemployed.

Also take into account that government borrowing has more than TREBLED their original estimates in 3 years, for what they predicted to borrow for the entire parliamentary period.
Austerity has not worked, as Osbourne originally promised to end the deficit in the lifetime of this parliament, Now he is saying it may not end until 2018 or even beyond that.

You see the tories may have wiped their promises off of their website and out of their archives, but some of us don't forget the FACTS, and some of us WON'T forget the promises made and then broken as soon as they were elected.
Blah blah Tories, blah blah bankers, blah blah Thatcher, blah blah.

BLAH BLAH OSBOURNE.... Blah blah BONUSES... blah

There you go, I wrote a post for you. Now, I'm off to do a hard day's work because it puts money in the bank, food on the table and a smile on my face. You should try it instead of wallowing in that incredible, all consuming bitterness.
You're just the kind of guy the Tories love; you even smile whilst you're getting shafted.
Oh I'm not being shafted my friend. My life is a bed of roses, mainly due to all the hard work I've put in over the years.

It's so easy to sit back and do nothing and blame all your problems on politicians and banks and big business and cry about "being shafted". Much harder to get off your lazy backside and do something about it.

"Shafted". LOL
[quote][p][bold]allinittogether[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SinnerSaint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dellorri[/bold] wrote: I'll answer your questions for you Rolly............. Deficit in 2010 When the coalition came to power £895 billion Deficit today in 2014 £1.3 TRILLION Growth in 2010 when the coaliton took over stood at 2.7% of GDP Growth today in 2014 1.6% of GDP after 3.5 years of austerity Unemployment in 2010 After the 2008 crash stood at 1.9 million The current figures supplied by the DWP show 2.1 million unemployed this after the government claims a million new jobs since last year, which MUST mean last year there were 3.1 million officially unemployed. Also take into account that government borrowing has more than TREBLED their original estimates in 3 years, for what they predicted to borrow for the entire parliamentary period. Austerity has not worked, as Osbourne originally promised to end the deficit in the lifetime of this parliament, Now he is saying it may not end until 2018 or even beyond that. You see the tories may have wiped their promises off of their website and out of their archives, but some of us don't forget the FACTS, and some of us WON'T forget the promises made and then broken as soon as they were elected.[/p][/quote]Blah blah Tories, blah blah bankers, blah blah Thatcher, blah blah. BLAH BLAH OSBOURNE.... Blah blah BONUSES... blah There you go, I wrote a post for you. Now, I'm off to do a hard day's work because it puts money in the bank, food on the table and a smile on my face. You should try it instead of wallowing in that incredible, all consuming bitterness.[/p][/quote]You're just the kind of guy the Tories love; you even smile whilst you're getting shafted.[/p][/quote]Oh I'm not being shafted my friend. My life is a bed of roses, mainly due to all the hard work I've put in over the years. It's so easy to sit back and do nothing and blame all your problems on politicians and banks and big business and cry about "being shafted". Much harder to get off your lazy backside and do something about it. "Shafted". LOL SinnerSaint
  • Score: 2

8:39am Thu 30 Jan 14

RollandSmoke says...

SinnerSaint wrote:
allinittogether wrote:
SinnerSaint wrote:
dellorri wrote:
I'll answer your questions for you Rolly.............

Deficit in 2010 When the coalition came to power £895 billion
Deficit today in 2014 £1.3 TRILLION

Growth in 2010 when the coaliton took over stood at 2.7% of GDP
Growth today in 2014 1.6% of GDP after 3.5 years of austerity

Unemployment in 2010 After the 2008 crash stood at 1.9 million
The current figures supplied by the DWP show 2.1 million unemployed this after the government claims a million new jobs since last year, which MUST mean last year there were 3.1 million officially unemployed.

Also take into account that government borrowing has more than TREBLED their original estimates in 3 years, for what they predicted to borrow for the entire parliamentary period.
Austerity has not worked, as Osbourne originally promised to end the deficit in the lifetime of this parliament, Now he is saying it may not end until 2018 or even beyond that.

You see the tories may have wiped their promises off of their website and out of their archives, but some of us don't forget the FACTS, and some of us WON'T forget the promises made and then broken as soon as they were elected.
Blah blah Tories, blah blah bankers, blah blah Thatcher, blah blah.

BLAH BLAH OSBOURNE.... Blah blah BONUSES... blah

There you go, I wrote a post for you. Now, I'm off to do a hard day's work because it puts money in the bank, food on the table and a smile on my face. You should try it instead of wallowing in that incredible, all consuming bitterness.
You're just the kind of guy the Tories love; you even smile whilst you're getting shafted.
Oh I'm not being shafted my friend. My life is a bed of roses, mainly due to all the hard work I've put in over the years.

It's so easy to sit back and do nothing and blame all your problems on politicians and banks and big business and cry about "being shafted". Much harder to get off your lazy backside and do something about it.

"Shafted". LOL
Nice to know you're all right Jack. Nice also that you take the time to prove that you don't need to be very intelligent to do ok. Even if you are illiterate and incapable of taking in information when people state repeatedly that they are out of work due to ill health you can still hold down a job. Perhaps Dell is only ill because he hasn't had enough of his benefits taken from him and isn't quite stressed enough for the miraculous healing process to take effect. Does your wife tie your shoelaces for you before you head off out of the door? Your a rat on a wheel. When sickness prevents you working some find observing the rat race most amusing.
[quote][p][bold]SinnerSaint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]allinittogether[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SinnerSaint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dellorri[/bold] wrote: I'll answer your questions for you Rolly............. Deficit in 2010 When the coalition came to power £895 billion Deficit today in 2014 £1.3 TRILLION Growth in 2010 when the coaliton took over stood at 2.7% of GDP Growth today in 2014 1.6% of GDP after 3.5 years of austerity Unemployment in 2010 After the 2008 crash stood at 1.9 million The current figures supplied by the DWP show 2.1 million unemployed this after the government claims a million new jobs since last year, which MUST mean last year there were 3.1 million officially unemployed. Also take into account that government borrowing has more than TREBLED their original estimates in 3 years, for what they predicted to borrow for the entire parliamentary period. Austerity has not worked, as Osbourne originally promised to end the deficit in the lifetime of this parliament, Now he is saying it may not end until 2018 or even beyond that. You see the tories may have wiped their promises off of their website and out of their archives, but some of us don't forget the FACTS, and some of us WON'T forget the promises made and then broken as soon as they were elected.[/p][/quote]Blah blah Tories, blah blah bankers, blah blah Thatcher, blah blah. BLAH BLAH OSBOURNE.... Blah blah BONUSES... blah There you go, I wrote a post for you. Now, I'm off to do a hard day's work because it puts money in the bank, food on the table and a smile on my face. You should try it instead of wallowing in that incredible, all consuming bitterness.[/p][/quote]You're just the kind of guy the Tories love; you even smile whilst you're getting shafted.[/p][/quote]Oh I'm not being shafted my friend. My life is a bed of roses, mainly due to all the hard work I've put in over the years. It's so easy to sit back and do nothing and blame all your problems on politicians and banks and big business and cry about "being shafted". Much harder to get off your lazy backside and do something about it. "Shafted". LOL[/p][/quote]Nice to know you're all right Jack. Nice also that you take the time to prove that you don't need to be very intelligent to do ok. Even if you are illiterate and incapable of taking in information when people state repeatedly that they are out of work due to ill health you can still hold down a job. Perhaps Dell is only ill because he hasn't had enough of his benefits taken from him and isn't quite stressed enough for the miraculous healing process to take effect. Does your wife tie your shoelaces for you before you head off out of the door? Your a rat on a wheel. When sickness prevents you working some find observing the rat race most amusing. RollandSmoke
  • Score: 0

8:48am Thu 30 Jan 14

SinnerSaint says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
SinnerSaint wrote:
allinittogether wrote:
SinnerSaint wrote:
dellorri wrote:
I'll answer your questions for you Rolly.............

Deficit in 2010 When the coalition came to power £895 billion
Deficit today in 2014 £1.3 TRILLION

Growth in 2010 when the coaliton took over stood at 2.7% of GDP
Growth today in 2014 1.6% of GDP after 3.5 years of austerity

Unemployment in 2010 After the 2008 crash stood at 1.9 million
The current figures supplied by the DWP show 2.1 million unemployed this after the government claims a million new jobs since last year, which MUST mean last year there were 3.1 million officially unemployed.

Also take into account that government borrowing has more than TREBLED their original estimates in 3 years, for what they predicted to borrow for the entire parliamentary period.
Austerity has not worked, as Osbourne originally promised to end the deficit in the lifetime of this parliament, Now he is saying it may not end until 2018 or even beyond that.

You see the tories may have wiped their promises off of their website and out of their archives, but some of us don't forget the FACTS, and some of us WON'T forget the promises made and then broken as soon as they were elected.
Blah blah Tories, blah blah bankers, blah blah Thatcher, blah blah.

BLAH BLAH OSBOURNE.... Blah blah BONUSES... blah

There you go, I wrote a post for you. Now, I'm off to do a hard day's work because it puts money in the bank, food on the table and a smile on my face. You should try it instead of wallowing in that incredible, all consuming bitterness.
You're just the kind of guy the Tories love; you even smile whilst you're getting shafted.
Oh I'm not being shafted my friend. My life is a bed of roses, mainly due to all the hard work I've put in over the years.

It's so easy to sit back and do nothing and blame all your problems on politicians and banks and big business and cry about "being shafted". Much harder to get off your lazy backside and do something about it.

"Shafted". LOL
Nice to know you're all right Jack. Nice also that you take the time to prove that you don't need to be very intelligent to do ok. Even if you are illiterate and incapable of taking in information when people state repeatedly that they are out of work due to ill health you can still hold down a job. Perhaps Dell is only ill because he hasn't had enough of his benefits taken from him and isn't quite stressed enough for the miraculous healing process to take effect. Does your wife tie your shoelaces for you before you head off out of the door? Your a rat on a wheel. When sickness prevents you working some find observing the rat race most amusing.
So if someone works for a living they are "a rat on a wheel" or "being shafted"? Get a grip!

Rolly - bitterness personified.
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SinnerSaint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]allinittogether[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SinnerSaint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dellorri[/bold] wrote: I'll answer your questions for you Rolly............. Deficit in 2010 When the coalition came to power £895 billion Deficit today in 2014 £1.3 TRILLION Growth in 2010 when the coaliton took over stood at 2.7% of GDP Growth today in 2014 1.6% of GDP after 3.5 years of austerity Unemployment in 2010 After the 2008 crash stood at 1.9 million The current figures supplied by the DWP show 2.1 million unemployed this after the government claims a million new jobs since last year, which MUST mean last year there were 3.1 million officially unemployed. Also take into account that government borrowing has more than TREBLED their original estimates in 3 years, for what they predicted to borrow for the entire parliamentary period. Austerity has not worked, as Osbourne originally promised to end the deficit in the lifetime of this parliament, Now he is saying it may not end until 2018 or even beyond that. You see the tories may have wiped their promises off of their website and out of their archives, but some of us don't forget the FACTS, and some of us WON'T forget the promises made and then broken as soon as they were elected.[/p][/quote]Blah blah Tories, blah blah bankers, blah blah Thatcher, blah blah. BLAH BLAH OSBOURNE.... Blah blah BONUSES... blah There you go, I wrote a post for you. Now, I'm off to do a hard day's work because it puts money in the bank, food on the table and a smile on my face. You should try it instead of wallowing in that incredible, all consuming bitterness.[/p][/quote]You're just the kind of guy the Tories love; you even smile whilst you're getting shafted.[/p][/quote]Oh I'm not being shafted my friend. My life is a bed of roses, mainly due to all the hard work I've put in over the years. It's so easy to sit back and do nothing and blame all your problems on politicians and banks and big business and cry about "being shafted". Much harder to get off your lazy backside and do something about it. "Shafted". LOL[/p][/quote]Nice to know you're all right Jack. Nice also that you take the time to prove that you don't need to be very intelligent to do ok. Even if you are illiterate and incapable of taking in information when people state repeatedly that they are out of work due to ill health you can still hold down a job. Perhaps Dell is only ill because he hasn't had enough of his benefits taken from him and isn't quite stressed enough for the miraculous healing process to take effect. Does your wife tie your shoelaces for you before you head off out of the door? Your a rat on a wheel. When sickness prevents you working some find observing the rat race most amusing.[/p][/quote]So if someone works for a living they are "a rat on a wheel" or "being shafted"? Get a grip! Rolly - bitterness personified. SinnerSaint
  • Score: 2

9:07am Thu 30 Jan 14

RollandSmoke says...

