FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Ian Duncan-Smith
Ian Duncan-Smith
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
Here is a man who claims he can live on £53 a week, does that mean he only eats the nuts and crisps, drinking only at the bar in the house? he does not need a bed for sleep he can do it while earning his £53 PW.
If his statement is true why is he paid so much? he surely does not need it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *B9 QueenWoman
over a year ago
Over the rainbow, under the bridge |
"I also read he lives rent free in a £2million pound country house while his salary is £134,565 PA. What a hypocrite."
There is a petition you can sign to get him to put his money where his mouth is - as it were. Might go and look it up and see! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
"I also read he lives rent free in a £2million pound country house while his salary is £134,565 PA. What a hypocrite.
There is a petition you can sign to get him to put his money where his mouth is - as it were. Might go and look it up and see!"
So far the Change.org petition only has 166k signatures.
As I said on the other thread about this, it is possible as long as the cupboard has lots of staples already stored, you don't need shoes, clothes, fuel or transport. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Is that figure for an able bodied single unemployed person with no kids? Assume its after rent and bills are paid?
I don't think you could live on £53, but you could exist on it yes. Isnt that what the benefit system is for, to tide you over until something better comes up? The expectation is that you move on and get a job etc, not stay on for life. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nnyMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
"Is that figure for an able bodied single unemployed person with no kids? Assume its after rent and bills are paid?
................... "
Rent probably paid via Housing Benefit but all bills must come out of the £53.xx. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
There is a petition you can sign to get him to put his money where his mouth is - as it were. Might go and look it up and see!"
signed it this morning..
with in a day it reached 150000 signs |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I always thought he was a plank I lived in his constituency before he become leader, I also was born in Aneurin Bevan's constituency and was brought up red through and through ... but I have had a road to Damascus moment and think he is right ... the petition is just a red herring - people should get on their bikes where they can and they should work where they can and they shouldn't expect the state to be there for every single need ... I do apologise if this offends, as I know there are many exceptions to every rule, but at the end of the day, the welfare state is meant to be a safety net for the working people of this country and not those that don't work or who have never worked, or who don't belong here, Labour should try and remember that fact, especially as it states it quite clearly in their name. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Is that figure for an able bodied single unemployed person with no kids? Assume its after rent and bills are paid?
I don't think you could live on £53, but you could exist on it yes. Isnt that what the benefit system is for, to tide you over until something better comes up? The expectation is that you move on and get a job etc, not stay on for life. "
I think seeing as when your on full benefit you get rent/council tax benefit then I assume that £53 would need to cover gas/electric and water as well. Those for me total around £100 a month so that would leave me £112 for food/toiletries/cleaning items etc.
£28 a week. Near on impossible I reckon. Unless you eat value beans on toast 3 times a day. Lol x |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *B9 QueenWoman
over a year ago
Over the rainbow, under the bridge |
When he was leader of the Conservatives he went to Easterhouse in Scotland (see the heraldscotland.com) in 2002. He admitted then that the Tories had badly failed a lot of run down estates and promised that things would change if the Tories got in power again.
LIAR!
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Here is a man who claims he can live on £53 a week, does that mean he only eats the nuts and crisps, drinking only at the bar in the house? he does not need a bed for sleep he can do it while earning his £53 PW.
If his statement is true why is he paid so much? he surely does not need it."
i could live on less than i earn, doesnt mean i have to. how many people do you know that give back the excess money they earn  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
3 times a day? Thats one more meal a day than I get and I wotk full time. Maybe I shouldsit at home eating beans instead rather than grafting every day?
I dont get why people are so up in arms? Why should the welfare state pay more? Why? Its not to keep you in tip top luxuy, its to keep you afloat short term until you sort stuff out.
I'm sorry bybut I agree with some of the latter posters on here, whilst there will always be an exception, get up and go and find a job, it wont find you. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *B9 QueenWoman
over a year ago
Over the rainbow, under the bridge |
"3 times a day? Thats one more meal a day than I get and I wotk full time. Maybe I shouldsit at home eating beans instead rather than grafting every day?
I dont get why people are so up in arms? Why should the welfare state pay more? Why? Its not to keep you in tip top luxuy, its to keep you afloat short term until you sort stuff out.
I'm sorry bybut I agree with some of the latter posters on here, whilst there will always be an exception, get up and go and find a job, it wont find you."
And if there are no jobs? If no one will employ you because you are over 50 and just been made redundant after paying into the system for decades? Oh to live in such a simple world.
We keep hearing of companies going bust every week - all those people now in competition for the few, badly paid jobs that there are. If only it were so easy to simply go out and find one.
When my brother was last made redundant he applied for over 300 jobs. He is a qualified engineer, trained in the army, never had claimed a thing. He ended up taking on a round as a milkman as he couldn't bear to be out of work - but the pay was so bad he couldn't afford to live, especially as a single parent. He got nothing from his ex for maintenance of his child and the CSA were useless.
The moment he did get another engineering job the benefits agency tried to get him to pay back some of his paltry benefits as they claimed he had been overpaid! He hadn't been but it didn't stop them trying.
He felt like a criminal. This to a guy who had worked from the age of 16 and spent 8 years in the armed forces. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
And to that one 'innocent' there are thousands upon thousand of numb arsers who sit smoking a tabbin front of a 50" whinging about why no one helps them. Whats the answer then? Give them more money that the nation doesnt have? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"3 times a day? Thats one more meal a day than I get and I wotk full time. Maybe I shouldsit at home eating beans instead rather than grafting every day?
I dont get why people are so up in arms? Why should the welfare state pay more? Why? Its not to keep you in tip top luxuy, its to keep you afloat short term until you sort stuff out.
I'm sorry bybut I agree with some of the latter posters on here, whilst there will always be an exception, get up and go and find a job, it wont find you."
I said 3 times a day because that is what most people (working or not) have. Breakfast. Lunch and dinner. When I worked full time I only ate twice a day but that was my choice not because I couldn't afford it. I'm not on about living in luxury, I agree that things like sky TV and Internet/mobile phone aren't necessities. But food, basic toiletries and cleaning stuff are. And I don't think £28 a week would be enough to cover that even
If you were very frugal. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *B9 QueenWoman
over a year ago
Over the rainbow, under the bridge |
"3 times a day? Thats one more meal a day than I get and I wotk full time. Maybe I shouldsit at home eating beans instead rather than grafting every day?
I dont get why people are so up in arms? Why should the welfare state pay more? Why? Its not to keep you in tip top luxuy, its to keep you afloat short term until you sort stuff out.
I'm sorry bybut I agree with some of the latter posters on here, whilst there will always be an exception, get up and go and find a job, it wont find you.
I said 3 times a day because that is what most people (working or not) have. Breakfast. Lunch and dinner. When I worked full time I only ate twice a day but that was my choice not because I couldn't afford it. I'm not on about living in luxury, I agree that things like sky TV and Internet/mobile phone aren't necessities. But food, basic toiletries and cleaning stuff are. And I don't think £28 a week would be enough to cover that even
If you were very frugal. "
I am a single person - and I just spent over £50 on my shopping for the week - in ALDI! Imagine if I went to Sainsburys every week. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eavenNhellCouple
over a year ago
carrbrook stalybridge |
"If IDS takes up the challenge maybe it could be rolled out across the cabinet.
