strichener Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 16 hours ago, Randy Giles said: I'm shocked at strichener being totally immoral tbh. Wait... no I'm not. immoral 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 16 hours ago, Henderson to deliver ..... said: Yes, because every single instance of rape is reported and taken to court. Which absolutely no-one stated was the case. It does make your point redundant as the right to anonymity is exclusively about the legal process. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 15 hours ago, topcat(The most tip top) said: I can kind of follow Strichener's logic even if I don't agree with it What's more striking is weird a thing to make a stand on this is. Even if your moral standpoint tells you that reducing benefit fraud justifies any amount of collateral damage this seems like a strange fight to pick. There almost certainly is some fraud out there but it surely can't amount to the kind of money that would make any real difference to the public purse but they're still targeting poor single mothers including poor single rape victims It can't be for the money and they can't think it makes them look like the good guys, it must be because they want to be seen to be "tough" It's the opposite of "virtue signalling" "Utter b*****d signalling" doesn't have quite the same ring to it. Maybe someone else has a better idea? I am not "making a stand on it". The question that I posed was quite simply that if there is going to be a two child limit should the government apply it without any exemptions? If you don't agree with the two child limit as a policy then that is fair enough argue the merits of why it should cover an unlimited number of children rather than banding about an emotive argument around a tiny portion of those that will actually be impacted by this. Is a planned child less entitled to be provided for in the welfare system than one born from rape? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D Angelo Barksdale Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 7 minutes ago, strichener said: Which absolutely no-one stated was the case. It does make your point redundant as the right to anonymity is exclusively about the legal process. Perhaps I worded it wrongly then. Victims have the right not to tell anyone about their experience if they so wish, including the DWP. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 5 minutes ago, Henderson to deliver ..... said: Perhaps I worded it wrongly then. Victims have the right not to tell anyone about their experience if they so wish, including the DWP. That is entirely correct and they can still make that choice. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oneteaminglasgow Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 That is entirely correct and they can still make that choice. So, victims of rape shouldn't get benefits which they're entitled to if they don't want to tell the DWP all about their experience? Is that your position? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat(The most tip top) Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 (edited) 26 minutes ago, strichener said: I am not "making a stand on it". The question that I posed was quite simply that if there is going to be a two child limit should the government apply it without any exemptions? If you don't agree with the two child limit as a policy then that is fair enough argue the merits of why it should cover an unlimited number of children rather than banding about an emotive argument around a tiny portion of those that will actually be impacted by this. Is a planned child less entitled to be provided for in the welfare system than one born from rape? It;s the Westminster government who are "making a stand" on this, For apparently no other reason than to purposely look like a bunch of hardnosed evil b*****ds in order to impress the sort of people who respect that kind of thing. You're not "Making a stand on it" you're simply being impressed by it Edited May 17, 2017 by topcat(The most tip top) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 2 hours ago, oneteaminglasgow said: So, victims of rape shouldn't get benefits which they're entitled to if they don't want to tell the DWP all about their experience? Is that your position? No. 2 hours ago, topcat(The most tip top) said: It;s the Westminster government who are "making a stand" on this, For apparently no other reason than to purposely look like a bunch of hardnosed evil b*****ds in order to impress the sort of people who respect that kind of thing. You're not "Making a stand on it" you're simply being impressed by it Thanks for letting me know what I think. I am not sure if I will have a sandwich or bagel for lunch, perhaps you could assist. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat(The most tip top) Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 Thanks for letting me know what I think. I am not sure if I will have a sandwich or bagel for lunch, perhaps you could assist. Sandwich is in the UKIP stronghold of South Thanet, Kent. I think we can all see which way this is going 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotThePars Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 I don't see why we should argue within the two-child limit policy because this government loves a u-turn and if there's anything it should abandon it's this horrendous policy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 10 minutes ago, topcat(The most tip top) said: Sandwich is in the UKIP stronghold of South Thanet, Kent. I think we can all see which way this is going Bagel it is then. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat(The most tip top) Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 Bagel it is then. What is it about the Palestinians that makes you hate them so much? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 Just now, topcat(The most tip top) said: What is it about the Palestinians that makes you hate them so much? That's a low blow. You are clearly mistaking the disquiet that I have with UKIP with support for the land-grabbing Jewish terrorists. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat(The most tip top) Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 That's a low blow. You are clearly mistaking the disquiet that I have with UKIP with support for the land-grabbing Jewish terrorists. If you hate the Jews so much why don't you get out there and campaign for Corbyn 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 1 minute ago, topcat(The most tip top) said: If you hate the Jews so much why don't you get out there and campaign for Corbyn With the amount of times you use the word hate in your posts, you should be out campaigning for the BNP. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat(The most tip top) Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 With the amount of times you use the word hate in your posts, you should be out campaigning for the BNP. [emoji14] I like Black Coffee so I don't think they'd have me 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crùbag Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 23 hours ago, The_Kincardine said: The issue with OBF isn't its intent but its delivery. That it castigates football fans over everyone else has got to be a major fail. Edit: Unless you belong to the "I never do anything wrong so it doesn't affect me" brigade. You're right - but it's because football seems to attract large numbers of people who until now have acted as if they're outside the law when it comes to anti-social behaviour. It's about context. Otherwise the Wee Free minister who rants about the Pope being the anti-Christ is arguably being sectarian but unlikely to cause offence or disorder if it remains within his church. I am aware though that certain local councillors have taken offensive language to new extremes for elected officials recently. And your second point - it doesn't TBH. It equally doesn't seem to apply to almost all fans at other games I've been at in the last couple of years - Hearts (save a handful of eejits), Cowdenbeath, Spartans, Hibs/ St Mirren... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 38 minutes ago, Crùbag said: You're right - but it's because football seems to attract large numbers of people who until now have acted as if they're outside the law when it comes to anti-social behaviour. It's about context. Otherwise the Wee Free minister who rants about the Pope being the anti-Christ is arguably being sectarian but unlikely to cause offence or disorder if it remains within his church. I am aware though that certain local councillors have taken offensive language to new extremes for elected officials recently. And your second point - it doesn't TBH. It equally doesn't seem to apply to almost all fans at other games I've been at in the last couple of years - Hearts (save a handful of eejits), Cowdenbeath, Spartans, Hibs/ St Mirren... This isn't a Free Kirk or Free Presbyterian issue. The Westminster Confession is the Kirk's standard, second only to holy writ, and describes the Pope as, "That man of sin and son of perdition". The point I made over The OBF that it, "castigates football fans over everyone else" is absolutely right and isn't limited to the FTP brigade. So a racist comment made at football attracts greater punishment than a racist comment made elsewhere. This has got to be wrong, seeing as football is less racist than Scottish society in general. Oh and racism in general society is much greater than the vestiges of sectarianism in football. So I see it as a blunt instrument which is tackling the wrong issues. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted May 18, 2017 Share Posted May 18, 2017 2 hours ago, The_Kincardine said: This isn't a Free Kirk or Free Presbyterian issue. The Westminster Confession is the Kirk's standard, second only to holy writ, and describes the Pope as, "That man of sin and son of perdition". The point I made over The OBF that it, "castigates football fans over everyone else" is absolutely right and isn't limited to the FTP brigade. So a racist comment made at football attracts greater punishment than a racist comment made elsewhere. This has got to be wrong, seeing as football is less racist than Scottish society in general. Oh and racism in general society is much greater than the vestiges of sectarianism in football. So I see it as a blunt instrument which is tackling the wrong issues. Not surprised that a Rangers fans disagrees with the OBF act tbh. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle Posted May 18, 2017 Share Posted May 18, 2017 IpsosMori poll: Conservative 49% Labour 34% +8 Lib Dem 7% -7 Green 3% +2 UKIP 2% -2 Other 5% -1 IpsosMori tend to underestimate labour in their polls too. The lib dems have completely shat the bed. 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.