SinnerSaint wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
SinnerSaint wrote:
allinittogether wrote:
SinnerSaint wrote:
dellorri wrote:
I'll answer your questions for you Rolly.............

Deficit in 2010 When the coalition came to power £895 billion
Deficit today in 2014 £1.3 TRILLION

Growth in 2010 when the coaliton took over stood at 2.7% of GDP
Growth today in 2014 1.6% of GDP after 3.5 years of austerity

Unemployment in 2010 After the 2008 crash stood at 1.9 million
The current figures supplied by the DWP show 2.1 million unemployed this after the government claims a million new jobs since last year, which MUST mean last year there were 3.1 million officially unemployed.

Also take into account that government borrowing has more than TREBLED their original estimates in 3 years, for what they predicted to borrow for the entire parliamentary period.
Austerity has not worked, as Osbourne originally promised to end the deficit in the lifetime of this parliament, Now he is saying it may not end until 2018 or even beyond that.

You see the tories may have wiped their promises off of their website and out of their archives, but some of us don't forget the FACTS, and some of us WON'T forget the promises made and then broken as soon as they were elected.
Blah blah Tories, blah blah bankers, blah blah Thatcher, blah blah.

BLAH BLAH OSBOURNE.... Blah blah BONUSES... blah

There you go, I wrote a post for you. Now, I'm off to do a hard day's work because it puts money in the bank, food on the table and a smile on my face. You should try it instead of wallowing in that incredible, all consuming bitterness.
You're just the kind of guy the Tories love; you even smile whilst you're getting shafted.
Oh I'm not being shafted my friend. My life is a bed of roses, mainly due to all the hard work I've put in over the years.

It's so easy to sit back and do nothing and blame all your problems on politicians and banks and big business and cry about "being shafted". Much harder to get off your lazy backside and do something about it.

"Shafted". LOL
Nice to know you're all right Jack. Nice also that you take the time to prove that you don't need to be very intelligent to do ok. Even if you are illiterate and incapable of taking in information when people state repeatedly that they are out of work due to ill health you can still hold down a job. Perhaps Dell is only ill because he hasn't had enough of his benefits taken from him and isn't quite stressed enough for the miraculous healing process to take effect. Does your wife tie your shoelaces for you before you head off out of the door? Your a rat on a wheel. When sickness prevents you working some find observing the rat race most amusing.
So if someone works for a living they are "a rat on a wheel" or "being shafted"? Get a grip!

Rolly - bitterness personified.
So if someone is out of work due to illness they are a scrounger and not trying hard enough?
SinnerSaint - Idiot personified.
[quote][p][bold]SinnerSaint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SinnerSaint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]allinittogether[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SinnerSaint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dellorri[/bold] wrote: I'll answer your questions for you Rolly............. Deficit in 2010 When the coalition came to power £895 billion Deficit today in 2014 £1.3 TRILLION Growth in 2010 when the coaliton took over stood at 2.7% of GDP Growth today in 2014 1.6% of GDP after 3.5 years of austerity Unemployment in 2010 After the 2008 crash stood at 1.9 million The current figures supplied by the DWP show 2.1 million unemployed this after the government claims a million new jobs since last year, which MUST mean last year there were 3.1 million officially unemployed. Also take into account that government borrowing has more than TREBLED their original estimates in 3 years, for what they predicted to borrow for the entire parliamentary period. Austerity has not worked, as Osbourne originally promised to end the deficit in the lifetime of this parliament, Now he is saying it may not end until 2018 or even beyond that. You see the tories may have wiped their promises off of their website and out of their archives, but some of us don't forget the FACTS, and some of us WON'T forget the promises made and then broken as soon as they were elected.[/p][/quote]Blah blah Tories, blah blah bankers, blah blah Thatcher, blah blah. BLAH BLAH OSBOURNE.... Blah blah BONUSES... blah There you go, I wrote a post for you. Now, I'm off to do a hard day's work because it puts money in the bank, food on the table and a smile on my face. You should try it instead of wallowing in that incredible, all consuming bitterness.[/p][/quote]You're just the kind of guy the Tories love; you even smile whilst you're getting shafted.[/p][/quote]Oh I'm not being shafted my friend. My life is a bed of roses, mainly due to all the hard work I've put in over the years. It's so easy to sit back and do nothing and blame all your problems on politicians and banks and big business and cry about "being shafted". Much harder to get off your lazy backside and do something about it. "Shafted". LOL[/p][/quote]Nice to know you're all right Jack. Nice also that you take the time to prove that you don't need to be very intelligent to do ok. Even if you are illiterate and incapable of taking in information when people state repeatedly that they are out of work due to ill health you can still hold down a job. Perhaps Dell is only ill because he hasn't had enough of his benefits taken from him and isn't quite stressed enough for the miraculous healing process to take effect. Does your wife tie your shoelaces for you before you head off out of the door? Your a rat on a wheel. When sickness prevents you working some find observing the rat race most amusing.[/p][/quote]So if someone works for a living they are "a rat on a wheel" or "being shafted"? Get a grip! Rolly - bitterness personified.[/p][/quote]So if someone is out of work due to illness they are a scrounger and not trying hard enough? SinnerSaint - Idiot personified. RollandSmoke
  • Score: -1

9:13am Thu 30 Jan 14

SinnerSaint says...

I keep forgetting it's all about you Rolly.

Many apologies.
I keep forgetting it's all about you Rolly. Many apologies. SinnerSaint
  • Score: 0

9:27am Thu 30 Jan 14

allinittogether says...

SinnerSaint wrote:
allinittogether wrote:
SinnerSaint wrote:
dellorri wrote:
I'll answer your questions for you Rolly.............

Deficit in 2010 When the coalition came to power £895 billion
Deficit today in 2014 £1.3 TRILLION

Growth in 2010 when the coaliton took over stood at 2.7% of GDP
Growth today in 2014 1.6% of GDP after 3.5 years of austerity

Unemployment in 2010 After the 2008 crash stood at 1.9 million
The current figures supplied by the DWP show 2.1 million unemployed this after the government claims a million new jobs since last year, which MUST mean last year there were 3.1 million officially unemployed.

Also take into account that government borrowing has more than TREBLED their original estimates in 3 years, for what they predicted to borrow for the entire parliamentary period.
Austerity has not worked, as Osbourne originally promised to end the deficit in the lifetime of this parliament, Now he is saying it may not end until 2018 or even beyond that.

You see the tories may have wiped their promises off of their website and out of their archives, but some of us don't forget the FACTS, and some of us WON'T forget the promises made and then broken as soon as they were elected.
Blah blah Tories, blah blah bankers, blah blah Thatcher, blah blah.

BLAH BLAH OSBOURNE.... Blah blah BONUSES... blah

There you go, I wrote a post for you. Now, I'm off to do a hard day's work because it puts money in the bank, food on the table and a smile on my face. You should try it instead of wallowing in that incredible, all consuming bitterness.
You're just the kind of guy the Tories love; you even smile whilst you're getting shafted.
Oh I'm not being shafted my friend. My life is a bed of roses, mainly due to all the hard work I've put in over the years.

It's so easy to sit back and do nothing and blame all your problems on politicians and banks and big business and cry about "being shafted". Much harder to get off your lazy backside and do something about it.

"Shafted". LOL
Just think, if you work for an employer, how much more comfy their bed of roses is than yours and all from the sweat of your brow and all the others just like you.
[quote][p][bold]SinnerSaint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]allinittogether[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SinnerSaint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dellorri[/bold] wrote: I'll answer your questions for you Rolly............. Deficit in 2010 When the coalition came to power £895 billion Deficit today in 2014 £1.3 TRILLION Growth in 2010 when the coaliton took over stood at 2.7% of GDP Growth today in 2014 1.6% of GDP after 3.5 years of austerity Unemployment in 2010 After the 2008 crash stood at 1.9 million The current figures supplied by the DWP show 2.1 million unemployed this after the government claims a million new jobs since last year, which MUST mean last year there were 3.1 million officially unemployed. Also take into account that government borrowing has more than TREBLED their original estimates in 3 years, for what they predicted to borrow for the entire parliamentary period. Austerity has not worked, as Osbourne originally promised to end the deficit in the lifetime of this parliament, Now he is saying it may not end until 2018 or even beyond that. You see the tories may have wiped their promises off of their website and out of their archives, but some of us don't forget the FACTS, and some of us WON'T forget the promises made and then broken as soon as they were elected.[/p][/quote]Blah blah Tories, blah blah bankers, blah blah Thatcher, blah blah. BLAH BLAH OSBOURNE.... Blah blah BONUSES... blah There you go, I wrote a post for you. Now, I'm off to do a hard day's work because it puts money in the bank, food on the table and a smile on my face. You should try it instead of wallowing in that incredible, all consuming bitterness.[/p][/quote]You're just the kind of guy the Tories love; you even smile whilst you're getting shafted.[/p][/quote]Oh I'm not being shafted my friend. My life is a bed of roses, mainly due to all the hard work I've put in over the years. It's so easy to sit back and do nothing and blame all your problems on politicians and banks and big business and cry about "being shafted". Much harder to get off your lazy backside and do something about it. "Shafted". LOL[/p][/quote]Just think, if you work for an employer, how much more comfy their bed of roses is than yours and all from the sweat of your brow and all the others just like you. allinittogether
  • Score: 1

9:29am Thu 30 Jan 14

RollandSmoke says...

SinnerSaint wrote:
I keep forgetting it's all about you Rolly.

Many apologies.
Do you actually read any of the comments? You could always ask someone to read them for you. You were telling Dell that he should try working and to get off his lazy backside. He has been quite clear about the reasons why he does not work. Admittedly I'm in the same position as are many people in this country who are getting caught up in this punish the benefit claimant in order to give the gullible the impression that this somehow is making work pay. The fact of the matter is there is no escape from these ongoing attacks on the living standards of those deemed too ill to work. I find your inability to distinguish between the unemployed and the sick and disabled insulting. By repeating the same crap even when it has been pointed out to you you insult yourself. You are obviously thick as two short planks but hey you've got your health, for now.
[quote][p][bold]SinnerSaint[/bold] wrote: I keep forgetting it's all about you Rolly. Many apologies.[/p][/quote]Do you actually read any of the comments? You could always ask someone to read them for you. You were telling Dell that he should try working and to get off his lazy backside. He has been quite clear about the reasons why he does not work. Admittedly I'm in the same position as are many people in this country who are getting caught up in this punish the benefit claimant in order to give the gullible the impression that this somehow is making work pay. The fact of the matter is there is no escape from these ongoing attacks on the living standards of those deemed too ill to work. I find your inability to distinguish between the unemployed and the sick and disabled insulting. By repeating the same crap even when it has been pointed out to you you insult yourself. You are obviously thick as two short planks but hey you've got your health, for now. RollandSmoke
  • Score: 0

9:40am Thu 30 Jan 14

SinnerSaint says...

allinittogether wrote:
SinnerSaint wrote:
allinittogether wrote:
SinnerSaint wrote:
dellorri wrote:
I'll answer your questions for you Rolly.............

Deficit in 2010 When the coalition came to power £895 billion
Deficit today in 2014 £1.3 TRILLION

Growth in 2010 when the coaliton took over stood at 2.7% of GDP
Growth today in 2014 1.6% of GDP after 3.5 years of austerity

Unemployment in 2010 After the 2008 crash stood at 1.9 million
The current figures supplied by the DWP show 2.1 million unemployed this after the government claims a million new jobs since last year, which MUST mean last year there were 3.1 million officially unemployed.

Also take into account that government borrowing has more than TREBLED their original estimates in 3 years, for what they predicted to borrow for the entire parliamentary period.
Austerity has not worked, as Osbourne originally promised to end the deficit in the lifetime of this parliament, Now he is saying it may not end until 2018 or even beyond that.