For instance,Jeremy Hunt could be run over then dropped off at A&E"
he's calling the petition a stunt and refusing to do it claims he's been on the breadline twice before whilst unemployed one wonders if this breadline was at fortnum&masons or harrods ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ilmisseCouple
over a year ago
leicestershire |
"claims he's been on the breadline twice before whilst unemployed one wonders if this breadline was at fortnum&masons or harrods ?"
I really don't understand all the comments of pheasant, fortnam and masons etc etc even if some are in jest. I don't doubt for a second he has had to live on £53 a week at some point in his life. I'm sure we all have, i know i have and less than that.
However he has worked hard in his life to reach the top of hes chosen career so if he lives a luxury lifestyle, or what appears to you as a luxury, then good for him.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"3 times a day? Thats one more meal a day than I get and I wotk full time. Maybe I shouldsit at home eating beans instead rather than grafting every day?
I dont get why people are so up in arms? Why should the welfare state pay more? Why? Its not to keep you in tip top luxuy, its to keep you afloat short term until you sort stuff out.
I'm sorry bybut I agree with some of the latter posters on here, whilst there will always be an exception, get up and go and find a job, it wont find you.
I said 3 times a day because that is what most people (working or not) have. Breakfast. Lunch and dinner. When I worked full time I only ate twice a day but that was my choice not because I couldn't afford it. I'm not on about living in luxury, I agree that things like sky TV and Internet/mobile phone aren't necessities. But food, basic toiletries and cleaning stuff are. And I don't think £28 a week would be enough to cover that even
If you were very frugal.
I am a single person - and I just spent over £50 on my shopping for the week - in ALDI! Imagine if I went to Sainsburys every week."
I don't drive and live in a small town and only have a sainsburies, coop and Marks and Sparks! There's a tiny tesco but only an express you couldn't get your proper shopping there and they don't have a selection.
About ten miles away in the next town there is an Asda and a morrisons but I can't do a big shop and get it home on the bus with a buggy as well. So I'm stuck with sainsburies  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ucky_LadsCouple (MM)
over a year ago
Kidderminster+ surrounding areas. |
"claims he's been on the breadline twice before whilst unemployed one wonders if this breadline was at fortnum&masons or harrods ?
I really don't understand all the comments of pheasant, fortnam and masons etc etc even if some are in jest. I don't doubt for a second he has had to live on £53 a week at some point in his life. I'm sure we all have, i know i have and less than that.
However he has worked hard in his life to reach the top of hes chosen career so if he lives a luxury lifestyle, or what appears to you as a luxury, then good for him. "
but is he not a servant of us the tax payers?,he (and labour MP's too!)live on house of commons subsided food and drink,we pay for that!,one labour mp got carried away(again!,i might add)on the cheap subsidised booze and started a brawl in his work place(the house of commons)a few weeks ago but still kept his job1.
you get d*unk at work and start a brawl and see what happens to you and your job!.
i think that house of commons booze should be priced a hell of lot higher per unit of alcohol to stop the hooligans!,dont you?.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
I am a single person - and I just spent over £50 on my shopping for the week - in ALDI! Imagine if I went to Sainsburys every week.
I don't drive and live in a small town and only have a sainsburies, coop and Marks and Sparks! There's a tiny tesco but only an express you couldn't get your proper shopping there and they don't have a selection.
About ten miles away in the next town there is an Asda and a morrisons but I can't do a big shop and get it home on the bus with a buggy as well. So I'm stuck with sainsburies "
Shop online. All the major stores deliver these days and they'll deliver to you wherever you are (unless you're on a remote island somewhere in which case more fool you for living there). It's not that hard to do. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I've read this thread and the other one and all I can see are people whining and whingeing about 'poor poor me' and 'bad bad govt' and 'rich pigs should pay more!' ..
People should feel ashamed to be living on benefits, not see it as a fundamental right. Working for 30 years doesn't mean you've got 30 years of tax contribs stockpiled, your income tax is used annually for the year you're paying it!
Why should hardworking people pay tax to prop up some lazy fucker who has decided it's a cushy life to sit at home with some made up illness and get everything paid for! When the govt said all disability claimants had to be retested a shocking 800,000 immediately stopped claiming. Another 800,000 were found fit for work. Of the 1.8m original disability claimants only 200,000 were found to genuinely unfit for work. What does that say about Labour shunting people off unemployment benefit and onto disability benefit in order to massage the unemployment figures down!
If you live in a council house you do not own it, it is not yours, and if it is too big for your needs your landlord, ie, me and other taxpayers, have a reasonable right to expect you to move to somewhere more suitable for your needs if there is another family in greater need of the property you currently occupy. If you don't like that then tough, buy the goddam house yourself and commit to a life of mortgage payments to ensure that nobody can force you to move to somewhere you don't want to go. I don't accept that some council tenants (not those genuinely unemployable due to disabilities/illnesses etc) cannot buy their own homes. If you've been in it for 30 years you'll have quite a discount under the right to buy scheme, and the new govt scheme to act as guarantor for mortgages so long as you come up with 5% yourself means you can buy your own house if you're determined enough. People should stop bitching about what the govt aren't doing for you and start making a life for yourselves that YOU control. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Interesting article in The Guardian, backed up with good data too. (hope it's ok to add this link)
http://m.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/02/ten-lies-told-about-welfare |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Interesting article in The Guardian, backed up with good data too. (hope it's ok to add this link)
http://m.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/02/ten-lies-told-about-welfare "
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *B9 QueenWoman
over a year ago
Over the rainbow, under the bridge |
"Interesting article in The Guardian, backed up with good data too. (hope it's ok to add this link)
http://m.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/02/ten-lies-told-about-welfare
"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Interesting article in The Guardian, backed up with good data too. (hope it's ok to add this link)
http://m.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/02/ten-lies-told-about-welfare "
Ah yes, the Guardian, who's readers consist of 80% Labour voters and 20% of people who haven't got a clue what unbiased news is. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Interesting article in The Guardian, backed up with good data too. (hope it's ok to add this link)
http://m.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/02/ten-lies-told-about-welfare
Ah yes, the Guardian, who's readers consist of 80% Labour voters and 20% of people who haven't got a clue what unbiased news is."
Wishy were have you been all day  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Interesting article in The Guardian, backed up with good data too. (hope it's ok to add this link)
http://m.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/02/ten-lies-told-about-welfare
Ah yes, the Guardian, who's readers consist of 80% Labour voters and 20% of people who haven't got a clue what unbiased news is."
There's loads of stats in it wishy. they're either factually correct or they're not. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Interesting article in The Guardian, backed up with good data too. (hope it's ok to add this link)
http://m.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/02/ten-lies-told-about-welfare
Ah yes, the Guardian, who's readers consist of 80% Labour voters and 20% of people who haven't got a clue what unbiased news is.
Wishy were have you been all day "
Driving back from down south after collecting my daughter.
The Guardian article was written by Ricky Tomlinson, that hairy, fat actor from Liverpool. Nuff said. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Interesting article in The Guardian, backed up with good data too. (hope it's ok to add this link)
http://m.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/02/ten-lies-told-about-welfare
Ah yes, the Guardian, who's readers consist of 80% Labour voters and 20% of people who haven't got a clue what unbiased news is.
Wishy were have you been all day
Driving back from down south after collecting my daughter.
The Guardian article was written by Ricky Tomlinson, that hairy, fat actor from Liverpool. Nuff said."
How very dare you! WE have needed you on the front line today |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Interesting article in The Guardian, backed up with good data too. (hope it's ok to add this link)
http://m.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/02/ten-lies-told-about-welfare
Ah yes, the Guardian, who's readers consist of 80% Labour voters and 20% of people who haven't got a clue what unbiased news is.
