FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Living within your means
Living within your means
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *atEvolutionCouple
over a year ago
atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke |
"Should you have children if you can't afford to care for them?"
You should plan properly before you have them for sure.
But often life changes along the way even if you have planned well.
I was lucky - my parents decided never to have children.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Should you have children if you can't afford to care for them?
You should plan properly before you have them for sure.
But often life changes along the way even if you have planned well.
I was lucky - my parents decided never to have children.
"
Boom boom!  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago
upton wirral |
"Should you have children if you can't afford to care for them?"
No you should only have what you can afford and that includes kids.
I firmly believe in some cases children should be put up for adoption.
Will get a lot of abuse for this I know but kids deserve the best possible so many couples who cannot have kids deserve the chance. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Should you have children if you can't afford to care for them?No you should only have what you can afford and that includes kids.
I firmly believe in some cases children should be put up for adoption.
Will get a lot of abuse for this I know but kids deserve the best possible so many couples who cannot have kids deserve the chance."
Should the Prime Minister be soliciting donations to pay for his childcare then? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago
upton wirral |
To add to above statement my father was a bernardos boy for much of his young life and even today his view is strong with me.He had a terrible time in his young days and and know that every child deserves more than thy get in life. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Should you have children if you can't afford to care for them?No you should only have what you can afford and that includes kids.
I firmly believe in some cases children should be put up for adoption.
Will get a lot of abuse for this I know but kids deserve the best possible so many couples who cannot have kids deserve the chance.
Should the Prime Minister be soliciting donations to pay for his childcare then?"
Yes of course that is fine, it is also fine that he is moaning about not having enough money to send his child to Eton |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Should you have children if you can't afford to care for them?No you should only have what you can afford and that includes kids.
I firmly believe in some cases children should be put up for adoption.
Will get a lot of abuse for this I know but kids deserve the best possible so many couples who cannot have kids deserve the chance.
Should the Prime Minister be soliciting donations to pay for his childcare then?
Yes of course that is fine, it is also fine that he is moaning about not having enough money to send his child to Eton "
you mean dumping his child in Eton that’s all boarding schools are if you don’t want to bring your kids up don’t have them |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Should you have children if you can't afford to care for them?No you should only have what you can afford and that includes kids.
I firmly believe in some cases children should be put up for adoption.
Will get a lot of abuse for this I know but kids deserve the best possible so many couples who cannot have kids deserve the chance.
Should the Prime Minister be soliciting donations to pay for his childcare then?"
To be fair..it has probally cost him a fortune over the years. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Should you have children if you can't afford to care for them?No you should only have what you can afford and that includes kids.
I firmly believe in some cases children should be put up for adoption.
Will get a lot of abuse for this I know but kids deserve the best possible so many couples who cannot have kids deserve the chance.
Should the Prime Minister be soliciting donations to pay for his childcare then?
Yes of course that is fine, it is also fine that he is moaning about not having enough money to send his child to Eton you mean dumping his child in Eton that’s all boarding schools are if you don’t want to bring your kids up don’t have them "
True, it seems popular with the royals and the upper classes though, |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Should you have children if you can't afford to care for them?No you should only have what you can afford and that includes kids.
I firmly believe in some cases children should be put up for adoption.
Will get a lot of abuse for this I know but kids deserve the best possible so many couples who cannot have kids deserve the chance.
Should the Prime Minister be soliciting donations to pay for his childcare then?
Yes of course that is fine, it is also fine that he is moaning about not having enough money to send his child to Eton you mean dumping his child in Eton that’s all boarding schools are if you don’t want to bring your kids up don’t have them
True, it seems popular with the royals and the upper classes though, "
and look what it does to them travel all round the world while there kids are dumped in boarding schools princess Diana comes to mind lol |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Should you have children if you can't afford to care for them?No you should only have what you can afford and that includes kids.
I firmly believe in some cases children should be put up for adoption.
Will get a lot of abuse for this I know but kids deserve the best possible so many couples who cannot have kids deserve the chance.