You see the tories may have wiped their promises off of their website and out of their archives, but some of us don't forget the FACTS, and some of us WON'T forget the promises made and then broken as soon as they were elected.
Blah blah Tories, blah blah bankers, blah blah Thatcher, blah blah.

BLAH BLAH OSBOURNE.... Blah blah BONUSES... blah

There you go, I wrote a post for you. Now, I'm off to do a hard day's work because it puts money in the bank, food on the table and a smile on my face. You should try it instead of wallowing in that incredible, all consuming bitterness.
You're just the kind of guy the Tories love; you even smile whilst you're getting shafted.
Oh I'm not being shafted my friend. My life is a bed of roses, mainly due to all the hard work I've put in over the years.

It's so easy to sit back and do nothing and blame all your problems on politicians and banks and big business and cry about "being shafted". Much harder to get off your lazy backside and do something about it.

"Shafted". LOL
Just think, if you work for an employer, how much more comfy their bed of roses is than yours and all from the sweat of your brow and all the others just like you.
Yes. I spend my entire life worrying about people who are better off than me .
[quote][p][bold]allinittogether[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SinnerSaint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]allinittogether[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SinnerSaint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dellorri[/bold] wrote: I'll answer your questions for you Rolly............. Deficit in 2010 When the coalition came to power £895 billion Deficit today in 2014 £1.3 TRILLION Growth in 2010 when the coaliton took over stood at 2.7% of GDP Growth today in 2014 1.6% of GDP after 3.5 years of austerity Unemployment in 2010 After the 2008 crash stood at 1.9 million The current figures supplied by the DWP show 2.1 million unemployed this after the government claims a million new jobs since last year, which MUST mean last year there were 3.1 million officially unemployed. Also take into account that government borrowing has more than TREBLED their original estimates in 3 years, for what they predicted to borrow for the entire parliamentary period. Austerity has not worked, as Osbourne originally promised to end the deficit in the lifetime of this parliament, Now he is saying it may not end until 2018 or even beyond that. You see the tories may have wiped their promises off of their website and out of their archives, but some of us don't forget the FACTS, and some of us WON'T forget the promises made and then broken as soon as they were elected.[/p][/quote]Blah blah Tories, blah blah bankers, blah blah Thatcher, blah blah. BLAH BLAH OSBOURNE.... Blah blah BONUSES... blah There you go, I wrote a post for you. Now, I'm off to do a hard day's work because it puts money in the bank, food on the table and a smile on my face. You should try it instead of wallowing in that incredible, all consuming bitterness.[/p][/quote]You're just the kind of guy the Tories love; you even smile whilst you're getting shafted.[/p][/quote]Oh I'm not being shafted my friend. My life is a bed of roses, mainly due to all the hard work I've put in over the years. It's so easy to sit back and do nothing and blame all your problems on politicians and banks and big business and cry about "being shafted". Much harder to get off your lazy backside and do something about it. "Shafted". LOL[/p][/quote]Just think, if you work for an employer, how much more comfy their bed of roses is than yours and all from the sweat of your brow and all the others just like you.[/p][/quote]Yes. I spend my entire life worrying about people who are better off than me . SinnerSaint
  • Score: 2

9:44am Thu 30 Jan 14

SinnerSaint says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
SinnerSaint wrote:
I keep forgetting it's all about you Rolly.

Many apologies.
Do you actually read any of the comments? You could always ask someone to read them for you. You were telling Dell that he should try working and to get off his lazy backside. He has been quite clear about the reasons why he does not work. Admittedly I'm in the same position as are many people in this country who are getting caught up in this punish the benefit claimant in order to give the gullible the impression that this somehow is making work pay. The fact of the matter is there is no escape from these ongoing attacks on the living standards of those deemed too ill to work. I find your inability to distinguish between the unemployed and the sick and disabled insulting. By repeating the same crap even when it has been pointed out to you you insult yourself. You are obviously thick as two short planks but hey you've got your health, for now.
I think it's you who is unable to distinguish between people being critical of the undeserving. Nobody has a problem with people in genuine hardship being supported by the state - that's what it is there for.

You take any criticism of the benefits system personally and that is YOUR problem, not mine.
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SinnerSaint[/bold] wrote: I keep forgetting it's all about you Rolly. Many apologies.[/p][/quote]Do you actually read any of the comments? You could always ask someone to read them for you. You were telling Dell that he should try working and to get off his lazy backside. He has been quite clear about the reasons why he does not work. Admittedly I'm in the same position as are many people in this country who are getting caught up in this punish the benefit claimant in order to give the gullible the impression that this somehow is making work pay. The fact of the matter is there is no escape from these ongoing attacks on the living standards of those deemed too ill to work. I find your inability to distinguish between the unemployed and the sick and disabled insulting. By repeating the same crap even when it has been pointed out to you you insult yourself. You are obviously thick as two short planks but hey you've got your health, for now.[/p][/quote]I think it's you who is unable to distinguish between people being critical of the undeserving. Nobody has a problem with people in genuine hardship being supported by the state - that's what it is there for. You take any criticism of the benefits system personally and that is YOUR problem, not mine. SinnerSaint
  • Score: 1

9:52am Thu 30 Jan 14

allinittogether says...

SinnerSaint wrote:
allinittogether wrote:
SinnerSaint wrote:
allinittogether wrote:
SinnerSaint wrote:
dellorri wrote:
I'll answer your questions for you Rolly.............

Deficit in 2010 When the coalition came to power £895 billion
Deficit today in 2014 £1.3 TRILLION

Growth in 2010 when the coaliton took over stood at 2.7% of GDP
Growth today in 2014 1.6% of GDP after 3.5 years of austerity

Unemployment in 2010 After the 2008 crash stood at 1.9 million
The current figures supplied by the DWP show 2.1 million unemployed this after the government claims a million new jobs since last year, which MUST mean last year there were 3.1 million officially unemployed.

Also take into account that government borrowing has more than TREBLED their original estimates in 3 years, for what they predicted to borrow for the entire parliamentary period.
Austerity has not worked, as Osbourne originally promised to end the deficit in the lifetime of this parliament, Now he is saying it may not end until 2018 or even beyond that.

You see the tories may have wiped their promises off of their website and out of their archives, but some of us don't forget the FACTS, and some of us WON'T forget the promises made and then broken as soon as they were elected.
Blah blah Tories, blah blah bankers, blah blah Thatcher, blah blah.

BLAH BLAH OSBOURNE.... Blah blah BONUSES... blah

There you go, I wrote a post for you. Now, I'm off to do a hard day's work because it puts money in the bank, food on the table and a smile on my face. You should try it instead of wallowing in that incredible, all consuming bitterness.
You're just the kind of guy the Tories love; you even smile whilst you're getting shafted.
Oh I'm not being shafted my friend. My life is a bed of roses, mainly due to all the hard work I've put in over the years.

It's so easy to sit back and do nothing and blame all your problems on politicians and banks and big business and cry about "being shafted". Much harder to get off your lazy backside and do something about it.

"Shafted". LOL
Just think, if you work for an employer, how much more comfy their bed of roses is than yours and all from the sweat of your brow and all the others just like you.
Yes. I spend my entire life worrying about people who are better off than me .
No you spend your entire life belittling people who are worse off than you.
As I said before you're being shafted but you don't even realise it.
[quote][p][bold]SinnerSaint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]allinittogether[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SinnerSaint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]allinittogether[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SinnerSaint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dellorri[/bold] wrote: I'll answer your questions for you Rolly............. Deficit in 2010 When the coalition came to power £895 billion Deficit today in 2014 £1.3 TRILLION Growth in 2010 when the coaliton took over stood at 2.7% of GDP Growth today in 2014 1.6% of GDP after 3.5 years of austerity Unemployment in 2010 After the 2008 crash stood at 1.9 million The current figures supplied by the DWP show 2.1 million unemployed this after the government claims a million new jobs since last year, which MUST mean last year there were 3.1 million officially unemployed. Also take into account that government borrowing has more than TREBLED their original estimates in 3 years, for what they predicted to borrow for the entire parliamentary period. Austerity has not worked, as Osbourne originally promised to end the deficit in the lifetime of this parliament, Now he is saying it may not end until 2018 or even beyond that. You see the tories may have wiped their promises off of their website and out of their archives, but some of us don't forget the FACTS, and some of us WON'T forget the promises made and then broken as soon as they were elected.[/p][/quote]Blah blah Tories, blah blah bankers, blah blah Thatcher, blah blah. BLAH BLAH OSBOURNE.... Blah blah BONUSES... blah There you go, I wrote a post for you. Now, I'm off to do a hard day's work because it puts money in the bank, food on the table and a smile on my face. You should try it instead of wallowing in that incredible, all consuming bitterness.[/p][/quote]You're just the kind of guy the Tories love; you even smile whilst you're getting shafted.[/p][/quote]Oh I'm not being shafted my friend. My life is a bed of roses, mainly due to all the hard work I've put in over the years. It's so easy to sit back and do nothing and blame all your problems on politicians and banks and big business and cry about "being shafted". Much harder to get off your lazy backside and do something about it. "Shafted". LOL[/p][/quote]Just think, if you work for an employer, how much more comfy their bed of roses is than yours and all from the sweat of your brow and all the others just like you.[/p][/quote]Yes. I spend my entire life worrying about people who are better off than me .[/p][/quote]No you spend your entire life belittling people who are worse off than you. As I said before you're being shafted but you don't even realise it. allinittogether
  • Score: 0

10:12am Thu 30 Jan 14

SinnerSaint says...

allinittogether wrote:
SinnerSaint wrote:
allinittogether wrote:
SinnerSaint wrote:
allinittogether wrote:
SinnerSaint wrote:
dellorri wrote:
I'll answer your questions for you Rolly.............

Deficit in 2010 When the coalition came to power £895 billion
Deficit today in 2014 £1.3 TRILLION

Growth in 2010 when the coaliton took over stood at 2.7% of GDP
Growth today in 2014 1.6% of GDP after 3.5 years of austerity

Unemployment in 2010 After the 2008 crash stood at 1.9 million
The current figures supplied by the DWP show 2.1 million unemployed this after the government claims a million new jobs since last year, which MUST mean last year there were 3.1 million officially unemployed.

Also take into account that government borrowing has more than TREBLED their original estimates in 3 years, for what they predicted to borrow for the entire parliamentary period.
Austerity has not worked, as Osbourne originally promised to end the deficit in the lifetime of this parliament, Now he is saying it may not end until 2018 or even beyond that.

You see the tories may have wiped their promises off of their website and out of their archives, but some of us don't forget the FACTS, and some of us WON'T forget the promises made and then broken as soon as they were elected.
Blah blah Tories, blah blah bankers, blah blah Thatcher, blah blah.

BLAH BLAH OSBOURNE.... Blah blah BONUSES... blah

There you go, I wrote a post for you. Now, I'm off to do a hard day's work because it puts money in the bank, food on the table and a smile on my face. You should try it instead of wallowing in that incredible, all consuming bitterness.
You're just the kind of guy the Tories love; you even smile whilst you're getting shafted.
Oh I'm not being shafted my friend. My life is a bed of roses, mainly due to all the hard work I've put in over the years.

It's so easy to sit back and do nothing and blame all your problems on politicians and banks and big business and cry about "being shafted". Much harder to get off your lazy backside and do something about it.

"Shafted". LOL
Just think, if you work for an employer, how much more comfy their bed of roses is than yours and all from the sweat of your brow and all the others just like you.
Yes. I spend my entire life worrying about people who are better off than me .
No you spend your entire life belittling people who are worse off than you.
As I said before you're being shafted but you don't even realise it.
Why is it that you idiots come out with statements like "you're being shafted and you don't even know it"?

So working for a living, having money in your pocket, a nice house and car, a couple of holidays a year etc is being shafted? We'll bend me over and help yourself!