There's loads of stats in it wishy. they're either factually correct or they're not."
No.4 is wholly incorrect. Army families and foster carers will not be affected by these changes.
No.7 says an 'estimated' 120bn is lost to tax fraud. It's hardly a fact if it's estimated.
No.10 The NHS is NOT being privatised. As much as I would to see the corrupt useless system of healthcare in this country scrapped entirely and rebuilt, I know no govt would dare do it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Interesting article in The Guardian, backed up with good data too. (hope it's ok to add this link)
http://m.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/02/ten-lies-told-about-welfare
Ah yes, the Guardian, who's readers consist of 80% Labour voters and 20% of people who haven't got a clue what unbiased news is.
Wishy were have you been all day
Driving back from down south after collecting my daughter.
The Guardian article was written by Ricky Tomlinson, that hairy, fat actor from Liverpool. Nuff said.
How very dare you! WE have needed you on the front line today "
From what I read there seems to be a lot of support for the govt's attack on benefit scroungers. Genuine cases are not being affected but the idle and the blatant fraudulent are running for cover. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Interesting article in The Guardian, backed up with good data too. (hope it's ok to add this link)
http://m.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/02/ten-lies-told-about-welfare
Ah yes, the Guardian, who's readers consist of 80% Labour voters and 20% of people who haven't got a clue what unbiased news is.
Wishy were have you been all day
Driving back from down south after collecting my daughter.
The Guardian article was written by Ricky Tomlinson, that hairy, fat actor from Liverpool. Nuff said.
How very dare you! WE have needed you on the front line today
From what I read there seems to be a lot of support for the govt's attack on benefit scroungers. Genuine cases are not being affected but the idle and the blatant fraudulent are running for cover."
I'd offer any service to you as phew..common sense and reason have returned! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Interesting article in The Guardian, backed up with good data too. (hope it's ok to add this link)
http://m.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/02/ten-lies-told-about-welfare
Ah yes, the Guardian, who's readers consist of 80% Labour voters and 20% of people who haven't got a clue what unbiased news is.
Wishy were have you been all day
Driving back from down south after collecting my daughter.
The Guardian article was written by Ricky Tomlinson, that hairy, fat actor from Liverpool. Nuff said.
How very dare you! WE have needed you on the front line today
From what I read there seems to be a lot of support for the govt's attack on benefit scroungers. Genuine cases are not being affected but the idle and the blatant fraudulent are running for cover.
I'd offer any service to you as phew..common sense and reason have returned! "
I'll get my thinking cap on as to what service I'd like from you.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Interesting article in The Guardian, backed up with good data too. (hope it's ok to add this link)
http://m.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/02/ten-lies-told-about-welfare
Ah yes, the Guardian, who's readers consist of 80% Labour voters and 20% of people who haven't got a clue what unbiased news is.
Wishy were have you been all day
Driving back from down south after collecting my daughter.
The Guardian article was written by Ricky Tomlinson, that hairy, fat actor from Liverpool. Nuff said.
How very dare you! WE have needed you on the front line today
From what I read there seems to be a lot of support for the govt's attack on benefit scroungers. Genuine cases are not being affected but the idle and the blatant fraudulent are running for cover.
I'd offer any service to you as phew..common sense and reason have returned!
I'll get my thinking cap on as to what service I'd like from you. "
As long as it is taxable  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Interesting article in The Guardian, backed up with good data too. (hope it's ok to add this link)
http://m.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/02/ten-lies-told-about-welfare
Ah yes, the Guardian, who's readers consist of 80% Labour voters and 20% of people who haven't got a clue what unbiased news is.
Wishy were have you been all day
Driving back from down south after collecting my daughter.
The Guardian article was written by Ricky Tomlinson, that hairy, fat actor from Liverpool. Nuff said."
Haha, brilliant, if all else fails we can always bitch
I presume you mean the very successful actor from Liverpool, who I dare say, is fairly well off. One minute you bang on about being successful the next you bitch about it!!! Priceless!!! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Interesting article in The Guardian, backed up with good data too. (hope it's ok to add this link)
http://m.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/02/ten-lies-told-about-welfare
Ah yes, the Guardian, who's readers consist of 80% Labour voters and 20% of people who haven't got a clue what unbiased news is.
Wishy were have you been all day
Driving back from down south after collecting my daughter.
The Guardian article was written by Ricky Tomlinson, that hairy, fat actor from Liverpool. Nuff said.
How very dare you! WE have needed you on the front line today
From what I read there seems to be a lot of support for the govt's attack on benefit scroungers. Genuine cases are not being affected but the idle and the blatant fraudulent are running for cover.
I'd offer any service to you as phew..common sense and reason have returned!
I'll get my thinking cap on as to what service I'd like from you.
As long as it is taxable "
Oh it will be taxing alright! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Interesting article in The Guardian, backed up with good data too. (hope it's ok to add this link)
http://m.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/02/ten-lies-told-about-welfare
Ah yes, the Guardian, who's readers consist of 80% Labour voters and 20% of people who haven't got a clue what unbiased news is.
Wishy were have you been all day
Driving back from down south after collecting my daughter.
The Guardian article was written by Ricky Tomlinson, that hairy, fat actor from Liverpool. Nuff said.
Haha, brilliant, if all else fails we can always bitch
I presume you mean the very successful actor from Liverpool, who I dare say, is fairly well off. One minute you bang on about being successful the next you bitch about it!!! Priceless!!!"
I'm not bitching about it. I'm just stating that he's from Liverpool - a known hotbed of socialist crackpots who have been brainwashed by da, granda, and great granda into waving the red flag.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Interesting article in The Guardian, backed up with good data too. (hope it's ok to add this link)
http://m.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/02/ten-lies-told-about-welfare
Ah yes, the Guardian, who's readers consist of 80% Labour voters and 20% of people who haven't got a clue what unbiased news is.
There's loads of stats in it wishy. they're either factually correct or they're not.
No.4 is wholly incorrect. Army families and foster carers will not be affected by these changes.
No.7 says an 'estimated' 120bn is lost to tax fraud. It's hardly a fact if it's estimated.
No.10 The NHS is NOT being privatised. As much as I would to see the corrupt useless system of healthcare in this country scrapped entirely and rebuilt, I know no govt would dare do it."
You are, yet again, wrong on all 3 points, Army families and foster careers WILL be affected, £120 billion is widely published as a tax avoidance figure so it IS a fact and the NHS is being privatised, private companies are bidding for services-do some reading(not the Daily Fail) before making statements which are wholly incorrect! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Interesting article in The Guardian, backed up with good data too. (hope it's ok to add this link)
http://m.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/02/ten-lies-told-about-welfare
Ah yes, the Guardian, who's readers consist of 80% Labour voters and 20% of people who haven't got a clue what unbiased news is.
Wishy were have you been all day
Driving back from down south after collecting my daughter.
The Guardian article was written by Ricky Tomlinson, that hairy, fat actor from Liverpool. Nuff said.
Haha, brilliant, if all else fails we can always bitch
I presume you mean the very successful actor from Liverpool, who I dare say, is fairly well off. One minute you bang on about being successful the next you bitch about it!!! Priceless!!!
I'm not bitching about it. I'm just stating that he's from Liverpool - a known hotbed of socialist crackpots who have been brainwashed by da, granda, and great granda into waving the red flag.