Should the Prime Minister be soliciting donations to pay for his childcare then?
Yes of course that is fine, it is also fine that he is moaning about not having enough money to send his child to Eton you mean dumping his child in Eton that’s all boarding schools are if you don’t want to bring your kids up don’t have them
True, it seems popular with the royals and the upper classes though, "
Frankie Boyle did a great routine about it |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Should you have children if you can't afford to care for them?No you should only have what you can afford and that includes kids.
I firmly believe in some cases children should be put up for adoption.
Will get a lot of abuse for this I know but kids deserve the best possible so many couples who cannot have kids deserve the chance.
Should the Prime Minister be soliciting donations to pay for his childcare then?
Yes of course that is fine, it is also fine that he is moaning about not having enough money to send his child to Eton you mean dumping his child in Eton that’s all boarding schools are if you don’t want to bring your kids up don’t have them
True, it seems popular with the royals and the upper classes though,
Frankie Boyle did a great routine about it"
I haven’t seen it, I will have to google it |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Should you have children if you can't afford to care for them?No you should only have what you can afford and that includes kids.
I firmly believe in some cases children should be put up for adoption.
Will get a lot of abuse for this I know but kids deserve the best possible so many couples who cannot have kids deserve the chance."
They did with with children from aboriginal families in Australia up to 1970.
Spoiler alert: It wasn't very popular with the families who had their children forcibly removed. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Glad I didn’t fall for the rather obvious trap in the OP.
You’d have to get up a lot earlier in the morning to catch me out chum.  "
But we still don't know your opinion on people paying their own way. What about feeding impoverished kids in the holidays? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Glad I didn’t fall for the rather obvious trap in the OP.
You’d have to get up a lot earlier in the morning to catch me out chum.
But we still don't know your opinion on people paying their own way. What about feeding impoverished kids in the holidays? "
Ah but that wasn’t your OP
You’d have to start another thread for me to give you my wisdom on that |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Should you have children if you can't afford to care for them?"
Are you saying people should have rhe Entire.cost of a childs upbringing before they start having them ?
Or just enough on a month by month year by year existence ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
I think it’s hard to plan caring for children if you don’t know exactly how many you have.
Oh bugger, there’s another one... put another fillet on the barbecue darling..
So nice of those guys at Fortnum agreeing to sponsor our fridge.. How’s the negotiations at Diageo going regarding the drinks cabinet?? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
So if you can afford to have children, then 5 years down the line our personal circumstances take a dramatic turn for the worst, do we put them on Ebay or auction them off to childless rich people? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The only people in my view that qualify for the OP are those already on benefits, no intention of working yet have kid after kid but realistically, how do you do anything about it? we unfortunately can't. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The only people in my view that qualify for the OP are those already on benefits, no intention of working yet have kid after kid but realistically, how do you do anything about it? we unfortunately can't. "
Yet you make assumptions about them? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The only people in my view that qualify for the OP are those already on benefits, no intention of working yet have kid after kid but realistically, how do you do anything about it? we unfortunately can't.
Yet you make assumptions about them?"
These very people exist Lionel |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The only people in my view that qualify for the OP are those already on benefits, no intention of working yet have kid after kid but realistically, how do you do anything about it? we unfortunately can't.
Yet you make assumptions about them?
These very people exist Lionel "
Course they do. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The only people in my view that qualify for the OP are those already on benefits, no intention of working yet have kid after kid but realistically, how do you do anything about it? we unfortunately can't.
Yet you make assumptions about them?
These very people exist Lionel
Course they do."
Have any ideas how we can prevent the next generations from following suit? Or would you prefer to just ignore the fact that it is and has been a huge bone of contention for quite a long time? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The only people in my view that qualify for the OP are those already on benefits, no intention of working yet have kid after kid but realistically, how do you do anything about it? we unfortunately can't.
Yet you make assumptions about them?
These very people exist Lionel
Course they do.
Have any ideas how we can prevent the next generations from following suit? Or would you prefer to just ignore the fact that it is and has been a huge bone of contention for quite a long time?"