And you're apparently not being shafted but all you do is moan.
[quote][p][bold]allinittogether[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SinnerSaint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]allinittogether[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SinnerSaint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]allinittogether[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SinnerSaint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dellorri[/bold] wrote: I'll answer your questions for you Rolly............. Deficit in 2010 When the coalition came to power £895 billion Deficit today in 2014 £1.3 TRILLION Growth in 2010 when the coaliton took over stood at 2.7% of GDP Growth today in 2014 1.6% of GDP after 3.5 years of austerity Unemployment in 2010 After the 2008 crash stood at 1.9 million The current figures supplied by the DWP show 2.1 million unemployed this after the government claims a million new jobs since last year, which MUST mean last year there were 3.1 million officially unemployed. Also take into account that government borrowing has more than TREBLED their original estimates in 3 years, for what they predicted to borrow for the entire parliamentary period. Austerity has not worked, as Osbourne originally promised to end the deficit in the lifetime of this parliament, Now he is saying it may not end until 2018 or even beyond that. You see the tories may have wiped their promises off of their website and out of their archives, but some of us don't forget the FACTS, and some of us WON'T forget the promises made and then broken as soon as they were elected.[/p][/quote]Blah blah Tories, blah blah bankers, blah blah Thatcher, blah blah. BLAH BLAH OSBOURNE.... Blah blah BONUSES... blah There you go, I wrote a post for you. Now, I'm off to do a hard day's work because it puts money in the bank, food on the table and a smile on my face. You should try it instead of wallowing in that incredible, all consuming bitterness.[/p][/quote]You're just the kind of guy the Tories love; you even smile whilst you're getting shafted.[/p][/quote]Oh I'm not being shafted my friend. My life is a bed of roses, mainly due to all the hard work I've put in over the years. It's so easy to sit back and do nothing and blame all your problems on politicians and banks and big business and cry about "being shafted". Much harder to get off your lazy backside and do something about it. "Shafted". LOL[/p][/quote]Just think, if you work for an employer, how much more comfy their bed of roses is than yours and all from the sweat of your brow and all the others just like you.[/p][/quote]Yes. I spend my entire life worrying about people who are better off than me .[/p][/quote]No you spend your entire life belittling people who are worse off than you. As I said before you're being shafted but you don't even realise it.[/p][/quote]Why is it that you idiots come out with statements like "you're being shafted and you don't even know it"? So working for a living, having money in your pocket, a nice house and car, a couple of holidays a year etc is being shafted? We'll bend me over and help yourself! And you're apparently not being shafted but all you do is moan. SinnerSaint
  • Score: 1

10:23am Thu 30 Jan 14

pellethead says...

Between me and my other half we earn around £35000 net. we pay around £10k a year in direct taxation. For this I get access to healthcare, education, social care, my streets are lit & cleaned, my bins are emptied. I could go on and on. I dont think this is a bad deal. And best of all if i find myself out of work there is a system to help prevent me living in the gutter . I couldnt care less about benefit claimants and their flat screen TVs and 8 Ace. Im too busy getting on with my life to be bitter about a few quid those less well off than myself receive.
Between me and my other half we earn around £35000 net. we pay around £10k a year in direct taxation. For this I get access to healthcare, education, social care, my streets are lit & cleaned, my bins are emptied. I could go on and on. I dont think this is a bad deal. And best of all if i find myself out of work there is a system to help prevent me living in the gutter . I couldnt care less about benefit claimants and their flat screen TVs and 8 Ace. Im too busy getting on with my life to be bitter about a few quid those less well off than myself receive. pellethead
  • Score: 3

10:29am Thu 30 Jan 14

BungleMagic says...

So those of us who are working are "Rats on a wheel" and "being shafted"....

Interesting view you have.

Our contributions in tax and national insurance pay for the benefits of those unable to work, should we all give up work to "stick it to the man". We'd all be further up the creek if that were the case.
So those of us who are working are "Rats on a wheel" and "being shafted".... Interesting view you have. Our contributions in tax and national insurance pay for the benefits of those unable to work, should we all give up work to "stick it to the man". We'd all be further up the creek if that were the case. BungleMagic
  • Score: 3

10:30am Thu 30 Jan 14

allinittogether says...

SinnerSaint wrote:
allinittogether wrote:
SinnerSaint wrote:
allinittogether wrote:
SinnerSaint wrote:
allinittogether wrote:
SinnerSaint wrote:
dellorri wrote:
I'll answer your questions for you Rolly.............

Deficit in 2010 When the coalition came to power £895 billion
Deficit today in 2014 £1.3 TRILLION

Growth in 2010 when the coaliton took over stood at 2.7% of GDP
Growth today in 2014 1.6% of GDP after 3.5 years of austerity

Unemployment in 2010 After the 2008 crash stood at 1.9 million
The current figures supplied by the DWP show 2.1 million unemployed this after the government claims a million new jobs since last year, which MUST mean last year there were 3.1 million officially unemployed.

Also take into account that government borrowing has more than TREBLED their original estimates in 3 years, for what they predicted to borrow for the entire parliamentary period.
Austerity has not worked, as Osbourne originally promised to end the deficit in the lifetime of this parliament, Now he is saying it may not end until 2018 or even beyond that.

You see the tories may have wiped their promises off of their website and out of their archives, but some of us don't forget the FACTS, and some of us WON'T forget the promises made and then broken as soon as they were elected.
Blah blah Tories, blah blah bankers, blah blah Thatcher, blah blah.

BLAH BLAH OSBOURNE.... Blah blah BONUSES... blah

There you go, I wrote a post for you. Now, I'm off to do a hard day's work because it puts money in the bank, food on the table and a smile on my face. You should try it instead of wallowing in that incredible, all consuming bitterness.
You're just the kind of guy the Tories love; you even smile whilst you're getting shafted.
Oh I'm not being shafted my friend. My life is a bed of roses, mainly due to all the hard work I've put in over the years.

It's so easy to sit back and do nothing and blame all your problems on politicians and banks and big business and cry about "being shafted". Much harder to get off your lazy backside and do something about it.

"Shafted". LOL
Just think, if you work for an employer, how much more comfy their bed of roses is than yours and all from the sweat of your brow and all the others just like you.
Yes. I spend my entire life worrying about people who are better off than me .
No you spend your entire life belittling people who are worse off than you.
As I said before you're being shafted but you don't even realise it.
Why is it that you idiots come out with statements like "you're being shafted and you don't even know it"?

So working for a living, having money in your pocket, a nice house and car, a couple of holidays a year etc is being shafted? We'll bend me over and help yourself!

And you're apparently not being shafted but all you do is moan.
Oh we're all being shafted just some of us can see it and some can't.

Which brings us back to "Blah blah Tories, blah blah bankers, blah blah Thatcher, blah blah. BLAH BLAH OSBOURNE.... Blah blah BONUSES... blah"
[quote][p][bold]SinnerSaint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]allinittogether[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SinnerSaint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]allinittogether[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SinnerSaint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]allinittogether[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SinnerSaint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dellorri[/bold] wrote: I'll answer your questions for you Rolly............. Deficit in 2010 When the coalition came to power £895 billion Deficit today in 2014 £1.3 TRILLION Growth in 2010 when the coaliton took over stood at 2.7% of GDP Growth today in 2014 1.6% of GDP after 3.5 years of austerity Unemployment in 2010 After the 2008 crash stood at 1.9 million The current figures supplied by the DWP show 2.1 million unemployed this after the government claims a million new jobs since last year, which MUST mean last year there were 3.1 million officially unemployed. Also take into account that government borrowing has more than TREBLED their original estimates in 3 years, for what they predicted to borrow for the entire parliamentary period. Austerity has not worked, as Osbourne originally promised to end the deficit in the lifetime of this parliament, Now he is saying it may not end until 2018 or even beyond that. You see the tories may have wiped their promises off of their website and out of their archives, but some of us don't forget the FACTS, and some of us WON'T forget the promises made and then broken as soon as they were elected.[/p][/quote]Blah blah Tories, blah blah bankers, blah blah Thatcher, blah blah. BLAH BLAH OSBOURNE.... Blah blah BONUSES... blah There you go, I wrote a post for you. Now, I'm off to do a hard day's work because it puts money in the bank, food on the table and a smile on my face. You should try it instead of wallowing in that incredible, all consuming bitterness.[/p][/quote]You're just the kind of guy the Tories love; you even smile whilst you're getting shafted.[/p][/quote]Oh I'm not being shafted my friend. My life is a bed of roses, mainly due to all the hard work I've put in over the years. It's so easy to sit back and do nothing and blame all your problems on politicians and banks and big business and cry about "being shafted". Much harder to get off your lazy backside and do something about it. "Shafted". LOL[/p][/quote]Just think, if you work for an employer, how much more comfy their bed of roses is than yours and all from the sweat of your brow and all the others just like you.[/p][/quote]Yes. I spend my entire life worrying about people who are better off than me .[/p][/quote]No you spend your entire life belittling people who are worse off than you. As I said before you're being shafted but you don't even realise it.[/p][/quote]Why is it that you idiots come out with statements like "you're being shafted and you don't even know it"? So working for a living, having money in your pocket, a nice house and car, a couple of holidays a year etc is being shafted? We'll bend me over and help yourself! And you're apparently not being shafted but all you do is moan.[/p][/quote]Oh we're all being shafted just some of us can see it and some can't. Which brings us back to "Blah blah Tories, blah blah bankers, blah blah Thatcher, blah blah. BLAH BLAH OSBOURNE.... Blah blah BONUSES... blah" allinittogether
  • Score: 0

10:34am Thu 30 Jan 14

SinnerSaint says...

Brings you back to? You never deviate from it you tedious fool.

I've got work to do - better get back on that wheel. LOL
Brings you back to? You never deviate from it you tedious fool. I've got work to do - better get back on that wheel. LOL SinnerSaint
  • Score: 3

10:38am Thu 30 Jan 14

allinittogether says...

BungleMagic wrote:
So those of us who are working are "Rats on a wheel" and "being shafted"....

Interesting view you have.

Our contributions in tax and national insurance pay for the benefits of those unable to work, should we all give up work to "stick it to the man". We'd all be further up the creek if that were the case.
Of course not but we should all have a greater share of the wealth & prosperity of the country.
When you have organisations employing staff on such low wages they need tax credits to survive yet award their executives pay rises and bonuses then something is not right.
[quote][p][bold]BungleMagic[/bold] wrote: So those of us who are working are "Rats on a wheel" and "being shafted".... Interesting view you have. Our contributions in tax and national insurance pay for the benefits of those unable to work, should we all give up work to "stick it to the man". We'd all be further up the creek if that were the case.[/p][/quote]Of course not but we should all have a greater share of the wealth & prosperity of the country. When you have organisations employing staff on such low wages they need tax credits to survive yet award their executives pay rises and bonuses then something is not right. allinittogether
  • Score: 1

10:38am Thu 30 Jan 14

Parz says...

