dogmc Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 Everyone isn't the same of course, but there are a good number of folk out there who just refuse to work. You only need to watch any of the numerous benefits programmes to realise some folk are quite clearly 'at it'. Unfortunately, when it comes to discussing benefits these arseholes are generally who folk automatically think of and therefore tar everyone claiming benefits with the same brush. It's a very tiny number of people who are at it and those shows are designed to demonise all those on benefits. It helps perpetuate the establishment line that poor = lazy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fudge Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 On top of what chomp my root has said, i read an article in the Guardian written by a man as an anonymous open letter to his wife. The pair of them had graduated from law school at the same time, married not long after and had kids and she had never got a job because of this and just lived off him all along, living a WAG type of life but still complaining that they didn't have enough money at times. Got me thinking that i know a good few ladies of leisure like this, a cousin of mine being one of them who's kids must be about 15 by now and she hasnt worked since the late 90's, not one shift or anything! I know a couple of people like this, and neither couple has children. The thing that gets me is that the man/husband doesn't even have a ludicrously well paid job. I couldn't be certain but I'd estimate they earn between £40-50k. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTChris Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 I'd rather get rid of benefits entirely than have the state removing people's children when they don't fit some sort of arbitrary criteria of how people should live. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
19QOS19 Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 The children one is a tricky one to approach. For me personally I wouldn't be having a kid until I felt in a decent enough financial situation. I'm only just there now. I couldn't imagine having children with no income and part of me questions why people are silly enough to. Having said that, who am I (or anyone) to say that just because someone doesn't make 'such and such amount of money' they aren't entitled to have a family? Very Hitleresque. I get annoyed by both sides when it comes to the benefits debates. "Most folk on benefits are benefit cheats" "Anyone who claims benefits clearly can't be fit to work and are genuine" Both equally idiotic views IMO. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cream Cheese Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 42 minutes ago, ICTChris said: I'd rather get rid of benefits entirely than have the state removing people's children when they don't fit some sort of arbitrary criteria of how people should live. If they remove state benefits, then parents who rely on benefits certainly won't meet the criteria for taking care of their own children and the state would have to intervene in some way. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
19QOS19 Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 Absolutely nobody says the second one m8. You've just made that up to suit your narrow minded agenda. Yeah of course I have. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
19QOS19 Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 If they remove state benefits, then parents who rely on benefits certainly won't meet the criteria for taking care of their own children and the state would have to intervene in some way. Ripping kids away from their parents would surely have a more detrimental effect on them though. The kids won't have a clue about money at such a young age. If they are cared for properly then that is more important than anything money can buy. They'll just have the horror of being taken away from their parents. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 1 hour ago, williemillersmoustache said: And we should bring back The National Health Service. I've amended your post so you can use it after a couple of years of Theresa May in power. No need to thank me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 2 minutes ago, Granny Danger said: I've amended your post so you can use it after a couple of years of Theresa May in power. No need to thank me. She will be empowering them GD. Setting them free from the subjugation of benefit dependency. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 Just now, Sergeant Wilson said: She will be empowering them GD. Setting them free from the subjugation of benefit dependency. Aye I suppose so. Once your dead then your not dependent. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dee Man Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 2 minutes ago, Granny Danger said: Aye I suppose so. Once your dead then your not dependent. Why is your avatar green and white? It looks a bit Henman-esque. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GingerSaint Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 People should stop having kids under the age of 21 (that's a generous cut off). Those kids will grow up with shite parents then have their own kids at a similar age and the cycle keeps going. Obviously you can't enforce that at all but it would solve a lot of problems. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blanco Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 28 minutes ago, Cream Cheese said: If they remove state benefits, then parents who rely on benefits certainly won't meet the criteria for taking care of their own children and the state would have to intervene in some way. Maybe we should have some sort of state sponsored sterilisation programme that can only be overridden when both parents combined income surpasses 70k pa. People when then be solely responsible for providing for their brood. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
19QOS19 Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 Maybe we should have some sort of state sponsored sterilisation programme that can only be overridden when both parents combined income surpasses 70k pa. People when then be solely responsible for providing for their brood. Spot the minted driver... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 23 minutes ago, Dee Man said: Why is your avatar green and white? It looks a bit Henman-esque. My four-year-old grandaughter has moved on from looking at colours to reading words. You should try it too. P.S. I have no idea what Henman-esque means. 13 minutes ago, blanco said: Maybe we should have some sort of state sponsored sterilisation programme that can only be overridden when both parents combined income surpasses 70k pa. People when then be solely responsible for providing for their brood. Extract from the Tory 2020 General Election manifesto. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meth Damon Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 Feelings literally mean nothing at all, teaching kids that they can be cyber bullied is bad for them because when they get into the real world they claim someone is bullying for saying a little thing and everyone knows it's bullshit. If someones saying something bad to you online either turn the computer off or man the f**k up and ignore it. Similar lines but when you see celebrities complaining about death threats and whining for sympathy, 99% of these death threats are 12 year old boys saying something along the lines of "be great if that nonce died" then they chuckle amongst their pals about it. People hype it up so much, I've had people on here say they hope a stadium collapses and I'm the only one in it and stuff like that but it means f**k all. You can't be bullied off twitter, if somethings really that bad that your little brain can't handle it then there's a block button that works perfectly, it's complete attention seeking. Religion gets far too much protection, once you're an adult it's a choice to follow a religion. The same way someone chooses to be a member of a political party, if you're allowed to say "I think tories/greens/whatever are b*****ds" then you should be able to say the same for a religion. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SweeperDee Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 Feelings literally mean nothing at all, teaching kids that they can be cyber bullied is bad for them because when they get into the real world they claim someone is bullying for saying a little thing and everyone knows it's bullshit. If someones saying something bad to you online either turn the computer off or man the f**k up and ignore it. Similar lines but when you see celebrities complaining about death threats and whining for sympathy, 99% of these death threats are 12 year old boys saying something along the lines of "be great if that nonce died" then they chuckle amongst their pals about it. People hype it up so much, I've had people on here say they hope a stadium collapses and I'm the only one in it and stuff like that but it means f**k all. You can't be bullied off twitter, if somethings really that bad that your little brain can't handle it then there's a block button that works perfectly, it's complete attention seeking. Religion gets far too much protection, once you're an adult it's a choice to follow a religion. The same way someone chooses to be a member of a political party, if you're allowed to say "I think tories/greens/whatever are b*****ds" then you should be able to say the same for a religion. You're at the windup surely? First sentence alone is just mental. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meth Damon Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 2 minutes ago, the_saints_are_coming said: Just now, SweeperDee said: You're at the windup surely? First sentence alone is just mental. Yeah bad wording, obviously they mean something to the person feeling it but no one else should care 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SweeperDee Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 Yeah bad wording, obviously they mean something to the person feeling it but no one else should care Debatable even still, a family member or close friend should always take notice and care if a person they care about is feeling emotionally fragile. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meth Damon Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 3 minutes ago, the_saints_are_coming said: You're a psychopath, that's why you don't understand feelings. Also, the hypocrisy of you mentioning someone else 'attention seeking,' surely cannot be lost on you? Different kind of attention seeking, the way they do it causes people to be arrested/people to be banned on Twitter things like that 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.