The quick simple answer any government could have implemented, not retrospectively, just going forwards, is benefits only for your first two children.
Would have been a big vote winner. Bizarre really. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The only people in my view that qualify for the OP are those already on benefits, no intention of working yet have kid after kid but realistically, how do you do anything about it? we unfortunately can't.
Yet you make assumptions about them?
These very people exist Lionel
Course they do.
Have any ideas how we can prevent the next generations from following suit? Or would you prefer to just ignore the fact that it is and has been a huge bone of contention for quite a long time?
The quick simple answer any government could have implemented, not retrospectively, just going forwards, is benefits only for your first two children.
Would have been a big vote winner. Bizarre really. "
And what happens if you have 3 and struggle to cope? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The only people in my view that qualify for the OP are those already on benefits, no intention of working yet have kid after kid but realistically, how do you do anything about it? we unfortunately can't.
Yet you make assumptions about them?
These very people exist Lionel
Course they do.
Have any ideas how we can prevent the next generations from following suit? Or would you prefer to just ignore the fact that it is and has been a huge bone of contention for quite a long time?
The quick simple answer any government could have implemented, not retrospectively, just going forwards, is benefits only for your first two children.
Would have been a big vote winner. Bizarre really. "
I may be wrong but I think for families with more than 2 children born after 2017 only get benefits for 2 children |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Single mothers next?
Being a single mother is in now way a comparison to families who have never worked and have no intention of doing so.
How many of these people exist?"
I have no idea. I'm not even interested in finding out. Do you know? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Single mothers next?
Being a single mother is in now way a comparison to families who have never worked and have no intention of doing so.
How many of these people exist?
I have no idea. I'm not even interested in finding out. Do you know?"
I'm not the one making sweeping generalisations about them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Single mothers next?
Being a single mother is in now way a comparison to families who have never worked and have no intention of doing so.
How many of these people exist?
I have no idea. I'm not even interested in finding out. Do you know?
I'm not the one making sweeping generalisations about them."
Can you point me to the part where I made a 'sweeping generalisation'. Maybe I just can't read my own words?
Unless of course, you count 'these people exist', in which case you'll be wrong in your interpretation of that phrase. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Single mothers next?
Being a single mother is in now way a comparison to families who have never worked and have no intention of doing so.
How many of these people exist?
I have no idea. I'm not even interested in finding out. Do you know?
I'm not the one making sweeping generalisations about them.
Can you point me to the part where I made a 'sweeping generalisation'. Maybe I just can't read my own words?
Unless of course, you count 'these people exist', in which case you'll be wrong in your interpretation of that phrase."
Families who have never worked and have no intention of doing so is in no way a sweeping generalisation.
I always find it quite amusing the gmnt literally milking billions and people get het up about some couple from stoke with 5 kids milking the system
Priorities eh. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The only people in my view that qualify for the OP are those already on benefits, no intention of working yet have kid after kid but realistically, how do you do anything about it? we unfortunately can't.
Yet you make assumptions about them?
These very people exist Lionel
Course they do.
Have any ideas how we can prevent the next generations from following suit? Or would you prefer to just ignore the fact that it is and has been a huge bone of contention for quite a long time?
The quick simple answer any government could have implemented, not retrospectively, just going forwards, is benefits only for your first two children.
Would have been a big vote winner. Bizarre really.
And what happens if you have 3 and struggle to cope?"
As I said specifically, not retrospective |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Single mothers next?
Being a single mother is in now way a comparison to families who have never worked and have no intention of doing so.
How many of these people exist?
I have no idea. I'm not even interested in finding out. Do you know?
I'm not the one making sweeping generalisations about them.
Can you point me to the part where I made a 'sweeping generalisation'. Maybe I just can't read my own words?
Unless of course, you count 'these people exist', in which case you'll be wrong in your interpretation of that phrase.
Families who have never worked and have no intention of doing so is in no way a sweeping generalisation.
I always find it quite amusing the gmnt literally milking billions and people get het up about some couple from stoke with 5 kids milking the system
Priorities eh."
