Forums65
Topics76,469
Posts1,033,982
Members14,848
|
Most Online80,173 Apr 25th, 2025
|
|
6 members (2 invisible),
6,804
guests, and
496
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
More Bins
by diggingdeeper - 8th May 2025 8:12am
|
|
|
|
|
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
S |
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 151
Enthusiast
|
Enthusiast
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 151 |
Another question, lady in article above receives £838 per month in various allowances and benefits.
Does rent have to come out of this?
If not then let's assume a rental on a small place of £100 a week, £400 a month and add that onto the £838 giving £1,238.
Give or take a £ here or there she is taking home the same as someone working 9-5, 5 days a week in an admin job i.e. around £18,000 per annum.
Yet for nothing...
I fail to see a problem.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 15
Newbeee
|
Newbeee
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 15 |
Another question, lady in article above receives £838 per month in various allowances and benefits.
Does rent have to come out of this?
If not then let's assume a rental on a small place of £100 a week, £400 a month and add that onto the £838 giving £1,238.
Give or take a £ here or there she is taking home the same as someone working 9-5, 5 days a week in an admin job i.e. around £18,000 per annum.
Yet for nothing...
I fail to see a problem. You're taking one example out of context. Ignoring those that it will significantly hurt.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 151
Enthusiast
|
Enthusiast
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 151 |
I'm simply referring the the example quoted.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 475
Smartchild
|
Smartchild
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 475 |
Another question, lady in article above receives £838 per month in various allowances and benefits.
Does rent have to come out of this?
If not then let's assume a rental on a small place of £100 a week, £400 a month and add that onto the £838 giving £1,238.
Give or take a £ here or there she is taking home the same as someone working 9-5, 5 days a week in an admin job i.e. around £18,000 per annum.
Yet for nothing...
I fail to see a problem. Shocking isn t it.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 143
Enthusiast
|
Enthusiast
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 143 |
Another question, lady in article above receives £838 per month in various allowances and benefits.
Does rent have to come out of this?
If not then let's assume a rental on a small place of £100 a week, £400 a month and add that onto the £838 giving £1,238.
Give or take a £ here or there she is taking home the same as someone working 9-5, 5 days a week in an admin job i.e. around £18,000 per annum.
Yet for nothing...
I fail to see a problem. Shocking isn t it. Anything for nothing unless the person is disabled and also unable to work, is shocking. People need to think about where the government's money comes from! Governments only have money because they collect it in taxes etc from those who do work.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 151
Enthusiast
|
Enthusiast
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 151 |
Agree entirely.
The sense of entitlement in this country is horrendous.
Sloths also breed sloths and I've seen enough examples of this relatively recently. Lazy parents breeding lazy children for the child benefit. Lazy children grow up thinking what their onslow-esque parents are doing Is normal... and before you know it there is a vicious circle with no way out.
Housing benefit was paid directly to landlords and people, generations of families become completely unable to understand the value of money.
Life revolves around ciggies and booze, as early in the day as possible and as much as they can buy from the few quid they can scrape together. Kids go without nutrition so the parents can do this, the kids start smoking, health problems, harm to unborn babies, more drain on the NHS, kids with 'behavioural problems' ... BUT ITS OK BECAUSE THEY ARE ENTITLED and none of it is their fault anyway, it's the pesky governments or someone else's. Or it's a 'disability innit so da guvermint is sortin us out cuz no way they can work n that".
Morning rant over.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 143
Enthusiast
|
Enthusiast
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 143 |
Agree entirely.
The sense of entitlement in this country is horrendous.
Sloths also breed sloths and I've seen enough examples of this relatively recently. Lazy parents breeding lazy children for the child benefit. Lazy children grow up thinking what their onslow-esque parents are doing Is normal... and before you know it there is a vicious circle with no way out.
Housing benefit was paid directly to landlords and people, generations of families become completely unable to understand the value of money.
Life revolves around ciggies and booze, as early in the day as possible and as much as they can buy from the few quid they can scrape together. Kids go without nutrition so the parents can do this, the kids start smoking, health problems, harm to unborn babies, more drain on the NHS, kids with 'behavioural problems' ... BUT ITS OK BECAUSE THEY ARE ENTITLED and none of it is their fault anyway, it's the pesky governments or someone else's. Or it's a 'disability innit so da guvermint is sortin us out cuz no way they can work n that".