allinittogether wrote:
SinnerSaint wrote:
allinittogether wrote:
SinnerSaint wrote:
dellorri wrote: I'll answer your questions for you Rolly............. Deficit in 2010 When the coalition came to power £895 billion Deficit today in 2014 £1.3 TRILLION Growth in 2010 when the coaliton took over stood at 2.7% of GDP Growth today in 2014 1.6% of GDP after 3.5 years of austerity Unemployment in 2010 After the 2008 crash stood at 1.9 million The current figures supplied by the DWP show 2.1 million unemployed this after the government claims a million new jobs since last year, which MUST mean last year there were 3.1 million officially unemployed. Also take into account that government borrowing has more than TREBLED their original estimates in 3 years, for what they predicted to borrow for the entire parliamentary period. Austerity has not worked, as Osbourne originally promised to end the deficit in the lifetime of this parliament, Now he is saying it may not end until 2018 or even beyond that. You see the tories may have wiped their promises off of their website and out of their archives, but some of us don't forget the FACTS, and some of us WON'T forget the promises made and then broken as soon as they were elected.
Blah blah Tories, blah blah bankers, blah blah Thatcher, blah blah. BLAH BLAH OSBOURNE.... Blah blah BONUSES... blah There you go, I wrote a post for you. Now, I'm off to do a hard day's work because it puts money in the bank, food on the table and a smile on my face. You should try it instead of wallowing in that incredible, all consuming bitterness.
You're just the kind of guy the Tories love; you even smile whilst you're getting shafted.
Oh I'm not being shafted my friend. My life is a bed of roses, mainly due to all the hard work I've put in over the years. It's so easy to sit back and do nothing and blame all your problems on politicians and banks and big business and cry about "being shafted". Much harder to get off your lazy backside and do something about it. "Shafted". LOL
Just think, if you work for an employer, how much more comfy their bed of roses is than yours and all from the sweat of your brow and all the others just like you.
And? They've obviously worked hard to set up a successful business that allows them to employ people and, if thier bed of roses is as comfy as you're making out, made them fairly wealthy. Good on them.
[quote][p][bold]allinittogether[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SinnerSaint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]allinittogether[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SinnerSaint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dellorri[/bold] wrote: I'll answer your questions for you Rolly............. Deficit in 2010 When the coalition came to power £895 billion Deficit today in 2014 £1.3 TRILLION Growth in 2010 when the coaliton took over stood at 2.7% of GDP Growth today in 2014 1.6% of GDP after 3.5 years of austerity Unemployment in 2010 After the 2008 crash stood at 1.9 million The current figures supplied by the DWP show 2.1 million unemployed this after the government claims a million new jobs since last year, which MUST mean last year there were 3.1 million officially unemployed. Also take into account that government borrowing has more than TREBLED their original estimates in 3 years, for what they predicted to borrow for the entire parliamentary period. Austerity has not worked, as Osbourne originally promised to end the deficit in the lifetime of this parliament, Now he is saying it may not end until 2018 or even beyond that. You see the tories may have wiped their promises off of their website and out of their archives, but some of us don't forget the FACTS, and some of us WON'T forget the promises made and then broken as soon as they were elected.[/p][/quote]Blah blah Tories, blah blah bankers, blah blah Thatcher, blah blah. BLAH BLAH OSBOURNE.... Blah blah BONUSES... blah There you go, I wrote a post for you. Now, I'm off to do a hard day's work because it puts money in the bank, food on the table and a smile on my face. You should try it instead of wallowing in that incredible, all consuming bitterness.[/p][/quote]You're just the kind of guy the Tories love; you even smile whilst you're getting shafted.[/p][/quote]Oh I'm not being shafted my friend. My life is a bed of roses, mainly due to all the hard work I've put in over the years. It's so easy to sit back and do nothing and blame all your problems on politicians and banks and big business and cry about "being shafted". Much harder to get off your lazy backside and do something about it. "Shafted". LOL[/p][/quote]Just think, if you work for an employer, how much more comfy their bed of roses is than yours and all from the sweat of your brow and all the others just like you.[/p][/quote]And? They've obviously worked hard to set up a successful business that allows them to employ people and, if thier bed of roses is as comfy as you're making out, made them fairly wealthy. Good on them. Parz
  • Score: 3

11:01am Thu 30 Jan 14

RollandSmoke says...

BungleMagic wrote:
So those of us who are working are "Rats on a wheel" and "being shafted"....

Interesting view you have.

Our contributions in tax and national insurance pay for the benefits of those unable to work, should we all give up work to "stick it to the man". We'd all be further up the creek if that were the case.
Yes you are taxed to pay for the benefit system as well as all the other things that your taxes pay for (wars, survailance of private citizens ect.). The level of tax you pay would be much less if the companies that profit from your work were paying the tax that they were supposed to be paying however no-one is chasing them for that money as it's easier to screw people like yourself who cannot afford the accountants to exploit the loopholes or the lawyers to fight their corner. Your National insurance is paid so as you can get help if you lose your job either through unemployment, sickness or when you retire and qualify for a pension. Once your employer can find a robot rat to keep the wheel turning your job is over. Or do you believe you will be kept on through some sense of loyalty? Unless the corporations take some social responsibility automation will starve us all of the taxes that pay for the services and benefits for those unable to take the jobs that no longer exist. The Luddites realised this long ago but the pace of technology today is such that the issue must be addressed now as in 5-10 years time it may be too late.
[quote][p][bold]BungleMagic[/bold] wrote: So those of us who are working are "Rats on a wheel" and "being shafted".... Interesting view you have. Our contributions in tax and national insurance pay for the benefits of those unable to work, should we all give up work to "stick it to the man". We'd all be further up the creek if that were the case.[/p][/quote]Yes you are taxed to pay for the benefit system as well as all the other things that your taxes pay for (wars, survailance of private citizens ect.). The level of tax you pay would be much less if the companies that profit from your work were paying the tax that they were supposed to be paying however no-one is chasing them for that money as it's easier to screw people like yourself who cannot afford the accountants to exploit the loopholes or the lawyers to fight their corner. Your National insurance is paid so as you can get help if you lose your job either through unemployment, sickness or when you retire and qualify for a pension. Once your employer can find a robot rat to keep the wheel turning your job is over. Or do you believe you will be kept on through some sense of loyalty? Unless the corporations take some social responsibility automation will starve us all of the taxes that pay for the services and benefits for those unable to take the jobs that no longer exist. The Luddites realised this long ago but the pace of technology today is such that the issue must be addressed now as in 5-10 years time it may be too late. RollandSmoke
  • Score: 0

1:32pm Thu 30 Jan 14

eccythump says...

dellorri wrote:
Baildon girl wrote:
dellorri wrote:
Baildon girl wrote:
Deffinately agree te cap needs to be even lower. Taken in to account they also dont have to worry about rent or if they do its not full rent, they get help with council tax, school dinners, winter fuel etc etc. Yet low income families on less arent entitled to anything.

I have nothing against benefits as such but it needs to stop been so appealing.. My sister has 4 children and her or her partner dont work and she claims to have around £100 a week spare which goes on luxuries. Im not a bitter person but when my kids ask why they cant have an ipad and their cousins have 2 in their house it does annoy me
Baildon girl wrote: "Yet low income families on less aren't entitled to anything."
Where do you get that idea from then? Are you totally unaware of the fact that 78% of the people claiming housing benefit are people in FULL time work on a LOW INCOME. Plus the fact that if you are working for 24 hours or more and on a low income you can claim WORKING TAX CREDITS, this in turn if you have children of pre-school age allows you to claim up to £75 per week for child care per child. Oh and while we're at it, you might also like to know that ANYONE working or not who is in receipt of housing benefit automatically becomes entitled to school uniform vouchers for their children, and to free school meals.
EVERY YEAR £16 BILLION goes unclaimed in benefits, because people don't know they can claim them, just like you obviously didn't.
The DWP and HMRC don't make that public though because that figure kind of dwarves the £1.2 billion lost through the 0.7% fraud and 0.9% ERROR on their behalf. So why don't you see if you're eligible, you may well be surprised, and you won't be a scrounger, you'll get what you're paying in for, and what you're ENTITLED to.
We are entitled to £2.00 Housing benefit per week according to benefit calculator its hardly worth the hassel of form filling etc.
You may well think that, but if you have children, housing benefit, is a passport benefit, to school uniform vouchers, and free school meals also. If receiving housing benefit and you have children, you will automatically be entitled to these.
You can also take your pets to the PDSA if you are in receipt of housing benefit.
[quote][p][bold]dellorri[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Baildon girl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dellorri[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Baildon girl[/bold] wrote: Deffinately agree te cap needs to be even lower. Taken in to account they also dont have to worry about rent or if they do its not full rent, they get help with council tax, school dinners, winter fuel etc etc. Yet low income families on less arent entitled to anything. I have nothing against benefits as such but it needs to stop been so appealing.. My sister has 4 children and her or her partner dont work and she claims to have around £100 a week spare which goes on luxuries. Im not a bitter person but when my kids ask why they cant have an ipad and their cousins have 2 in their house it does annoy me[/p][/quote]Baildon girl wrote: "Yet low income families on less aren't entitled to anything." Where do you get that idea from then? Are you totally unaware of the fact that 78% of the people claiming housing benefit are people in FULL time work on a LOW INCOME. Plus the fact that if you are working for 24 hours or more and on a low income you can claim WORKING TAX CREDITS, this in turn if you have children of pre-school age allows you to claim up to £75 per week for child care per child. Oh and while we're at it, you might also like to know that ANYONE working or not who is in receipt of housing benefit automatically becomes entitled to school uniform vouchers for their children, and to free school meals. EVERY YEAR £16 BILLION goes unclaimed in benefits, because people don't know they can claim them, just like you obviously didn't. The DWP and HMRC don't make that public though because that figure kind of dwarves the £1.2 billion lost through the 0.7% fraud and 0.9% ERROR on their behalf. So why don't you see if you're eligible, you may well be surprised, and you won't be a scrounger, you'll get what you're paying in for, and what you're ENTITLED to.[/p][/quote]We are entitled to £2.00 Housing benefit per week according to benefit calculator its hardly worth the hassel of form filling etc.[/p][/quote]You may well think that, but if you have children, housing benefit, is a passport benefit, to school uniform vouchers, and free school meals also. If receiving housing benefit and you have children, you will automatically be entitled to these.[/p][/quote]You can also take your pets to the PDSA if you are in receipt of housing benefit. eccythump
  • Score: 1

1:53pm Thu 30 Jan 14

eccythump says...

webshow wrote:
eccythump wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Parz wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
tinytoonster wrote: “While seeking to demonise people on benefits, the Government is giving a tax cut to millionaires and doing nothing to stop the scandal of bankers’ bonuses – the very people who got us into this mess in the first place.” think you will find labour is the reason we are in this mess. open door immigration policy, gold selling at a silly low price, benefits for all, thousands of made up jobs which crippled councils, paying union reps in councils. need i go on? time to punish people with large families, drop benefits for every child over a permitted amount. say 3.
If they have large families will punishing them make their families smaller? Why do you want to "punish" people? Are you psychologically unbalanced? I have had my suspicions for some time.
Maybe not. But then the state should not be expected to pick up the tab for families having children they cannot afford to provide for. Benefits (in my opinion) should stop increasing beyond your first 2 children. If you have any more that's up to you, nobody can tell you not to. But finacially, you're on your own.
Here's a scenario for you. A man has a well paid job, four kids and rents a nice home in a leafy suberb. He looses his job. Does he start his quest to find a new job by taking a couple of the kids out the back and disposing of them or by packing up all his belongings to move home? He could be back in work in a month, six months or maybe it could take longer. Would loosing his home and stressing out over how to keep his children help or hinder his job search? If there were people crying out for employees I could understand the venom aimed at the benefit claimants but this is Bradford and the jobs are not there.
Reed have 4907 jobs in Bradford