As I said, they do exist. There's nothing sweeping about it. I speak from first hand experience that the exist |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Single mothers next?
Being a single mother is in now way a comparison to families who have never worked and have no intention of doing so.
How many of these people exist?
I have no idea. I'm not even interested in finding out. Do you know?
I'm not the one making sweeping generalisations about them.
Can you point me to the part where I made a 'sweeping generalisation'. Maybe I just can't read my own words?
Unless of course, you count 'these people exist', in which case you'll be wrong in your interpretation of that phrase.
Families who have never worked and have no intention of doing so is in no way a sweeping generalisation.
I always find it quite amusing the gmnt literally milking billions and people get het up about some couple from stoke with 5 kids milking the system
Priorities eh."
In the scheme of things, compared to the billions wasted every year, I don't think the benefits bill is all that big a deal, no.
What is a big deal is families raising happy productive members of society, because everyone else benefits from having engineers and doctors and school teachers.
Not families with successive generations never having worked. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Single mothers next?
Being a single mother is in now way a comparison to families who have never worked and have no intention of doing so.
How many of these people exist?
I have no idea. I'm not even interested in finding out. Do you know?
I'm not the one making sweeping generalisations about them.
Can you point me to the part where I made a 'sweeping generalisation'. Maybe I just can't read my own words?
Unless of course, you count 'these people exist', in which case you'll be wrong in your interpretation of that phrase.
Families who have never worked and have no intention of doing so is in no way a sweeping generalisation.
I always find it quite amusing the gmnt literally milking billions and people get het up about some couple from stoke with 5 kids milking the system
Priorities eh.
As I said, they do exist. There's nothing sweeping about it. I speak from first hand experience that the exist"
Politicians who earn, what 80k a year, where recently involved in a expenses scandal.
These people exist.
What shall we do about them?
All sorts of people blag the system.. why do we just focus on those at the bottom? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Single mothers next?
Being a single mother is in now way a comparison to families who have never worked and have no intention of doing so.
How many of these people exist?
I have no idea. I'm not even interested in finding out. Do you know?
I'm not the one making sweeping generalisations about them.
Can you point me to the part where I made a 'sweeping generalisation'. Maybe I just can't read my own words?
Unless of course, you count 'these people exist', in which case you'll be wrong in your interpretation of that phrase.
Families who have never worked and have no intention of doing so is in no way a sweeping generalisation.
I always find it quite amusing the gmnt literally milking billions and people get het up about some couple from stoke with 5 kids milking the system
Priorities eh.
As I said, they do exist. There's nothing sweeping about it. I speak from first hand experience that the exist
Politicians who earn, what 80k a year, where recently involved in a expenses scandal.
These people exist.
What shall we do about them?
All sorts of people blag the system.. why do we just focus on those at the bottom?"
Who said that was the only focus?
It's amazing how you want to focus on those at the top but not the bottom too |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Single mothers next?
Being a single mother is in now way a comparison to families who have never worked and have no intention of doing so.
How many of these people exist?
I have no idea. I'm not even interested in finding out. Do you know?
I'm not the one making sweeping generalisations about them.
Can you point me to the part where I made a 'sweeping generalisation'. Maybe I just can't read my own words?
Unless of course, you count 'these people exist', in which case you'll be wrong in your interpretation of that phrase.
Families who have never worked and have no intention of doing so is in no way a sweeping generalisation.
I always find it quite amusing the gmnt literally milking billions and people get het up about some couple from stoke with 5 kids milking the system
Priorities eh.
As I said, they do exist. There's nothing sweeping about it. I speak from first hand experience that the exist
Politicians who earn, what 80k a year, where recently involved in a expenses scandal.
These people exist.
What shall we do about them?
All sorts of people blag the system.. why do we just focus on those at the bottom?
Who said that was the only focus?
It's amazing how you want to focus on those at the top but not the bottom too"
Why is that amazing? Politicians and the media are constantly blaming poor people for causing all kinds of problems. Anything to keep the spotlight off those at the top. It works. Just look at these threads as an example. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Single mothers next?