"
Where does fat & hairy fit into that then? Are you sure it wasn't a bitch? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The majority of people in this country live hand to mouth and can't afford to save and are ill-prepared for times of financial hardship.
Once again, people responsible for making the country tick have no idea of what makes the country tick!
I read somewhere "Put politicians on minimum wage and see how fast things change."
Hmmm... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Interesting article in The Guardian, backed up with good data too. (hope it's ok to add this link)
http://m.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/02/ten-lies-told-about-welfare
Ah yes, the Guardian, who's readers consist of 80% Labour voters and 20% of people who haven't got a clue what unbiased news is.
There's loads of stats in it wishy. they're either factually correct or they're not.
No.4 is wholly incorrect. Army families and foster carers will not be affected by these changes.
No.7 says an 'estimated' 120bn is lost to tax fraud. It's hardly a fact if it's estimated.
No.10 The NHS is NOT being privatised. As much as I would to see the corrupt useless system of healthcare in this country scrapped entirely and rebuilt, I know no govt would dare do it.
You are, yet again, wrong on all 3 points, Army families and foster careers WILL be affected, £120 billion is widely published as a tax avoidance figure so it IS a fact and the NHS is being privatised, private companies are bidding for services-do some reading(not the Daily Fail) before making statements which are wholly incorrect!"
How very droll to use the Daily Mail insult for lack of a cohesive argument. I've never read that rag and never will.
Now, let's see if you can grasp this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21760365 (pssst.. it's an article from March 2013 saying that army families ARE exempt from the under occupancy changes to govt housing, let's see if you can)
The NHS is not being privatised. SOME services are being put out to tender but the day-to-day healthcare aspect of the NHS is NOT being privatised.
As for £120bn as the true tax avoidance figure, how the fuck can they know for certain if it isn't being paid? If people are hiding their cash offshore etc then how can anyone quantify how much cash is being hidden, if the govt knew that they'd know where the fuck it was and go and get some of it.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Interesting article in The Guardian, backed up with good data too. (hope it's ok to add this link)
http://m.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/02/ten-lies-told-about-welfare
Ah yes, the Guardian, who's readers consist of 80% Labour voters and 20% of people who haven't got a clue what unbiased news is.
Wishy were have you been all day
Driving back from down south after collecting my daughter.
The Guardian article was written by Ricky Tomlinson, that hairy, fat actor from Liverpool. Nuff said.
Haha, brilliant, if all else fails we can always bitch
I presume you mean the very successful actor from Liverpool, who I dare say, is fairly well off. One minute you bang on about being successful the next you bitch about it!!! Priceless!!!
I'm not bitching about it. I'm just stating that he's from Liverpool - a known hotbed of socialist crackpots who have been brainwashed by da, granda, and great granda into waving the red flag.
Where does fat & hairy fit into that then? Are you sure it wasn't a bitch?"
It is a FACT to describe a fat and hairy man as a fat and hairy man. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nnyMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
".......... If people are hiding their cash offshore etc then how can anyone quantify how much cash is being hidden, if the govt knew that they'd know where the fuck it was and go and get some of it. "
Not if most of it belonged to their Tory pals. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Interesting article in The Guardian, backed up with good data too. (hope it's ok to add this link)
http://m.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/02/ten-lies-told-about-welfare
Ah yes, the Guardian, who's readers consist of 80% Labour voters and 20% of people who haven't got a clue what unbiased news is.
Wishy were have you been all day
Driving back from down south after collecting my daughter.
The Guardian article was written by Ricky Tomlinson, that hairy, fat actor from Liverpool. Nuff said.
Haha, brilliant, if all else fails we can always bitch
I presume you mean the very successful actor from Liverpool, who I dare say, is fairly well off. One minute you bang on about being successful the next you bitch about it!!! Priceless!!!
I'm not bitching about it. I'm just stating that he's from Liverpool - a known hotbed of socialist crackpots who have been brainwashed by da, granda, and great granda into waving the red flag.
Where does fat & hairy fit into that then? Are you sure it wasn't a bitch?
It is a FACT to describe a fat and hairy man as a fat and hairy man. "
A fat and hairy man that gives an awful lot of money to charities |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
".......... If people are hiding their cash offshore etc then how can anyone quantify how much cash is being hidden, if the govt knew that they'd know where the fuck it was and go and get some of it.
Not if most of it belonged to their Tory pals."
And Richard Branson's Virgin pays every single penny this behemoth of a company is liable for in tax does it?
Sure it does. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Here is a man who claims he can live on £53 a week, does that mean he only eats the nuts and crisps, drinking only at the bar in the house? he does not need a bed for sleep he can do it while earning his £53 PW.
If his statement is true why is he paid so much? he surely does not need it."
Give the government a break! They have done there best to help indeed one elderly lady in London has just had a £5,000,000 per year increase to housing benefit despite having several spare rooms in the publicly owned property. Other claimants in the form of ministers are only allowed to claim £34 for a single breakfast. So give em a break they are suffering too (no bucks fiz with the breakfast). We are all in it together!! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
having seen what ricky wrote in that guardian piece... the one I have the most issue with no.2... where he criticises the 1% increase....
now my arguement would be this... those of us in the public sector have been limited to a maximum of 1% for the last 4 years... some haven't got any rises at all
notice how I said 4 years... that is because it was brought in under the last govt and gordon brown.
inflation in the last 4 years has been, 3%, 4%, 5% and last year 3%....
you'll find that even in the private sector most wage rises haven't been rising as quick as inflation....
so my question would be why should those on benefits be entitled to a rise equal to that of inflation, when most of those who are working don't......
so it is all well an good attack the 1% rise as a cut in real term.... BOTH governments have done that to those in the public sector for the last 4 years... and will continue to do it to april 2016 at least! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
what about those well known sandal wearing pinko lefties at the Institute for Fiscal Studies..
looking at gideons claim that the recent changes have working families better off, their estimate is that since 2010 the same family is about £900 worse off..
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Here is a man who claims he can live on £53 a week, does that mean he only eats the nuts and crisps, drinking only at the bar in the house? he does not need a bed for sleep he can do it while earning his £53 PW.
If his statement is true why is he paid so much? he surely does not need it.
Give the government a break! They have done there best to help indeed one elderly lady in London has just had a £5,000,000 per year increase to housing benefit despite having several spare rooms in the publicly owned property. Other claimants in the form of ministers are only allowed to claim £34 for a single breakfast. So give em a break they are suffering too (no bucks fiz with the breakfast). We are all in it together!!"
From the Official Website of the British Monarchy:
"
Q12. Does The Queen own Buckingham Palace?
A. Occupied Royal Palaces, such as Buckingham Palace, are not the private property of The Queen. They are occupied by the Sovereign and held in trust for future generations.
There are two categories of Royal residences: the occupied Royal Palaces and the unoccupied Royal Palaces.
The former comprises Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, the Palace of Holyroodhouse, St. James’s Palace, Kensington Palace (excluding the State Apartments) and Clarence House, and are used by members of the Royal Family and their Households.
The latter are no longer used as residences by the Sovereign and comprises Hampton Court, the Tower of London, the State Apartments at Kensington Palace, the Banqueting House at Whitehall, and Kew Palace with Queen Charlotte’s Cottage.
Buckingham Palace is not only the London home of The Queen; The Duke of Edinburgh, The Duke of York, The Earl and Countess of Wessex, The Princess Royal and Princess Alexandra also have private offices and apartments located within the Palace.
The Queen privately owns two properties, Balmoral Castle and Sandringham House, which are not publicly funded.