http://www.reed.co.u



k/jobs?keywords=&amp
;
;
;job
titleonly=false&


loca
tion=bradford&sa


lary
From=&salaryTo=&
amp;
amp;
amp;perh
our=false

And Monster 1000 plus

http://jobsearch.mon



ster.co.uk/jobs/?cy=



uk&where=Bradfor


d__2
C-Yorkshire

Thats just two sites and doesnt take Leeds into account

There are jobs is people can bothered going out and looking for them

I'll await your usual responses
My sister was made redundant a while ago. She is 60 and although a grafter all her life, she has Crohns disease and OCPD. She has applied for hundreds of jobs, doesn't even get a reply. She is now also clinically depressed.She has been turned down for ESA though and deemed 'fit fot work', Her Crohns has flared up so badly, due to the stress she now needs an operation and may lose all of her bowel. It matters not how many jobs there are being advertised, she would not get employed by anyone! There are a lot of people in the same boat. Just blithley saying: " All these scroungers should go get a job". Is just ridiculous.
Your sister in my opinion should get all the help available. Clearly she is not a scrounger and I am sure people like me who work full time and have worked continuously over several decades will have no qualms of her claiming benefits.
It may be clear to you and to her surgeon who is furious about her vile treatment by the DWP and who is eager to back her in complaining to them, and to the GMC because the 'nurse' from ATOS who saw her lied and omitted evidence at her assessment. He is certain that all the stress they have put her under is the reason that she now needs more surgery. However it is far from clear to the DWP. She appealed their decision and asked them to review it. Sending much evidence from her surgeon, GP and counsellor. They have not revised their decision. She has to carry on waiting for a tribunal. She has been waiting since last August.
[quote][p][bold]webshow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]eccythump[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parz[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tinytoonster[/bold] wrote: “While seeking to demonise people on benefits, the Government is giving a tax cut to millionaires and doing nothing to stop the scandal of bankers’ bonuses – the very people who got us into this mess in the first place.” think you will find labour is the reason we are in this mess. open door immigration policy, gold selling at a silly low price, benefits for all, thousands of made up jobs which crippled councils, paying union reps in councils. need i go on? time to punish people with large families, drop benefits for every child over a permitted amount. say 3.[/p][/quote]If they have large families will punishing them make their families smaller? Why do you want to "punish" people? Are you psychologically unbalanced? I have had my suspicions for some time.[/p][/quote]Maybe not. But then the state should not be expected to pick up the tab for families having children they cannot afford to provide for. Benefits (in my opinion) should stop increasing beyond your first 2 children. If you have any more that's up to you, nobody can tell you not to. But finacially, you're on your own.[/p][/quote]Here's a scenario for you. A man has a well paid job, four kids and rents a nice home in a leafy suberb. He looses his job. Does he start his quest to find a new job by taking a couple of the kids out the back and disposing of them or by packing up all his belongings to move home? He could be back in work in a month, six months or maybe it could take longer. Would loosing his home and stressing out over how to keep his children help or hinder his job search? If there were people crying out for employees I could understand the venom aimed at the benefit claimants but this is Bradford and the jobs are not there.[/p][/quote]Reed have 4907 jobs in Bradford http://www.reed.co.u k/jobs?keywords=& ; ; ;job titleonly=false& loca tion=bradford&sa lary From=&salaryTo=& amp; amp; amp;perh our=false And Monster 1000 plus http://jobsearch.mon ster.co.uk/jobs/?cy= uk&where=Bradfor d__2 C-Yorkshire Thats just two sites and doesnt take Leeds into account There are jobs is people can bothered going out and looking for them I'll await your usual responses[/p][/quote]My sister was made redundant a while ago. She is 60 and although a grafter all her life, she has Crohns disease and OCPD. She has applied for hundreds of jobs, doesn't even get a reply. She is now also clinically depressed.She has been turned down for ESA though and deemed 'fit fot work', Her Crohns has flared up so badly, due to the stress she now needs an operation and may lose all of her bowel. It matters not how many jobs there are being advertised, she would not get employed by anyone! There are a lot of people in the same boat. Just blithley saying: " All these scroungers should go get a job". Is just ridiculous.[/p][/quote]Your sister in my opinion should get all the help available. Clearly she is not a scrounger and I am sure people like me who work full time and have worked continuously over several decades will have no qualms of her claiming benefits.[/p][/quote]It may be clear to you and to her surgeon who is furious about her vile treatment by the DWP and who is eager to back her in complaining to them, and to the GMC because the 'nurse' from ATOS who saw her lied and omitted evidence at her assessment. He is certain that all the stress they have put her under is the reason that she now needs more surgery. However it is far from clear to the DWP. She appealed their decision and asked them to review it. Sending much evidence from her surgeon, GP and counsellor. They have not revised their decision. She has to carry on waiting for a tribunal. She has been waiting since last August. eccythump
  • Score: 1

1:58pm Thu 30 Jan 14

Alhaurinrhino says...

It's about time that ALL benefit scroungers were hit hard. I really think the workhouse should be brought back, they'd have a roof over their head, be given basic but decent food in return for doing some menial unpaid task. This would massively reduce the burden on the taxpayer, teach the lazy, feckless breeders a work ethic and sort out some of the "disabled" losers.
It's about time that ALL benefit scroungers were hit hard. I really think the workhouse should be brought back, they'd have a roof over their head, be given basic but decent food in return for doing some menial unpaid task. This would massively reduce the burden on the taxpayer, teach the lazy, feckless breeders a work ethic and sort out some of the "disabled" losers. Alhaurinrhino
  • Score: 1

2:10pm Thu 30 Jan 14

Oldwestbowling says...

Alhaurinrhino wrote:
It's about time that ALL benefit scroungers were hit hard. I really think the workhouse should be brought back, they'd have a roof over their head, be given basic but decent food in return for doing some menial unpaid task. This would massively reduce the burden on the taxpayer, teach the lazy, feckless breeders a work ethic and sort out some of the "disabled" losers.
Surely, this is a tongue in cheek comment...and a not very funny one.
[quote][p][bold]Alhaurinrhino[/bold] wrote: It's about time that ALL benefit scroungers were hit hard. I really think the workhouse should be brought back, they'd have a roof over their head, be given basic but decent food in return for doing some menial unpaid task. This would massively reduce the burden on the taxpayer, teach the lazy, feckless breeders a work ethic and sort out some of the "disabled" losers.[/p][/quote]Surely, this is a tongue in cheek comment...and a not very funny one. Oldwestbowling
  • Score: 1

2:32pm Thu 30 Jan 14

Alhaurinrhino says...

Oldwestbowling wrote:
Alhaurinrhino wrote:
It's about time that ALL benefit scroungers were hit hard. I really think the workhouse should be brought back, they'd have a roof over their head, be given basic but decent food in return for doing some menial unpaid task. This would massively reduce the burden on the taxpayer, teach the lazy, feckless breeders a work ethic and sort out some of the "disabled" losers.
Surely, this is a tongue in cheek comment...and a not very funny one.
No it isn't and the fact that you you don't find it funny doesn't bother me either.
[quote][p][bold]Oldwestbowling[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alhaurinrhino[/bold] wrote: It's about time that ALL benefit scroungers were hit hard. I really think the workhouse should be brought back, they'd have a roof over their head, be given basic but decent food in return for doing some menial unpaid task. This would massively reduce the burden on the taxpayer, teach the lazy, feckless breeders a work ethic and sort out some of the "disabled" losers.[/p][/quote]Surely, this is a tongue in cheek comment...and a not very funny one.[/p][/quote]No it isn't and the fact that you you don't find it funny doesn't bother me either. Alhaurinrhino
  • Score: 3

2:47pm Thu 30 Jan 14

Oldwestbowling says...

Alhaurinrhino wrote:
Oldwestbowling wrote:
Alhaurinrhino wrote:
It's about time that ALL benefit scroungers were hit hard. I really think the workhouse should be brought back, they'd have a roof over their head, be given basic but decent food in return for doing some menial unpaid task. This would massively reduce the burden on the taxpayer, teach the lazy, feckless breeders a work ethic and sort out some of the "disabled" losers.
Surely, this is a tongue in cheek comment...and a not very funny one.
No it isn't and the fact that you you don't find it funny doesn't bother me either.
I don't expect it to bother you....... you do realise that debtors were also sent to the workhouses......all those folk today with their mountains of debt which has been rolled up into IVA's and bankruptcy orders would be in there too.
[quote][p][bold]Alhaurinrhino[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oldwestbowling[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alhaurinrhino[/bold] wrote: It's about time that ALL benefit scroungers were hit hard. I really think the workhouse should be brought back, they'd have a roof over their head, be given basic but decent food in return for doing some menial unpaid task. This would massively reduce the burden on the taxpayer, teach the lazy, feckless breeders a work ethic and sort out some of the "disabled" losers.[/p][/quote]Surely, this is a tongue in cheek comment...and a not very funny one.[/p][/quote]No it isn't and the fact that you you don't find it funny doesn't bother me either.[/p][/quote]I don't expect it to bother you....... you do realise that debtors were also sent to the workhouses......all those folk today with their mountains of debt which has been rolled up into IVA's and bankruptcy orders would be in there too. Oldwestbowling
  • Score: -2

3:09pm Thu 30 Jan 14

pellethead says...

A quote from Mein Kampf
"All propaganda has to be popular and has to adapt its spiritual level to the perception of the least intelligent of those towards whom it intends to direct itself
A quote from Mein Kampf "All propaganda has to be popular and has to adapt its spiritual level to the perception of the least intelligent of those towards whom it intends to direct itself pellethead
  • Score: 2

5:08pm Thu 30 Jan 14

Andy2010 says...

Oldwestbowling wrote:
Alhaurinrhino wrote:
Oldwestbowling wrote:
Alhaurinrhino wrote:
It's about time that ALL benefit scroungers were hit hard. I really think the workhouse should be brought back, they'd have a roof over their head, be given basic but decent food in return for doing some menial unpaid task. This would massively reduce the burden on the taxpayer, teach the lazy, feckless breeders a work ethic and sort out some of the "disabled" losers.
Surely, this is a tongue in cheek comment...and a not very funny one.
No it isn't and the fact that you you don't find it funny doesn't bother me either.
I don't expect it to bother you....... you do realise that debtors were also sent to the workhouses......all those folk today with their mountains of debt which has been rolled up into IVA's and bankruptcy orders would be in there too.
Debtors were actually sent to debtors prison not workhouses

More akin to the very pleasant open prisons which are around today and the sentences were only weeks so the "criminals" could get back to work
[quote][p][bold]Oldwestbowling[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alhaurinrhino[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oldwestbowling[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alhaurinrhino[/bold] wrote: It's about time that ALL benefit scroungers were hit hard. I really think the workhouse should be brought back, they'd have a roof over their head, be given basic but decent food in return for doing some menial unpaid task. This would massively reduce the burden on the taxpayer, teach the lazy, feckless breeders a work ethic and sort out some of the "disabled" losers.[/p][/quote]Surely, this is a tongue in cheek comment...and a not very funny one.[/p][/quote]No it isn't and the fact that you you don't find it funny doesn't bother me either.[/p][/quote]I don't expect it to bother you....... you do realise that debtors were also sent to the workhouses......all those folk today with their mountains of debt which has been rolled up into IVA's and bankruptcy orders would be in there too.[/p][/quote]Debtors were actually sent to debtors prison not workhouses More akin to the very pleasant open prisons which are around today and the sentences were only weeks so the "criminals" could get back to work Andy2010
  • Score: 3

7:40pm Thu 30 Jan 14

Oldwestbowling says...

Debtors prisons....how far back do you want to go? Let's try to stay in the 20th century, at least. In the early 1900's if you were destitute you could end up in the workhouse and there was a real fear of these places......and if the debtors of today were called on to repay their debts most of them would be destitute. But this is beside the point of someone actually calling for the return of these workhouses. He clearly has never heard his grandparents speaking of these places and the very real fear they had of having to go into one of them if they fell on hard times. Unbelievable.
Debtors prisons....how far back do you want to go? Let's try to stay in the 20th century, at least. In the early 1900's if you were destitute you could end up in the workhouse and there was a real fear of these places......and if the debtors of today were called on to repay their debts most of them would be destitute. But this is beside the point of someone actually calling for the return of these workhouses. He clearly has never heard his grandparents speaking of these places and the very real fear they had of having to go into one of them if they fell on hard times. Unbelievable. Oldwestbowling
  • Score: 0

3:10pm Fri 31 Jan 14

pjl20 says...

Simon4567 wrote:
It's amazing isn't it, if you have kids and don't work you get everything laid on a plate, a decent house, a good income, lots of other freebies such as insulation and gas boilers, pretty much everything you need really.

Those of us who want to work and do work who put in the hard graft get absolutely nothing in return, we get taxed to death so that those who don't want to work can get benefits paid from our taxes and our pensions get raided so the bankers can have nice fat bonuses.

Remind me again why I bother working ?

Benefits should be paid at an absolute minimum level, they should put a roof over your head and nothing more, you shouldn't get gas for heating, after all I didn't have any in my house until I could afford to have it installed and I managed fine without it, you shouldn't get enough benefits paid to the level that you can afford to run a car, anything like big TV's and shiny new games consoles is just an indicator that benefits payments are too high, it should just be enough to be able to feed yourself and your kids and nothing more.

Make it an incentive to get a job by making living on benefits a hard life instead of making it a cushy life.

If it were in my power I would remove all benefits from anyone sufficiently able bodied and mentally capable of working, put them up in a council house to give them a roof over their heads, they wouldn't pay council rates and they could have weekly food stamps but not pay any other bills for them; keep it simple, you want to heat your home, drive a car and have luxury items then go get a job.
There is an implicit assumption being made here, that those people on benefits are 'on the take' and undeserving.

Where is the evidence for this, may I ask?

From that seen in the 'red top' newspapers and similar and from Tory dogma put out to justify Iain Duncan Smith's welfare & benefits changes?

Why is it always assumed that those out-of-work and seeking new employment are just too lazy yo find work?

I know that it is a tiny minority of the 2.4 million or so officially without work who fall into the category of 'scroungers'. Also how may households have been affected by the benefits cap of £26,000? I'll tell you. Very few indeed.

If there were plenty of jobs available in the right areas, then the figures would not be so high, would they?

The present harsh changes to welfare & benefits are being justified on false claims by those who welcome them.