Being a single mother is in now way a comparison to families who have never worked and have no intention of doing so.
How many of these people exist?
I have no idea. I'm not even interested in finding out. Do you know?
I'm not the one making sweeping generalisations about them.
Can you point me to the part where I made a 'sweeping generalisation'. Maybe I just can't read my own words?
Unless of course, you count 'these people exist', in which case you'll be wrong in your interpretation of that phrase.
Families who have never worked and have no intention of doing so is in no way a sweeping generalisation.
I always find it quite amusing the gmnt literally milking billions and people get het up about some couple from stoke with 5 kids milking the system
Priorities eh.
As I said, they do exist. There's nothing sweeping about it. I speak from first hand experience that the exist
Politicians who earn, what 80k a year, where recently involved in a expenses scandal.
These people exist.
What shall we do about them?
All sorts of people blag the system.. why do we just focus on those at the bottom?
Who said that was the only focus?
It's amazing how you want to focus on those at the top but not the bottom too
Why is that amazing? Politicians and the media are constantly blaming poor people for causing all kinds of problems. Anything to keep the spotlight off those at the top. It works. Just look at these threads as an example."
Maybe I shouldn't be amazed...
Maybe I'm wrong in thinking that if you see corruption, you should say it's corruption. Regardless of whether you're rich or poor |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Single mothers next?
Being a single mother is in now way a comparison to families who have never worked and have no intention of doing so.
How many of these people exist?
I have no idea. I'm not even interested in finding out. Do you know?
I'm not the one making sweeping generalisations about them.
Can you point me to the part where I made a 'sweeping generalisation'. Maybe I just can't read my own words?
Unless of course, you count 'these people exist', in which case you'll be wrong in your interpretation of that phrase.
Families who have never worked and have no intention of doing so is in no way a sweeping generalisation.
I always find it quite amusing the gmnt literally milking billions and people get het up about some couple from stoke with 5 kids milking the system
Priorities eh.
As I said, they do exist. There's nothing sweeping about it. I speak from first hand experience that the exist
Politicians who earn, what 80k a year, where recently involved in a expenses scandal.
These people exist.
What shall we do about them?
All sorts of people blag the system.. why do we just focus on those at the bottom?
Who said that was the only focus?
It's amazing how you want to focus on those at the top but not the bottom too
Why is that amazing? Politicians and the media are constantly blaming poor people for causing all kinds of problems. Anything to keep the spotlight off those at the top. It works. Just look at these threads as an example.
Maybe I shouldn't be amazed...
Maybe I'm wrong in thinking that if you see corruption, you should say it's corruption. Regardless of whether you're rich or poor"
You are welcome to.
But people seem to be fixated with £100 hear and there hustled by someone out of work. Then attack anyone who wants to discuss the £20 billion the Tories gave to their friends, donors and neighbours for some dodgy PPE contracts. As an example.
Some perspective would be good. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Single mothers next?
Being a single mother is in now way a comparison to families who have never worked and have no intention of doing so.
How many of these people exist?
I have no idea. I'm not even interested in finding out. Do you know?
I'm not the one making sweeping generalisations about them.
Can you point me to the part where I made a 'sweeping generalisation'. Maybe I just can't read my own words?
Unless of course, you count 'these people exist', in which case you'll be wrong in your interpretation of that phrase.
Families who have never worked and have no intention of doing so is in no way a sweeping generalisation.
I always find it quite amusing the gmnt literally milking billions and people get het up about some couple from stoke with 5 kids milking the system
Priorities eh.
As I said, they do exist. There's nothing sweeping about it. I speak from first hand experience that the exist
Politicians who earn, what 80k a year, where recently involved in a expenses scandal.
These people exist.
What shall we do about them?
All sorts of people blag the system.. why do we just focus on those at the bottom?
Who said that was the only focus?
It's amazing how you want to focus on those at the top but not the bottom too
Why is that amazing? Politicians and the media are constantly blaming poor people for causing all kinds of problems. Anything to keep the spotlight off those at the top. It works. Just look at these threads as an example.