"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Also:
"
Q13. How many rooms does Buckingham Palace have? How big is the garden?
A. Buckingham Palace has 775 rooms. These include 19 State rooms, 52 Royal and guest bedrooms, 188 staff bedrooms, 92 offices and 78 bathrooms.
Buckingham Palace is 108 metres long across the front, 120 metres deep (including the quadrangle) and 24 metres high. The total floor area of the Palace, from basement to roof, covers over 77,000 square metres.
Buckingham Palace's garden covers 40 acres.
"
More of it's bedrooms are allocated to staff than to the royal family. 188 rooms in fact. Let's do some quick maths here;
188 staff x £26,000 (I've used that figure as it's the figure for the benefit cap) = £4,888,000.
There's the £5m rise just in staff wages, and I've just used a £26k figure, it's sure to be a lot more as these are highly trained and qualified staff working there. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Interesting article in The Guardian, backed up with good data too. (hope it's ok to add this link)
http://m.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/02/ten-lies-told-about-welfare
Ah yes, the Guardian, who's readers consist of 80% Labour voters and 20% of people who haven't got a clue what unbiased news is.
There's loads of stats in it wishy. they're either factually correct or they're not.
No.4 is wholly incorrect. Army families and foster carers will not be affected by these changes.
No.7 says an 'estimated' 120bn is lost to tax fraud. It's hardly a fact if it's estimated.
No.10 The NHS is NOT being privatised. As much as I would to see the corrupt useless system of healthcare in this country scrapped entirely and rebuilt, I know no govt would dare do it.
You are, yet again, wrong on all 3 points, Army families and foster careers WILL be affected, £120 billion is widely published as a tax avoidance figure so it IS a fact and the NHS is being privatised, private companies are bidding for services-do some reading(not the Daily Fail) before making statements which are wholly incorrect!
How very droll to use the Daily Mail insult for lack of a cohesive argument. I've never read that rag and never will.
Now, let's see if you can grasp this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21760365 (pssst.. it's an article from March 2013 saying that army families ARE exempt from the under occupancy changes to govt housing, let's see if you can)
The NHS is not being privatised. SOME services are being put out to tender but the day-to-day healthcare aspect of the NHS is NOT being privatised.
As for £120bn as the true tax avoidance figure, how the fuck can they know for certain if it isn't being paid? If people are hiding their cash offshore etc then how can anyone quantify how much cash is being hidden, if the govt knew that they'd know where the fuck it was and go and get some of it. "
Almost as droll as saying the Guardian readers are Labour supporters and people who don't have a clue. and if you don't read the Daily Mail why keep quoting articles that have only been published in said rag? It's also extremely crass to swear in replies too-just shows the level of intelligence-or not!!!
You need to read some facts Wishy, I'll say again, you need to read some facts. It may sink in then.
Nobody said £120 billion was a TRUE figure, can you read? £120 billion IS a widely published estimated figure for tax avoidance. Therefore, it IS a fact.
Parts of the NHS ARE being privatised. Next you 'll be saying that frontline staff aren't being affected?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Wishy, I'll be sure to tell my 53 year old brother - who until two years ago had always been a worker - that he's a lazy fucker. But I'll have to do it quick, as he's only got a matter of weeks to live. You see he was misdiagnosed many years ago with a collapsed lung that has never repaired, he's too weak for an operation. His lung capacity is at last estimate said to be around 8% and deteriorating.
And the 'lazy fucker' has the audacity to sit around all day breathing pure oxygen through a mask. He is also in receipt of benefit. Bloody scrounger.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Also:
Q13. How many rooms does Buckingham Palace have? How big is the garden?
A. Buckingham Palace has 775 rooms. These include 19 State rooms, 52 Royal and guest bedrooms, 188 staff bedrooms, 92 offices and 78 bathrooms.
Buckingham Palace is 108 metres long across the front, 120 metres deep (including the quadrangle) and 24 metres high. The total floor area of the Palace, from basement to roof, covers over 77,000 square metres.
Buckingham Palace's garden covers 40 acres.
More of it's bedrooms are allocated to staff than to the royal family. 188 rooms in fact. Let's do some quick maths here;
188 staff x £26,000 (I've used that figure as it's the figure for the benefit cap) = £4,888,000.
There's the £5m rise just in staff wages, and I've just used a £26k figure, it's sure to be a lot more as these are highly trained and qualified staff working there."
Thanks for the reminder to all benefit claimants not to forget the salary increases for all their domestic staff, just include them on the claim form and the cash will be immediately forthcoming. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
funny enough with regards to the queen and the extra 5 million she is getting (which by the way if you read further under the new formula is actaully 2 years worth of increases in arrears)... because her expenses only actually went up 200K last year, the money is going to be used for building repairs and a wage increase for the staff... who's wages have been frozen for the last 4 years, again brought in under the civil servant wage freezes under labour...
which neatly brings me back to no.2 which was the point I raised... and funny enough everyone seemed to gloss over...
why should people out of work get a larger % increase in benefits, than those of us who do work?... so I am sorry ricky... the 1% is something I agree with... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"well there on about cutting the basic wage now so youe liveing standerds are going down yet again ,,,,, VOTE THEM OUT wile you can still aford to live "
vote them out and replace them with who?? it was brought in under the last labour govt in 2008....... and that is why they are really silent on the issue.... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oodmessMan
over a year ago
yumsville |
"I also read he lives rent free in a £2million pound country house while his salary is £134,565 PA. What a hypocrite.
There is a petition you can sign to get him to put his money where his mouth is - as it were. Might go and look it up and see!
So far the Change.org petition only has 166k signatures.
As I said on the other thread about this, it is possible as long as the cupboard has lots of staples already stored, you don't need shoes, clothes, fuel or transport."
Has over 300,000 now.. Probably more now it was advertised on a guardian article |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"funny enough with regards to the queen and the extra 5 million she is getting (which by the way if you read further under the new formula is actaully 2 years worth of increases in arrears)... because her expenses only actually went up 200K last year, the money is going to be used for building repairs and a wage increase for the staff... who's wages have been frozen for the last 4 years, again brought in under the civil servant wage freezes under labour...
which neatly brings me back to no.2 which was the point I raised... and funny enough everyone seemed to gloss over...
why should people out of work get a larger % increase in benefits, than those of us who do work?... so I am sorry ricky... the 1% is something I agree with..."
Yes I think most people would agree that those who work should be rewarded and not be at a disadvantage to those who do not.
However it does depend on the base income whether a percentage rise is the fairest way to share out what is available. 1% of a cabinet ministers' salary is rather different to 1% of minimum wage earners. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Almost as droll as saying the Guardian readers are Labour supporters and people who don't have a clue. and if you don't read the Daily Mail why keep quoting articles that have only been published in said rag? It's also extremely crass to swear in replies too-just shows the level of intelligence-or not!!!
"
Now I know for certain you're talking absolute shite, for the simple reason that the only place I read the news is on the BBC News website, so claiming that I'm quoting articles that have only been published in the Mail is nothing more than pure fantasy on your part.
~
"
Nobody said £120 billion was a TRUE figure, can you read? £120 billion IS a widely published estimated figure for tax avoidance. Therefore, it IS a fact.
"
~
You claimed it was a FACT, now you're backtracking and saying it's an estimate, or you're twisting it completely and saying it is a fact that there is an estimated £120bn lost to tax fraud. The TRUE FACT is that you don't really have a clue what you're prattling on about.