My advice? Check it out and get your facts straight first, before you blurt out the criticism.
[quote][p][bold]Simon4567[/bold] wrote: It's amazing isn't it, if you have kids and don't work you get everything laid on a plate, a decent house, a good income, lots of other freebies such as insulation and gas boilers, pretty much everything you need really. Those of us who want to work and do work who put in the hard graft get absolutely nothing in return, we get taxed to death so that those who don't want to work can get benefits paid from our taxes and our pensions get raided so the bankers can have nice fat bonuses. Remind me again why I bother working ? Benefits should be paid at an absolute minimum level, they should put a roof over your head and nothing more, you shouldn't get gas for heating, after all I didn't have any in my house until I could afford to have it installed and I managed fine without it, you shouldn't get enough benefits paid to the level that you can afford to run a car, anything like big TV's and shiny new games consoles is just an indicator that benefits payments are too high, it should just be enough to be able to feed yourself and your kids and nothing more. Make it an incentive to get a job by making living on benefits a hard life instead of making it a cushy life. If it were in my power I would remove all benefits from anyone sufficiently able bodied and mentally capable of working, put them up in a council house to give them a roof over their heads, they wouldn't pay council rates and they could have weekly food stamps but not pay any other bills for them; keep it simple, you want to heat your home, drive a car and have luxury items then go get a job.[/p][/quote]There is an implicit assumption being made here, that those people on benefits are 'on the take' and undeserving. Where is the evidence for this, may I ask? From that seen in the 'red top' newspapers and similar and from Tory dogma put out to justify Iain Duncan Smith's welfare & benefits changes? Why is it always assumed that those out-of-work and seeking new employment are just too lazy yo find work? I know that it is a tiny minority of the 2.4 million or so officially without work who fall into the category of 'scroungers'. Also how may households have been affected by the benefits cap of £26,000? I'll tell you. Very few indeed. If there were plenty of jobs available in the right areas, then the figures would not be so high, would they? The present harsh changes to welfare & benefits are being justified on false claims by those who welcome them. My advice? Check it out and get your facts straight first, before you blurt out the criticism. pjl20
  • Score: 0

3:12pm Fri 31 Jan 14

ade_splat says...

allinittogether wrote:
SinnerSaint wrote:
allinittogether wrote:
SinnerSaint wrote:
allinittogether wrote:
SinnerSaint wrote:
allinittogether wrote:
SinnerSaint wrote:
dellorri wrote:
I'll answer your questions for you Rolly.............

Deficit in 2010 When the coalition came to power £895 billion
Deficit today in 2014 £1.3 TRILLION

Growth in 2010 when the coaliton took over stood at 2.7% of GDP
Growth today in 2014 1.6% of GDP after 3.5 years of austerity

Unemployment in 2010 After the 2008 crash stood at 1.9 million
The current figures supplied by the DWP show 2.1 million unemployed this after the government claims a million new jobs since last year, which MUST mean last year there were 3.1 million officially unemployed.

Also take into account that government borrowing has more than TREBLED their original estimates in 3 years, for what they predicted to borrow for the entire parliamentary period.
Austerity has not worked, as Osbourne originally promised to end the deficit in the lifetime of this parliament, Now he is saying it may not end until 2018 or even beyond that.

You see the tories may have wiped their promises off of their website and out of their archives, but some of us don't forget the FACTS, and some of us WON'T forget the promises made and then broken as soon as they were elected.
Blah blah Tories, blah blah bankers, blah blah Thatcher, blah blah.

BLAH BLAH OSBOURNE.... Blah blah BONUSES... blah

There you go, I wrote a post for you. Now, I'm off to do a hard day's work because it puts money in the bank, food on the table and a smile on my face. You should try it instead of wallowing in that incredible, all consuming bitterness.
You're just the kind of guy the Tories love; you even smile whilst you're getting shafted.
Oh I'm not being shafted my friend. My life is a bed of roses, mainly due to all the hard work I've put in over the years.

It's so easy to sit back and do nothing and blame all your problems on politicians and banks and big business and cry about "being shafted". Much harder to get off your lazy backside and do something about it.

"Shafted". LOL
Just think, if you work for an employer, how much more comfy their bed of roses is than yours and all from the sweat of your brow and all the others just like you.
Yes. I spend my entire life worrying about people who are better off than me .
No you spend your entire life belittling people who are worse off than you.
As I said before you're being shafted but you don't even realise it.
Why is it that you idiots come out with statements like "you're being shafted and you don't even know it"?

So working for a living, having money in your pocket, a nice house and car, a couple of holidays a year etc is being shafted? We'll bend me over and help yourself!

And you're apparently not being shafted but all you do is moan.
Oh we're all being shafted just some of us can see it and some can't.

Which brings us back to "Blah blah Tories, blah blah bankers, blah blah Thatcher, blah blah. BLAH BLAH OSBOURNE.... Blah blah BONUSES... blah"
Aristotle argued that jealousy may at least inspire some people to better their lot, whereas envy just inclines folk to scupper other people's plans. You can work out yourself which one you have.
[quote][p][bold]allinittogether[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SinnerSaint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]allinittogether[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SinnerSaint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]allinittogether[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SinnerSaint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]allinittogether[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SinnerSaint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dellorri[/bold] wrote: I'll answer your questions for you Rolly............. Deficit in 2010 When the coalition came to power £895 billion Deficit today in 2014 £1.3 TRILLION Growth in 2010 when the coaliton took over stood at 2.7% of GDP Growth today in 2014 1.6% of GDP after 3.5 years of austerity Unemployment in 2010 After the 2008 crash stood at 1.9 million The current figures supplied by the DWP show 2.1 million unemployed this after the government claims a million new jobs since last year, which MUST mean last year there were 3.1 million officially unemployed. Also take into account that government borrowing has more than TREBLED their original estimates in 3 years, for what they predicted to borrow for the entire parliamentary period. Austerity has not worked, as Osbourne originally promised to end the deficit in the lifetime of this parliament, Now he is saying it may not end until 2018 or even beyond that. You see the tories may have wiped their promises off of their website and out of their archives, but some of us don't forget the FACTS, and some of us WON'T forget the promises made and then broken as soon as they were elected.[/p][/quote]Blah blah Tories, blah blah bankers, blah blah Thatcher, blah blah. BLAH BLAH OSBOURNE.... Blah blah BONUSES... blah There you go, I wrote a post for you. Now, I'm off to do a hard day's work because it puts money in the bank, food on the table and a smile on my face. You should try it instead of wallowing in that incredible, all consuming bitterness.[/p][/quote]You're just the kind of guy the Tories love; you even smile whilst you're getting shafted.[/p][/quote]Oh I'm not being shafted my friend. My life is a bed of roses, mainly due to all the hard work I've put in over the years. It's so easy to sit back and do nothing and blame all your problems on politicians and banks and big business and cry about "being shafted". Much harder to get off your lazy backside and do something about it. "Shafted". LOL[/p][/quote]Just think, if you work for an employer, how much more comfy their bed of roses is than yours and all from the sweat of your brow and all the others just like you.[/p][/quote]Yes. I spend my entire life worrying about people who are better off than me .[/p][/quote]No you spend your entire life belittling people who are worse off than you. As I said before you're being shafted but you don't even realise it.[/p][/quote]Why is it that you idiots come out with statements like "you're being shafted and you don't even know it"? So working for a living, having money in your pocket, a nice house and car, a couple of holidays a year etc is being shafted? We'll bend me over and help yourself! And you're apparently not being shafted but all you do is moan.[/p][/quote]Oh we're all being shafted just some of us can see it and some can't. Which brings us back to "Blah blah Tories, blah blah bankers, blah blah Thatcher, blah blah. BLAH BLAH OSBOURNE.... Blah blah BONUSES... blah"[/p][/quote]Aristotle argued that jealousy may at least inspire some people to better their lot, whereas envy just inclines folk to scupper other people's plans. You can work out yourself which one you have. ade_splat
  • Score: 2

6:05pm Fri 31 Jan 14

allinittogether says...

ade_splat wrote:
allinittogether wrote:
SinnerSaint wrote:
allinittogether wrote:
SinnerSaint wrote:
allinittogether wrote:
SinnerSaint wrote:
allinittogether wrote:
SinnerSaint wrote:
dellorri wrote:
I'll answer your questions for you Rolly.............

Deficit in 2010 When the coalition came to power £895 billion
Deficit today in 2014 £1.3 TRILLION

Growth in 2010 when the coaliton took over stood at 2.7% of GDP
Growth today in 2014 1.6% of GDP after 3.5 years of austerity

Unemployment in 2010 After the 2008 crash stood at 1.9 million
The current figures supplied by the DWP show 2.1 million unemployed this after the government claims a million new jobs since last year, which MUST mean last year there were 3.1 million officially unemployed.

Also take into account that government borrowing has more than TREBLED their original estimates in 3 years, for what they predicted to borrow for the entire parliamentary period.
Austerity has not worked, as Osbourne originally promised to end the deficit in the lifetime of this parliament, Now he is saying it may not end until 2018 or even beyond that.

You see the tories may have wiped their promises off of their website and out of their archives, but some of us don't forget the FACTS, and some of us WON'T forget the promises made and then broken as soon as they were elected.
Blah blah Tories, blah blah bankers, blah blah Thatcher, blah blah.

BLAH BLAH OSBOURNE.... Blah blah BONUSES... blah

There you go, I wrote a post for you. Now, I'm off to do a hard day's work because it puts money in the bank, food on the table and a smile on my face. You should try it instead of wallowing in that incredible, all consuming bitterness.
You're just the kind of guy the Tories love; you even smile whilst you're getting shafted.
Oh I'm not being shafted my friend. My life is a bed of roses, mainly due to all the hard work I've put in over the years.

It's so easy to sit back and do nothing and blame all your problems on politicians and banks and big business and cry about "being shafted". Much harder to get off your lazy backside and do something about it.

"Shafted". LOL
Just think, if you work for an employer, how much more comfy their bed of roses is than yours and all from the sweat of your brow and all the others just like you.
Yes. I spend my entire life worrying about people who are better off than me .
No you spend your entire life belittling people who are worse off than you.
As I said before you're being shafted but you don't even realise it.
Why is it that you idiots come out with statements like "you're being shafted and you don't even know it"?

So working for a living, having money in your pocket, a nice house and car, a couple of holidays a year etc is being shafted? We'll bend me over and help yourself!

And you're apparently not being shafted but all you do is moan.
Oh we're all being shafted just some of us can see it and some can't.