Maybe I shouldn't be amazed...
Maybe I'm wrong in thinking that if you see corruption, you should say it's corruption. Regardless of whether you're rich or poor
You are welcome to.
But people seem to be fixated with £100 hear and there hustled by someone out of work. Then attack anyone who wants to discuss the £20 billion the Tories gave to their friends, donors and neighbours for some dodgy PPE contracts. As an example.
Some perspective would be good."
We could possibly have some perspective if you didn't make things up.
24 PPE contracts worth 1.6b with known connections s to the conservative party. Anything else is hearsay. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Single mothers next?
Being a single mother is in now way a comparison to families who have never worked and have no intention of doing so.
How many of these people exist?
I have no idea. I'm not even interested in finding out. Do you know?
I'm not the one making sweeping generalisations about them.
Can you point me to the part where I made a 'sweeping generalisation'. Maybe I just can't read my own words?
Unless of course, you count 'these people exist', in which case you'll be wrong in your interpretation of that phrase.
Families who have never worked and have no intention of doing so is in no way a sweeping generalisation.
I always find it quite amusing the gmnt literally milking billions and people get het up about some couple from stoke with 5 kids milking the system
Priorities eh.
As I said, they do exist. There's nothing sweeping about it. I speak from first hand experience that the exist
Politicians who earn, what 80k a year, where recently involved in a expenses scandal.
These people exist.
What shall we do about them?
All sorts of people blag the system.. why do we just focus on those at the bottom?
Who said that was the only focus?
It's amazing how you want to focus on those at the top but not the bottom too"
The entire thread is about people having kids so they dont have to work |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Single mothers next?
Being a single mother is in now way a comparison to families who have never worked and have no intention of doing so.
How many of these people exist?
I have no idea. I'm not even interested in finding out. Do you know?
I'm not the one making sweeping generalisations about them.
Can you point me to the part where I made a 'sweeping generalisation'. Maybe I just can't read my own words?
Unless of course, you count 'these people exist', in which case you'll be wrong in your interpretation of that phrase.
Families who have never worked and have no intention of doing so is in no way a sweeping generalisation.
I always find it quite amusing the gmnt literally milking billions and people get het up about some couple from stoke with 5 kids milking the system
Priorities eh.
As I said, they do exist. There's nothing sweeping about it. I speak from first hand experience that the exist
Politicians who earn, what 80k a year, where recently involved in a expenses scandal.
These people exist.
What shall we do about them?
All sorts of people blag the system.. why do we just focus on those at the bottom?
Who said that was the only focus?
It's amazing how you want to focus on those at the top but not the bottom too
The entire thread is about people having kids so they dont have to work "
No it isn't, but if it was, what has an expenses scandal got to do with it??
Just more of your whataboutery that you accuse everyone else of  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Single mothers next?
Being a single mother is in now way a comparison to families who have never worked and have no intention of doing so.
How many of these people exist?
I have no idea. I'm not even interested in finding out. Do you know?
I'm not the one making sweeping generalisations about them.
Can you point me to the part where I made a 'sweeping generalisation'. Maybe I just can't read my own words?
Unless of course, you count 'these people exist', in which case you'll be wrong in your interpretation of that phrase.
Families who have never worked and have no intention of doing so is in no way a sweeping generalisation.
I always find it quite amusing the gmnt literally milking billions and people get het up about some couple from stoke with 5 kids milking the system
Priorities eh.
As I said, they do exist. There's nothing sweeping about it. I speak from first hand experience that the exist
Politicians who earn, what 80k a year, where recently involved in a expenses scandal.
These people exist.
What shall we do about them?
All sorts of people blag the system.. why do we just focus on those at the bottom?
Who said that was the only focus?
It's amazing how you want to focus on those at the top but not the bottom too
The entire thread is about people having kids so they dont have to work
No it isn't, but if it was, what has an expenses scandal got to do with it??