~
"
Parts of the NHS ARE being privatised. Next you 'll be saying that frontline staff aren't being affected?
"
So only parts of the NHS being privatised now huh? That's not what you claimed in your original post when you said: "The NHS is being privatised".
Reply if you wish, I'll not respond because I think it would be unfair of me to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Wishy, I'll be sure to tell my 53 year old brother - who until two years ago had always been a worker - that he's a lazy fucker. But I'll have to do it quick, as he's only got a matter of weeks to live. You see he was misdiagnosed many years ago with a collapsed lung that has never repaired, he's too weak for an operation. His lung capacity is at last estimate said to be around 8% and deteriorating.
And the 'lazy fucker' has the audacity to sit around all day breathing pure oxygen through a mask. He is also in receipt of benefit. Bloody scrounger.
"
Maybe you should go up and read my post again but take your 'angry' glasses off and read it properly. A terminal illness is hardly a made up one is it, and I did say genuine cases will be unaffected. And rightly so. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nnyMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
"Wishy, I'll be sure to tell my 53 year old brother - who until two years ago had always been a worker - that he's a lazy fucker. But I'll have to do it quick, as he's only got a matter of weeks to live. You see he was misdiagnosed many years ago with a collapsed lung that has never repaired, he's too weak for an operation. His lung capacity is at last estimate said to be around 8% and deteriorating.
And the 'lazy fucker' has the audacity to sit around all day breathing pure oxygen through a mask. He is also in receipt of benefit. Bloody scrounger.
Maybe you should go up and read my post again but take your 'angry' glasses off and read it properly. A terminal illness is hardly a made up one is it, and I did say genuine cases will be unaffected. And rightly so."
Genuine cases ARE being affected because ATOS are paid for those they take off benefits. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oodmessMan
over a year ago
yumsville |
the petition for it to be discussed in the commons is
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/47898
currently at 5000 signitures - the other went viral and is the quickest petition to have received as many signitures as it has |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Wishy, I'll be sure to tell my 53 year old brother - who until two years ago had always been a worker - that he's a lazy fucker. But I'll have to do it quick, as he's only got a matter of weeks to live. You see he was misdiagnosed many years ago with a collapsed lung that has never repaired, he's too weak for an operation. His lung capacity is at last estimate said to be around 8% and deteriorating.
And the 'lazy fucker' has the audacity to sit around all day breathing pure oxygen through a mask. He is also in receipt of benefit. Bloody scrounger.
Maybe you should go up and read my post again but take your 'angry' glasses off and read it properly. A terminal illness is hardly a made up one is it, and I did say genuine cases will be unaffected. And rightly so."
They were not 'angry glasses', rather ones that are sad and weary of the same old rhetoric.
I think it's a given in any case that no one would deny a genuine case, just as no one supports a fraudulent one. You don't have a monopoly on moral outrage. But by opening your comments with 'people should be ashamed to be on benefits' I'm afraid it came across to me and probably others that you were lumping everyone into the same category.
The further we demonise claimants, the more likely it is that those most in need of being taken care of by our welfare system will resist claiming.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Wishy, I'll be sure to tell my 53 year old brother - who until two years ago had always been a worker - that he's a lazy fucker. But I'll have to do it quick, as he's only got a matter of weeks to live. You see he was misdiagnosed many years ago with a collapsed lung that has never repaired, he's too weak for an operation. His lung capacity is at last estimate said to be around 8% and deteriorating.
And the 'lazy fucker' has the audacity to sit around all day breathing pure oxygen through a mask. He is also in receipt of benefit. Bloody scrounger.
Maybe you should go up and read my post again but take your 'angry' glasses off and read it properly. A terminal illness is hardly a made up one is it, and I did say genuine cases will be unaffected. And rightly so.
They were not 'angry glasses', rather ones that are sad and weary of the same old rhetoric.
I think it's a given in any case that no one would deny a genuine case, just as no one supports a fraudulent one. You don't have a monopoly on moral outrage. But by opening your comments with 'people should be ashamed to be on benefits' I'm afraid it came across to me and probably others that you were lumping everyone into the same category.
The further we demonise claimants, the more likely it is that those most in need of being taken care of by our welfare system will resist claiming.
"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Wishy, I'll be sure to tell my 53 year old brother - who until two years ago had always been a worker - that he's a lazy fucker. But I'll have to do it quick, as he's only got a matter of weeks to live. You see he was misdiagnosed many years ago with a collapsed lung that has never repaired, he's too weak for an operation. His lung capacity is at last estimate said to be around 8% and deteriorating.
And the 'lazy fucker' has the audacity to sit around all day breathing pure oxygen through a mask. He is also in receipt of benefit. Bloody scrounger.
Maybe you should go up and read my post again but take your 'angry' glasses off and read it properly. A terminal illness is hardly a made up one is it, and I did say genuine cases will be unaffected. And rightly so.
They were not 'angry glasses', rather ones that are sad and weary of the same old rhetoric.
I think it's a given in any case that no one would deny a genuine case, just as no one supports a fraudulent one. You don't have a monopoly on moral outrage. But by opening your comments with 'people should be ashamed to be on benefits' I'm afraid it came across to me and probably others that you were lumping everyone into the same category.
The further we demonise claimants, the more likely it is that those most in need of being taken care of by our welfare system will resist claiming.
"
Or maybe we should give this new benefit system a chance to out those fakers and career welfare cheats and whilst it's still being trialled the govt can correct any glitches and loopholes so that those in genuine need do not fall through the net.
Nobody can argue that the benefits system is in chaos and needs sorting out but up until now no govt - Labour or Tory - has dared to tackle the problems. Cameron has his critics sure, and that won't change, but I believe this govt are trying to do what he promised in the televised debates and get this country back on it's feet. To do that he has got to get to grips with the colossal amount of waste that been allowed to fester over years and years of inept governments from all sides of the political spectrum who have been pandering to the electorate and buying votes with money WE didn't have. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
ATOS is a fucking JOKE!!!
I accompanied a friend to an interview last year, she had a terminal illness and was questioned by a NURSE. Not an expert in the field of my friends particular illness, but a NURSE!
The questions were an utter joke as well, 'can you stand up for a limited time' 'can you walk 200 yards' 'can you operate a keyboard'!! What the fuck do these questions have to do with dying!!
Needless to say my friend was REFUSED benefits, she appealed and won her appeal because an INDEPENDANT GP (NOT A NURSE) sits at the appeal. Sadly, my friend passed away 2 weeks after winning the appeal, (which she had to wait 8months for). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Wishy, I'll be sure to tell my 53 year old brother - who until two years ago had always been a worker - that he's a lazy fucker. But I'll have to do it quick, as he's only got a matter of weeks to live. You see he was misdiagnosed many years ago with a collapsed lung that has never repaired, he's too weak for an operation. His lung capacity is at last estimate said to be around 8% and deteriorating.
And the 'lazy fucker' has the audacity to sit around all day breathing pure oxygen through a mask. He is also in receipt of benefit. Bloody scrounger.
Maybe you should go up and read my post again but take your 'angry' glasses off and read it properly. A terminal illness is hardly a made up one is it, and I did say genuine cases will be unaffected. And rightly so.
They were not 'angry glasses', rather ones that are sad and weary of the same old rhetoric.
I think it's a given in any case that no one would deny a genuine case, just as no one supports a fraudulent one. You don't have a monopoly on moral outrage. But by opening your comments with 'people should be ashamed to be on benefits' I'm afraid it came across to me and probably others that you were lumping everyone into the same category.
