Fide Posted December 14, 2015 Author Share Posted December 14, 2015 I wonder if Oaksoft is as aneurism-poppingly candescent with rage about corporate tax evasion. That, after all amounts to more lost money than the ENTIRE Scottish budget each year. Or is he just going to reserve the hysteria for dole scum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WullieBroonIsGod Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 If the story is crap them am sure the family who's photo is all over the front of the papper will be suing the sun stupid,as for ids i have no problem with him going after fit and able people who can work but dont want to. You do realise that the Sun is a Tory mouthpiece for white van men, with the purpose of getting labour men to vote either Tory or UKIP? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevthedee Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 The likes of KevtheDee and Oaksoft should read the above and feel the burning rage of shame. Doubt it, however. One's too thick and the other's just a w****r. ^^^ Idealistic bollocks How do you know? Have you diagnosed every disabled person on benefits. It's too deep and complex an issue to just shrink the welfare state and not give a f**k about the consequences. And current assessment schemes are demonstrably a pile of shite. The Welfare State should be expanded, imo, not shrunk. Perhaps means test the basic state pension. See how that goes down with the Daily Mail readership. Show me a post fide where i have said people with disabilites or people who deserve it should be hounded and punished and have their money stopped,my issue is with people who use and abuse the benefits system but are fit and able to work but decide not to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFTD Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 At no point have I made disparaging comments about people with disabilities. On the contrary I have said quite clearly that they are as capable of being a contributing member of our society as anyone else. What grinds my gears is the lack of money to help these people because we have an army of lazy fuckers taking money they dont need. You can misrepresent my posts all you like but it wont win you the argument with the public at large. Just as well I've no interest in doing so. This thread now exists purely to elicit yuks from your bitter view that it's more important to increase public spending in order to punish a few layabouts than to protect the vulnerable in society. Which, make no mistake about it, is your argument in a nutshell, no matter how much magical thinking you might like to sprinkle onto the subject. It's tremendously entertaining though, so please don't stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fide Posted December 14, 2015 Author Share Posted December 14, 2015 Show me a post fide where i have said people with disabilites or people who deserve it should be hounded and punished and have their money stopped,my issue is with people who use and abuse the benefits system but are fit and able to work but decide not to. I never accused you of that Kevin. I said you were too thick to comprehend. Which patently you are. Do you realise what a miniscule drop in the ocean those who abuse the benefits system are? The MSM, guided by politicians with ideologies, sculpt gullible people's thoughts (i.e you) to make the problem seem vastly larger than it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RH33 Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 Just to be clear I wasn't looking for sympathy or pity. Just trying to highlight that the article is skewed to suit the governments agenda. That we aren't all smoking and drinking way through our benefits. I've worked in kitchens, pubs, admin temping and call centres. So I'm not too proud to do any job either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 Just to be clear I wasn't looking for sympathy or pity. Just trying to highlight that the article is skewed to suit the governments agenda. That we aren't all smoking and drinking way through our benefits. I've worked in kitchens, pubs, admin temping and call centres. So I'm not too proud to do any job either. Don't believe a word, I'm sure you're spending £110 pound a week on 40 fags a day out of your £70 basic JSL instead of feeding your kids like all these out of work scroungers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 This is a thread about lazy b*****ds claiming dole money they shouldn't be getting. No it isn't, that is what you have turned it into. So on topic - is it correct to withdraw money from someone who had not turned up for an interview that they know f**k all about? And more generally, if the benefits are the minimum a person requores to live on, should ANY be witheld? And at an even higher level - is someone out of work entitled to live and if so should they not receive the equivalent to the living wage (at least for an i itisl period of unemployment)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon EF Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 Presumably oaksoft is also absolutely fucking raging about the kids of wealthy parents or the wives/husbands of wealthy partners who don't work? No? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hard Graft Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 No it isn't, that is what you have turned it into. So on topic - is it correct to withdraw money from someone who had not turned up for an interview that they know f**k all about? And more generally, if the benefits are the minimum a person requores to live on, should ANY be witheld? And at an even higher level - is someone out of work entitled to live and if so should they not receive the equivalent to the living wage (at least for an i itisl period of unemployment)? So you would pay the living wage to those unemployed for an initial period. Is this for all who have never worked or for those who have just lost their job? What would be the initial period? But then surely when you complete the initial period you will be reducing their benefits? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 At what point do we think oakplonker will go "its all been a big troll"like the other nugget? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RH33 Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 Don't believe a word, I'm sure you're spending £110 pound a week on 40 fags a day out of your £70 basic JSL instead of feeding your kids like all these out of work scroungers. I'm not on jsa! I do use the kids benefits to pay for hookers to snort cocaine off their naked tits though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 I'm not on jsa! I do use the kids benefits to pay for hookers to snort cocaine off their naked tits though. I'm quite happy to deduct a bit from Oaksoft's crappy pension for that. Pics etc please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 So you would pay the living wage to those unemployed for an initial period. Is this for all who have never worked or for those who have just lost their job? What would be the initial period? But then surely when you complete the initial period you will be reducing their benefits? Are you against the concept and if so provide reasons. All you have done is raise questions that is appropriate to any payment regardless of the amount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 No of course not but you are assuming everyone who claims this is telling the truth and that big bad government is deliberately lying. The truth wilbl be somewhere in the middle. 2nd point. Yes of course they should. If there are no consequences to your actions then its just a charter for people simply ignoring the imperative to find work and continue to doss out on handouts. 3rd point. FFS are you absolutely kidding? You want to give people MORE benefits money? You want to provide even more incentive to sit at home watching Bargain Hunt while the rest of us are paying for it all? You are a moron, there are verified instances of people being sanctioned for this and one, just one instance of this is one too many. AND you want people to be provided with less than the minimum amount required to survive. I think I will just end my debate with you at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RH33 Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 I'm quite happy to deduct a bit from Oaksoft's crappy pension for that. Pics etc please. For a small benefit top up fee I can provide pics ???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotThePars Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 And in all seriousness I can't imagine why ANYONE would disagree with that...... ....unless they were one of them. Have we got a forum full of these people? Maybe that's the reason for the vitriol and lack of mature debate? But you literally have no clue at all what you're talking about though. This witch hunt against benefit claimants has allowed the Tories to ramp up the criteria for being classed as disabled which leaves my girlfriend and others with genuinely crippling pain disorders unable to pass as disabled by this government (and the Labour administration before it). On the surface it might seem like a fair crusade but scratch even a little at the surface and it becomes immediately apparent that loads of genuine cases are being left unable to fend for themselves while arseholes like you happily support it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Stubbs Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 You are focussing on the cost. I'm not actually that interested in the financial argument. ... we don't do anywhere near enough to help them BECAUSE........we have too many lazy fuckers taking up all the spare cash....fucking hell is ANY of this getting through your thick skull? You can't even keep up with your own slavering. What a shambles of a guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon EF Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 So you are another one unable to find an answer to my points. What a fucking surprise. What makes you say that? Also, could you answer my point about wealthy layabouts please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speckled tangerine Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 When the Daily Heil, Express, Sun or whoever fling some pish like this as a splash from time to time, not only does it drag us back to the Victorian deserving/undeserving poor, it deflects away from rich b*****ds fleecing the country with offshore accounts and the like. Does anyone ACTUALLY know of anyone making several hundred quid a week in benefits? I sure as f**k know folk who are and have been hounded by the DWP for absolute buttons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.