Which brings us back to "Blah blah Tories, blah blah bankers, blah blah Thatcher, blah blah. BLAH BLAH OSBOURNE.... Blah blah BONUSES... blah"
Aristotle argued that jealousy may at least inspire some people to better their lot, whereas envy just inclines folk to scupper other people's plans. You can work out yourself which one you have.
Yeah Tories are always scuppering my plans so do I conclude they are envious of my freethinking and refusal to tug my forelock?
[quote][p][bold]ade_splat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]allinittogether[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SinnerSaint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]allinittogether[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SinnerSaint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]allinittogether[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SinnerSaint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]allinittogether[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SinnerSaint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dellorri[/bold] wrote: I'll answer your questions for you Rolly............. Deficit in 2010 When the coalition came to power £895 billion Deficit today in 2014 £1.3 TRILLION Growth in 2010 when the coaliton took over stood at 2.7% of GDP Growth today in 2014 1.6% of GDP after 3.5 years of austerity Unemployment in 2010 After the 2008 crash stood at 1.9 million The current figures supplied by the DWP show 2.1 million unemployed this after the government claims a million new jobs since last year, which MUST mean last year there were 3.1 million officially unemployed. Also take into account that government borrowing has more than TREBLED their original estimates in 3 years, for what they predicted to borrow for the entire parliamentary period. Austerity has not worked, as Osbourne originally promised to end the deficit in the lifetime of this parliament, Now he is saying it may not end until 2018 or even beyond that. You see the tories may have wiped their promises off of their website and out of their archives, but some of us don't forget the FACTS, and some of us WON'T forget the promises made and then broken as soon as they were elected.[/p][/quote]Blah blah Tories, blah blah bankers, blah blah Thatcher, blah blah. BLAH BLAH OSBOURNE.... Blah blah BONUSES... blah There you go, I wrote a post for you. Now, I'm off to do a hard day's work because it puts money in the bank, food on the table and a smile on my face. You should try it instead of wallowing in that incredible, all consuming bitterness.[/p][/quote]You're just the kind of guy the Tories love; you even smile whilst you're getting shafted.[/p][/quote]Oh I'm not being shafted my friend. My life is a bed of roses, mainly due to all the hard work I've put in over the years. It's so easy to sit back and do nothing and blame all your problems on politicians and banks and big business and cry about "being shafted". Much harder to get off your lazy backside and do something about it. "Shafted". LOL[/p][/quote]Just think, if you work for an employer, how much more comfy their bed of roses is than yours and all from the sweat of your brow and all the others just like you.[/p][/quote]Yes. I spend my entire life worrying about people who are better off than me .[/p][/quote]No you spend your entire life belittling people who are worse off than you. As I said before you're being shafted but you don't even realise it.[/p][/quote]Why is it that you idiots come out with statements like "you're being shafted and you don't even know it"? So working for a living, having money in your pocket, a nice house and car, a couple of holidays a year etc is being shafted? We'll bend me over and help yourself! And you're apparently not being shafted but all you do is moan.[/p][/quote]Oh we're all being shafted just some of us can see it and some can't. Which brings us back to "Blah blah Tories, blah blah bankers, blah blah Thatcher, blah blah. BLAH BLAH OSBOURNE.... Blah blah BONUSES... blah"[/p][/quote]Aristotle argued that jealousy may at least inspire some people to better their lot, whereas envy just inclines folk to scupper other people's plans. You can work out yourself which one you have.[/p][/quote]Yeah Tories are always scuppering my plans so do I conclude they are envious of my freethinking and refusal to tug my forelock? allinittogether
  • Score: 0

8:03pm Sat 1 Feb 14

SinnerSaint says...

allinittogether wrote:
ade_splat wrote:
allinittogether wrote:
SinnerSaint wrote:
allinittogether wrote:
SinnerSaint wrote:
allinittogether wrote:
SinnerSaint wrote:
allinittogether wrote:
SinnerSaint wrote:
dellorri wrote:
I'll answer your questions for you Rolly.............

Deficit in 2010 When the coalition came to power £895 billion
Deficit today in 2014 £1.3 TRILLION

Growth in 2010 when the coaliton took over stood at 2.7% of GDP
Growth today in 2014 1.6% of GDP after 3.5 years of austerity

Unemployment in 2010 After the 2008 crash stood at 1.9 million
The current figures supplied by the DWP show 2.1 million unemployed this after the government claims a million new jobs since last year, which MUST mean last year there were 3.1 million officially unemployed.

Also take into account that government borrowing has more than TREBLED their original estimates in 3 years, for what they predicted to borrow for the entire parliamentary period.
Austerity has not worked, as Osbourne originally promised to end the deficit in the lifetime of this parliament, Now he is saying it may not end until 2018 or even beyond that.

You see the tories may have wiped their promises off of their website and out of their archives, but some of us don't forget the FACTS, and some of us WON'T forget the promises made and then broken as soon as they were elected.
Blah blah Tories, blah blah bankers, blah blah Thatcher, blah blah.

BLAH BLAH OSBOURNE.... Blah blah BONUSES... blah

There you go, I wrote a post for you. Now, I'm off to do a hard day's work because it puts money in the bank, food on the table and a smile on my face. You should try it instead of wallowing in that incredible, all consuming bitterness.
You're just the kind of guy the Tories love; you even smile whilst you're getting shafted.
Oh I'm not being shafted my friend. My life is a bed of roses, mainly due to all the hard work I've put in over the years.

It's so easy to sit back and do nothing and blame all your problems on politicians and banks and big business and cry about "being shafted". Much harder to get off your lazy backside and do something about it.

"Shafted". LOL
Just think, if you work for an employer, how much more comfy their bed of roses is than yours and all from the sweat of your brow and all the others just like you.
Yes. I spend my entire life worrying about people who are better off than me .
No you spend your entire life belittling people who are worse off than you.
As I said before you're being shafted but you don't even realise it.
Why is it that you idiots come out with statements like "you're being shafted and you don't even know it"?

So working for a living, having money in your pocket, a nice house and car, a couple of holidays a year etc is being shafted? We'll bend me over and help yourself!

And you're apparently not being shafted but all you do is moan.
Oh we're all being shafted just some of us can see it and some can't.

Which brings us back to "Blah blah Tories, blah blah bankers, blah blah Thatcher, blah blah. BLAH BLAH OSBOURNE.... Blah blah BONUSES... blah"
Aristotle argued that jealousy may at least inspire some people to better their lot, whereas envy just inclines folk to scupper other people's plans. You can work out yourself which one you have.
Yeah Tories are always scuppering my plans so do I conclude they are envious of my freethinking and refusal to tug my forelock?
Why would anyone be envious of somebody so obviously bitter, twisted and miserable?! Someone so busy being jealous of people happier, healthier and wealthier than them.

Don't be so ridiculous!
[quote][p][bold]allinittogether[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ade_splat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]allinittogether[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SinnerSaint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]allinittogether[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SinnerSaint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]allinittogether[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SinnerSaint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]allinittogether[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SinnerSaint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dellorri[/bold] wrote: I'll answer your questions for you Rolly............. Deficit in 2010 When the coalition came to power £895 billion Deficit today in 2014 £1.3 TRILLION Growth in 2010 when the coaliton took over stood at 2.7% of GDP Growth today in 2014 1.6% of GDP after 3.5 years of austerity Unemployment in 2010 After the 2008 crash stood at 1.9 million The current figures supplied by the DWP show 2.1 million unemployed this after the government claims a million new jobs since last year, which MUST mean last year there were 3.1 million officially unemployed. Also take into account that government borrowing has more than TREBLED their original estimates in 3 years, for what they predicted to borrow for the entire parliamentary period. Austerity has not worked, as Osbourne originally promised to end the deficit in the lifetime of this parliament, Now he is saying it may not end until 2018 or even beyond that. You see the tories may have wiped their promises off of their website and out of their archives, but some of us don't forget the FACTS, and some of us WON'T forget the promises made and then broken as soon as they were elected.[/p][/quote]Blah blah Tories, blah blah bankers, blah blah Thatcher, blah blah. BLAH BLAH OSBOURNE.... Blah blah BONUSES... blah There you go, I wrote a post for you. Now, I'm off to do a hard day's work because it puts money in the bank, food on the table and a smile on my face. You should try it instead of wallowing in that incredible, all consuming bitterness.[/p][/quote]You're just the kind of guy the Tories love; you even smile whilst you're getting shafted.[/p][/quote]Oh I'm not being shafted my friend. My life is a bed of roses, mainly due to all the hard work I've put in over the years. It's so easy to sit back and do nothing and blame all your problems on politicians and banks and big business and cry about "being shafted". Much harder to get off your lazy backside and do something about it. "Shafted". LOL[/p][/quote]Just think, if you work for an employer, how much more comfy their bed of roses is than yours and all from the sweat of your brow and all the others just like you.[/p][/quote]Yes. I spend my entire life worrying about people who are better off than me .[/p][/quote]No you spend your entire life belittling people who are worse off than you. As I said before you're being shafted but you don't even realise it.[/p][/quote]Why is it that you idiots come out with statements like "you're being shafted and you don't even know it"? So working for a living, having money in your pocket, a nice house and car, a couple of holidays a year etc is being shafted? We'll bend me over and help yourself! And you're apparently not being shafted but all you do is moan.[/p][/quote]Oh we're all being shafted just some of us can see it and some can't. Which brings us back to "Blah blah Tories, blah blah bankers, blah blah Thatcher, blah blah. BLAH BLAH OSBOURNE.... Blah blah BONUSES... blah"[/p][/quote]Aristotle argued that jealousy may at least inspire some people to better their lot, whereas envy just inclines folk to scupper other people's plans. You can work out yourself which one you have.[/p][/quote]Yeah Tories are always scuppering my plans so do I conclude they are envious of my freethinking and refusal to tug my forelock?[/p][/quote]Why would anyone be envious of somebody so obviously bitter, twisted and miserable?! Someone so busy being jealous of people happier, healthier and wealthier than them. Don't be so ridiculous! SinnerSaint
  • Score: 0

7:23pm Sun 2 Feb 14

Steven McLean2 says...

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
One thing that also needs factoring in is the cost to get to and from work. I bet many pay £20 to £30 per week to get to and from work, a cost many sat on their ar$e need not worry about.
My cost for me getting off my arse and going to work is £22 per week .. for many others that cost will be more ...
[quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: One thing that also needs factoring in is the cost to get to and from work. I bet many pay £20 to £30 per week to get to and from work, a cost many sat on their ar$e need not worry about.[/p][/quote]My cost for me getting off my arse and going to work is £22 per week .. for many others that cost will be more ... Steven McLean2
  • Score: 0

4:23am Tue 4 Feb 14

Mikki. says...

It's about time you all educated yourselves with facts. Every person in this country (whether they working or not) is a Government asset. In quite a few Companies (well, ones that I have been involved in), the company receives an insurance payout in the event of a death of an employee. I'm **** sure that the Government has the same means. There is no recession, no real debt.
If you lower the population of a country/County/Town, say by half, the wages for employment rise in that area (just so long as they are jobs-worthy folk!)
This will happen when they have re-organised their stock.
It doesn't matter what you do to earn your income or don't do for that matter. Unless you are with the in crowd, your income (with the cost of the pound) will go down. The cost of living is going to go through the roof, even for you so-called wealthy folk! The Government doesn't care if you earn £1.00 or £1,000,000. They are in the process of asset stripping everybody down to the bare minimum and will continue for the next couple of years.
Why are our banks still in debt? There has been and still is a massive transfer of wealth and a complete redevelopment of the middle-east going on (hence all the military interventions or invasions, what ever you want to call it with still more countries to invade - Eg. Iran, North Korea, Cuba) Where are the funds for this coming from? Which countries have the contracts for this and at what cost?
While this goes on, the Government will continue to control its people by causing petty discord between its own people (in this case Employed V's Unemployed). By keeping their discriminating easily manipulated minds occupied with Coronation Street/ scenario's (It's a common distraction technique, so are false-flags! ) they can get on with their more important agendas like growing from Robin Hoods to blatant Robin *unts.
Try this! Next time you get involved with a topic like this, check out a few other news web-sites (Not allied to the BBC) and see what else the Governments involved in around the world. It will affect this Country in a couple of years.

Wake up people. It isn't your fellow unemployed that are the problem (Well their may be a few exemptions).
It's about time you all educated yourselves with facts. Every person in this country (whether they working or not) is a Government asset. In quite a few Companies (well, ones that I have been involved in), the company receives an insurance payout in the event of a death of an employee. I'm **** sure that the Government has the same means. There is no recession, no real debt. If you lower the population of a country/County/Town, say by half, the wages for employment rise in that area (just so long as they are jobs-worthy folk!) This will happen when they have re-organised their stock. It doesn't matter what you do to earn your income or don't do for that matter. Unless you are with the in crowd, your income (with the cost of the pound) will go down. The cost of living is going to go through the roof, even for you so-called wealthy folk! The Government doesn't care if you earn £1.00 or £1,000,000. They are in the process of asset stripping everybody down to the bare minimum and will continue for the next couple of years. Why are our banks still in debt? There has been and still is a massive transfer of wealth and a complete redevelopment of the middle-east going on (hence all the military interventions or invasions, what ever you want to call it with still more countries to invade - Eg. Iran, North Korea, Cuba) Where are the funds for this coming from? Which countries have the contracts for this and at what cost? While this goes on, the Government will continue to control its people by causing petty discord between its own people (in this case Employed V's Unemployed). By keeping their discriminating easily manipulated minds occupied with Coronation Street/ scenario's (It's a common distraction technique, so are false-flags! ) they can get on with their more important agendas like growing from Robin Hoods to blatant Robin *unts. Try this! Next time you get involved with a topic like this, check out a few other news web-sites (Not allied to the BBC) and see what else the Governments involved in around the world. It will affect this Country in a couple of years. Wake up people. It isn't your fellow unemployed that are the problem (Well their may be a few exemptions). Mikki.
  • Score: 0

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