The further we demonise claimants, the more likely it is that those most in need of being taken care of by our welfare system will resist claiming.
Or maybe we should give this new benefit system a chance to out those fakers and career welfare cheats and whilst it's still being trialled the govt can correct any glitches and loopholes so that those in genuine need do not fall through the net.
Nobody can argue that the benefits system is in chaos and needs sorting out but up until now no govt - Labour or Tory - has dared to tackle the problems. Cameron has his critics sure, and that won't change, but I believe this govt are trying to do what he promised in the televised debates and get this country back on it's feet. To do that he has got to get to grips with the colossal amount of waste that been allowed to fester over years and years of inept governments from all sides of the political spectrum who have been pandering to the electorate and buying votes with money WE didn't have."
Less than 1% of the welfare bill is accounted for in fraudulent claims. So your comments regarding fakers and cheats is just more Tory nonsense.
And no, we shouldn't be trialling anything at this stage. If reform is needed, then those reforms need to be thought through and debated in the proper manner, through parliament, not with a suck it and see approach. It's people's lives you are dealing with. Why not focus attention on those that need it most, instead of this constant and disproportionate attack on a tiny minority.
You've failed to win me around I'm afraid.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Is that figure for an able bodied single unemployed person with no kids? Assume its after rent and bills are paid?
I don't think you could live on £53, but you could exist on it yes. Isnt that what the benefit system is for, to tide you over until something better comes up? The expectation is that you move on and get a job etc, not stay on for life. "
plenty of jobs to choose from is there?not round here! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Is that figure for an able bodied single unemployed person with no kids? Assume its after rent and bills are paid?
I don't think you could live on £53, but you could exist on it yes. Isnt that what the benefit system is for, to tide you over until something better comes up? The expectation is that you move on and get a job etc, not stay on for life. "
plenty of jobs to choose from is there?not round here! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Is that figure for an able bodied single unemployed person with no kids? Assume its after rent and bills are paid?
I don't think you could live on £53, but you could exist on it yes. Isnt that what the benefit system is for, to tide you over until something better comes up? The expectation is that you move on and get a job etc, not stay on for life. "
plenty of jobs to choose from is there?not round here! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Is that figure for an able bodied single unemployed person with no kids? Assume its after rent and bills are paid?
I don't think you could live on £53, but you could exist on it yes. Isnt that what the benefit system is for, to tide you over until something better comes up? The expectation is that you move on and get a job etc, not stay on for life. "
plenty of jobs to choose from is there?not round here! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I've read this thread and the other one and all I can see are people whining and whingeing about 'poor poor me' and 'bad bad govt' and 'rich pigs should pay more!' ..
People should feel ashamed to be living on benefits, not see it as a fundamental right. Working for 30 years doesn't mean you've got 30 years of tax contribs stockpiled, your income tax is used annually for the year you're paying it!
Why should hardworking people pay tax to prop up some lazy fucker who has decided it's a cushy life to sit at home with some made up illness and get everything paid for! When the govt said all disability claimants had to be retested a shocking 800,000 immediately stopped claiming. Another 800,000 were found fit for work. Of the 1.8m original disability claimants only 200,000 were found to genuinely unfit for work. What does that say about Labour shunting people off unemployment benefit and onto disability benefit in order to massage the unemployment figures down!
If you live in a council house you do not own it, it is not yours, and if it is too big for your needs your landlord, ie, me and other taxpayers, have a reasonable right to expect you to move to somewhere more suitable for your needs if there is another family in greater need of the property you currently occupy. If you don't like that then tough, buy the goddam house yourself and commit to a life of mortgage payments to ensure that nobody can force you to move to somewhere you don't want to go. I don't accept that some council tenants (not those genuinely unemployable due to disabilities/illnesses etc) cannot buy their own homes. If you've been in it for 30 years you'll have quite a discount under the right to buy scheme, and the new govt scheme to act as guarantor for mortgages so long as you come up with 5% yourself means you can buy your own house if you're determined enough. People should stop bitching about what the govt aren't doing for you and start making a life for yourselves that YOU control. "
Can you explain why folk "should feel ashamed at living on benefits"?? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I had to chuckle when I.D.S said he was unemployed twice and lived on dole money quite comfortably. Considering he had thousands in his bank account to subsidise his benefits! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
this govt is doing a good job of getting their agenda across:-alienate certain groups then the rest of society wont bother to much once they make life pretty unbearable for them! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I had to chuckle when I.D.S said he was unemployed twice and lived on dole money quite comfortably. Considering he had thousands in his bank account to subsidise his benefits!"
If his govt had been in power he wouldn't have been entitled to any dole,well I bet means testing for that isn't too far off |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Wishy, I'll be sure to tell my 53 year old brother - who until two years ago had always been a worker - that he's a lazy fucker. But I'll have to do it quick, as he's only got a matter of weeks to live. You see he was misdiagnosed many years ago with a collapsed lung that has never repaired, he's too weak for an operation. His lung capacity is at last estimate said to be around 8% and deteriorating.
And the 'lazy fucker' has the audacity to sit around all day breathing pure oxygen through a mask. He is also in receipt of benefit. Bloody scrounger.
Maybe you should go up and read my post again but take your 'angry' glasses off and read it properly. A terminal illness is hardly a made up one is it, and I did say genuine cases will be unaffected. And rightly so.
They were not 'angry glasses', rather ones that are sad and weary of the same old rhetoric.
I think it's a given in any case that no one would deny a genuine case, just as no one supports a fraudulent one. You don't have a monopoly on moral outrage. But by opening your comments with 'people should be ashamed to be on benefits' I'm afraid it came across to me and probably others that you were lumping everyone into the same category.
The further we demonise claimants, the more likely it is that those most in need of being taken care of by our welfare system will resist claiming.
Or maybe we should give this new benefit system a chance to out those fakers and career welfare cheats and whilst it's still being trialled the govt can correct any glitches and loopholes so that those in genuine need do not fall through the net.
Nobody can argue that the benefits system is in chaos and needs sorting out but up until now no govt - Labour or Tory - has dared to tackle the problems. Cameron has his critics sure, and that won't change, but I believe this govt are trying to do what he promised in the televised debates and get this country back on it's feet. To do that he has got to get to grips with the colossal amount of waste that been allowed to fester over years and years of inept governments from all sides of the political spectrum who have been pandering to the electorate and buying votes with money WE didn't have.
Less than 1% of the welfare bill is accounted for in fraudulent claims. So your comments regarding fakers and cheats is just more Tory nonsense.
And no, we shouldn't be trialling anything at this stage. If reform is needed, then those reforms need to be thought through and debated in the proper manner, through parliament, not with a suck it and see approach. It's people's lives you are dealing with. Why not focus attention on those that need it most, instead of this constant and disproportionate attack on a tiny minority.
You've failed to win me around I'm afraid.
"
1% you say?
Would that be why 800,000 people immediately dropped their claims for disability benefit the instant they were asked to go for medical tests to prove their claims were valid? Would a further 800,000 people claiming disability benefit also be included in that 1% who were retested and found to be fit for work?
Anyone can quote facts and figures to suit their argument but the cold reality of the state of this country NOW is that we have allowed too many people to linger on state handouts for too long instead of priming the system so that only those genuinely and desperately in need of state assistance should receive it.
The last Labour government opened the floodgates to economic and welfare tourists to come here unchecked because they also carried with them a vote - a Labour vote, and Brown/Blair completely disregarded the enormous strain it put on the NHS, social services, housing, police etc etc etc..