Morning rant over. Maybe over, but worth the effort nevertheless.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 2,390 Likes: 4
Forum Master
|
Forum Master
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 2,390 Likes: 4 |
Your appraisal theory is flawed, because it focuses on a small proportion of benefit claimants, the majority of claimants are actually working, but are poorly paid by scrooge employers, whom expect the government / taxpayer to subsidise their workforce whist they rake in a profit, however you are correct in that it is the aforementioned abusers of the benefit and sickness and disablement payments that have stigmatised the system, a stick with which this present government is using to beat and demonise all claimants with supported by the gutter press, maybe we should be concentrating on the thieves and shysters and abusers of the system that purport to represent government (of all parties) if the country is rotten at the top then how can you criticise those at the bottom?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 143
Enthusiast
|
Enthusiast
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 143 |
Your appraisal theory is flawed, because it focuses on a small proportion of benefit claimants, the majority of claimants are actually working, but are poorly paid by scrooge employers, whom expect the government / taxpayer to subsidise their workforce whist they rake in a profit, however you are correct in that it is the aforementioned abusers of the benefit and sickness and disablement payments that have stigmatised the system, a stick with which this present government is using to beat and demonise all claimants with supported by the gutter press, maybe we should be concentrating on the thieves and shysters and abusers of the system that purport to represent government (of all parties) if the country is rotten at the top then how can you criticise those at the bottom? This should NOT be labelled as 're Nemesis' have another look at my post which is minimal. I just said 'the rant was worthwhile'.
Last edited by nem12esis; 28th Dec 2013 5:52pm.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 2,390 Likes: 4
Forum Master
|
Forum Master
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 2,390 Likes: 4 |
You are indeed right, my humble apologies nem12esis, as to the rant being worthwhile, only in so much as it gives release and support to a bigoted view.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 143
Enthusiast
|
Enthusiast
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 143 |
You are indeed right, my humble apologies nem12esis, as to the rant being worthwhile, only in so much as it gives release and support to a bigoted view. Now you have spoiled things. The rant is by no means bigoted, just a view shared by many observers of life. Why do so many people accuse others who hold realistic views, of being bigoted? This goes back to Gordon Brown making a pratt of himself with Gillian Duffy in Rochdale in 2010 and should stop now - as like then and like now, it is untrue and unwarranted
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 2,390 Likes: 4
Forum Master
|
Forum Master
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 2,390 Likes: 4 |
In your response you defend the post by Emeeh as quote, "by no means bigoted" yet he/ she coins phrases such as sloths, lazy etc, yet because he/ she makes no distinction between genuine claimants (yes the majority of those unfortunate to become unemployed through no fault of their own) he/she is implying that all benefit claimants are feckless wastrels, this type of misrepresentation is used by the government to gain support for their attacks on the unemployed most of whom are genuine claimants, and their outrageous treatment of the disabled some of whom are terminally ill losing their benefits, so yes to demonise and condemn a whole section of society because a few abuse the system is indeed bigoted.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 143
Enthusiast
|
Enthusiast
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 143 |
In your response you defend the post by Emeeh as quote, "by no means bigoted" yet he/ she coins phrases such as sloths, lazy etc, yet because he/ she makes no distinction between genuine claimants (yes the majority of those unfortunate to become unemployed through no fault of their own) he/she is implying that all benefit claimants are feckless wastrels, this type of misrepresentation is used by the government to gain support for their attacks on the unemployed most of whom are genuine claimants, and their outrageous treatment of the disabled some of whom are terminally ill losing their benefits, so yes to demonise and condemn a whole section of society because a few abuse the system is indeed bigoted. Far be it for me to defend her, but she does say "I have seen enough examples of this recently" by use of the word 'examples' she is obviously not meaning everybody. However you look at it it is not bigoted. If you feel she is incorrect then she may be guilty, in your opinion, of being misinformed, but certainly not bigoted by definition. Incidentally, the government is attempting to put right the downright wasteful and profligate Labour administration that bankrupt this country. Savings have to be made but the disabled have been exempt from financial losses which is a good thing, not an attack on them as you state, now that IS bigoted.
Last edited by nem12esis; 30th Dec 2013 10:47am.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 2,390 Likes: 4
Forum Master
|
Forum Master
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 2,390 Likes: 4 |
You don't write for the Daily Mail by any chance do you? as you seem to have misinterpreted the meaning of example ie: one that is representative of a group as a whole (could that mean the unemployed?), as to the attempts to deny the disabled access to benefits, 42% of appeals against ATOS have been successful, in the meantime these people have their benefits stopped whilst awaiting appeal (that's because they are exempt from financial loss), the former minister for the disabled E McVey managed to help by closing down Remploy.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 143
Enthusiast
|
Enthusiast
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 143 |
Well we will just have to generally agree to differ - except for the 'bigot' remark which is still totally out of order and most certainly a 'Latter day Brownism'. Happy New Year, I look forward to your contributions in 2014.
|
|
|
Click to View Topic.
|
|
Posts: 2,293
Joined: December 2010
|
|
There are no members with birthdays on this day. |
|
|
|
More Bins
by diggingdeeper - 19th Jul 2024 11:05am
|
|
|
|
|