How many people are on long term unemployment benefit because they refused to do jobs they considered beneath them yet foreign workers snapped those jobs up because they were grateful to be here?
How much money has been wasted in the NHS because there has been no central source of procurement for equipment and medicine that every hospital needs to function?
And where exactly does that 1% derive from? Is it from the entire welfare budget including the NHS? Or just a small part of it where it would be far easier to arrive at a 1% figure to bandy around in support of an anti-government attack on policy. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Can you explain why folk "should feel ashamed at living on benefits"??"
It should be inherent in every adult to want to go out to work and provide for their families. It's called living in a community where everyone contributes to it for the greater good of all. Idealistic? Yeah, it probably is, so why should the majority of us who go to work and pay our taxes support those who think it's a far easier life to be had perpetually living off the state?
I'm all in favour of supporting those who cannot work because they are physically or mentally unable to do so, but not those who think having a headache more than twice in a month is reason enough to be signed off sick permanently - only to be then found playing golf thrice weekly. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Can you explain why folk "should feel ashamed at living on benefits"??
It should be inherent in every adult to want to go out to work and provide for their families. It's called living in a community where everyone contributes to it for the greater good of all. Idealistic? Yeah, it probably is, so why should the majority of us who go to work and pay our taxes support those who think it's a far easier life to be had perpetually living off the state?
I'm all in favour of supporting those who cannot work because they are physically or mentally unable to do so, but not those who think having a headache more than twice in a month is reason enough to be signed off sick permanently - only to be then found playing golf thrice weekly. "
Give Tod Lubitch my regards the next time you bump into him! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I'm all in favour of supporting those who cannot work because they are physically or mentally unable to do so, . "
So not all on benefits should be ashamed?who will decide who is and who isn't fit to work?this shows how the unfit are being forced to by untrained staff:-http://www.thisisgrimsby.co.uk/Grimsby-man-told-fit-work-despite-blood-clots/story-15943351-detail/story.html |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Wishy, I'll be sure to tell my 53 year old brother - who until two years ago had always been a worker - that he's a lazy fucker. But I'll have to do it quick, as he's only got a matter of weeks to live. You see he was misdiagnosed many years ago with a collapsed lung that has never repaired, he's too weak for an operation. His lung capacity is at last estimate said to be around 8% and deteriorating.
And the 'lazy fucker' has the audacity to sit around all day breathing pure oxygen through a mask. He is also in receipt of benefit. Bloody scrounger.
Maybe you should go up and read my post again but take your 'angry' glasses off and read it properly. A terminal illness is hardly a made up one is it, and I did say genuine cases will be unaffected. And rightly so.
They were not 'angry glasses', rather ones that are sad and weary of the same old rhetoric.
I think it's a given in any case that no one would deny a genuine case, just as no one supports a fraudulent one. You don't have a monopoly on moral outrage. But by opening your comments with 'people should be ashamed to be on benefits' I'm afraid it came across to me and probably others that you were lumping everyone into the same category.
The further we demonise claimants, the more likely it is that those most in need of being taken care of by our welfare system will resist claiming.
Or maybe we should give this new benefit system a chance to out those fakers and career welfare cheats and whilst it's still being trialled the govt can correct any glitches and loopholes so that those in genuine need do not fall through the net.
Nobody can argue that the benefits system is in chaos and needs sorting out but up until now no govt - Labour or Tory - has dared to tackle the problems. Cameron has his critics sure, and that won't change, but I believe this govt are trying to do what he promised in the televised debates and get this country back on it's feet. To do that he has got to get to grips with the colossal amount of waste that been allowed to fester over years and years of inept governments from all sides of the political spectrum who have been pandering to the electorate and buying votes with money WE didn't have.
Less than 1% of the welfare bill is accounted for in fraudulent claims. So your comments regarding fakers and cheats is just more Tory nonsense.
And no, we shouldn't be trialling anything at this stage. If reform is needed, then those reforms need to be thought through and debated in the proper manner, through parliament, not with a suck it and see approach. It's people's lives you are dealing with. Why not focus attention on those that need it most, instead of this constant and disproportionate attack on a tiny minority.
You've failed to win me around I'm afraid.
1% you say?
Would that be why 800,000 people immediately dropped their claims for disability benefit the instant they were asked to go for medical tests to prove their claims were valid? Would a further 800,000 people claiming disability benefit also be included in that 1% who were retested and found to be fit for work?
Anyone can quote facts and figures to suit their argument but the cold reality of the state of this country NOW is that we have allowed too many people to linger on state handouts for too long instead of priming the system so that only those genuinely and desperately in need of state assistance should receive it.
The last Labour government opened the floodgates to economic and welfare tourists to come here unchecked because they also carried with them a vote - a Labour vote, and Brown/Blair completely disregarded the enormous strain it put on the NHS, social services, housing, police etc etc etc..
How many people are on long term unemployment benefit because they refused to do jobs they considered beneath them yet foreign workers snapped those jobs up because they were grateful to be here?
How much money has been wasted in the NHS because there has been no central source of procurement for equipment and medicine that every hospital needs to function?
And where exactly does that 1% derive from? Is it from the entire welfare budget including the NHS? Or just a small part of it where it would be far easier to arrive at a 1% figure to bandy around in support of an anti-government attack on policy."
I didn't 'bandy' a figure. I am quoting from the DWP's own set of figures. I try and deal with the facts. The 800,000 you mention is also flawed because we don't know of that number just how many were genuine claimants potentially put off by the new system. I know from personal experience, persuading my parents to claim for things they were completely entitled to and in need if was an uphill struggle.
You still continue to paint this picture of Britain riddled with cheats. Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's simply not the case. It's not headline grabbing or exciting, but the boring truth is that most people - either in or out of work - are honest. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
makes me laugh that the very right wing press(well the mail) is even trying to blame the benefits system for the couple burning their house down and killing their children! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I've read this thread and the other one and all I can see are people whining and whingeing about 'poor poor me' and 'bad bad govt' and 'rich pigs should pay more!' ..
People should feel ashamed to be living on benefits, not see it as a fundamental right. Working for 30 years doesn't mean you've got 30 years of tax contribs stockpiled, your income tax is used annually for the year you're paying it!
Why should hardworking people pay tax to prop up some lazy fucker who has decided it's a cushy life to sit at home with some made up illness and get everything paid for! When the govt said all disability claimants had to be retested a shocking 800,000 immediately stopped claiming. Another 800,000 were found fit for work. Of the 1.8m original disability claimants only 200,000 were found to genuinely unfit for work. What does that say about Labour shunting people off unemployment benefit and onto disability benefit in order to massage the unemployment figures down!
If you live in a council house you do not own it, it is not yours, and if it is too big for your needs your landlord, ie, me and other taxpayers, have a reasonable right to expect you to move to somewhere more suitable for your needs if there is another family in greater need of the property you currently occupy. If you don't like that then tough, buy the goddam house yourself and commit to a life of mortgage payments to ensure that nobody can force you to move to somewhere you don't want to go. I don't accept that some council tenants (not those genuinely unemployable due to disabilities/illnesses etc) cannot buy their own homes. If you've been in it for 30 years you'll have quite a discount under the right to buy scheme, and the new govt scheme to act as guarantor for mortgages so long as you come up with 5% yourself means you can buy your own house if you're determined enough. People should stop bitching about what the govt aren't doing for you and start making a life for yourselves that YOU control. "
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