Just more of your whataboutery that you accuse everyone else of "
You said you dont want to focus on those on the bottom but when a comparison is made ,you whinge about whataboutery.
Epic. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Single mothers next?
Being a single mother is in now way a comparison to families who have never worked and have no intention of doing so.
How many of these people exist?
I have no idea. I'm not even interested in finding out. Do you know?
I'm not the one making sweeping generalisations about them.
Can you point me to the part where I made a 'sweeping generalisation'. Maybe I just can't read my own words?
Unless of course, you count 'these people exist', in which case you'll be wrong in your interpretation of that phrase.
Families who have never worked and have no intention of doing so is in no way a sweeping generalisation.
I always find it quite amusing the gmnt literally milking billions and people get het up about some couple from stoke with 5 kids milking the system
Priorities eh.
As I said, they do exist. There's nothing sweeping about it. I speak from first hand experience that the exist
Politicians who earn, what 80k a year, where recently involved in a expenses scandal.
These people exist.
What shall we do about them?
All sorts of people blag the system.. why do we just focus on those at the bottom?
Who said that was the only focus?
It's amazing how you want to focus on those at the top but not the bottom too
Why is that amazing? Politicians and the media are constantly blaming poor people for causing all kinds of problems. Anything to keep the spotlight off those at the top. It works. Just look at these threads as an example.
Maybe I shouldn't be amazed...
Maybe I'm wrong in thinking that if you see corruption, you should say it's corruption. Regardless of whether you're rich or poor
You are welcome to.
But people seem to be fixated with £100 hear and there hustled by someone out of work. Then attack anyone who wants to discuss the £20 billion the Tories gave to their friends, donors and neighbours for some dodgy PPE contracts. As an example.
Some perspective would be good.
We could possibly have some perspective if you didn't make things up.
24 PPE contracts worth 1.6b with known connections s to the conservative party. Anything else is hearsay."
I can't post links here or I'll get banned.
In any case, if it's only £1.6 billion, is it still appropriate to ignore this and spend all the time blaming poor people? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Single mothers next?
Being a single mother is in now way a comparison to families who have never worked and have no intention of doing so.
How many of these people exist?
I have no idea. I'm not even interested in finding out. Do you know?
I'm not the one making sweeping generalisations about them.
Can you point me to the part where I made a 'sweeping generalisation'. Maybe I just can't read my own words?
Unless of course, you count 'these people exist', in which case you'll be wrong in your interpretation of that phrase.
Families who have never worked and have no intention of doing so is in no way a sweeping generalisation.
I always find it quite amusing the gmnt literally milking billions and people get het up about some couple from stoke with 5 kids milking the system
Priorities eh.
As I said, they do exist. There's nothing sweeping about it. I speak from first hand experience that the exist
Politicians who earn, what 80k a year, where recently involved in a expenses scandal.
These people exist.
What shall we do about them?
All sorts of people blag the system.. why do we just focus on those at the bottom?
Who said that was the only focus?
It's amazing how you want to focus on those at the top but not the bottom too
The entire thread is about people having kids so they dont have to work
No it isn't, but if it was, what has an expenses scandal got to do with it??
Just more of your whataboutery that you accuse everyone else of
You said you dont want to focus on those on the bottom but when a comparison is made ,you whinge about whataboutery.
Epic."
I never once said I don't want to focus on those at the bottom. You made an accusation that we only focus on those at the bottom and used the expenses scandal to prove some point that only exists in your head. I personally don't 'focus' on any of them but this thread is a discussion thread, you know, one where you can give thoughts and opinions related to the topic.
You want to hold those politicians to account but have refused to say anything bad against the ones who are cheating the benefits system.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Single mothers next?
Being a single mother is in now way a comparison to families who have never worked and have no intention of doing so.
How many of these people exist?
I have no idea. I'm not even interested in finding out. Do you know?
I'm not the one making sweeping generalisations about them.
Can you point me to the part where I made a 'sweeping generalisation'. Maybe I just can't read my own words?
Unless of course, you count 'these people exist', in which case you'll be wrong in your interpretation of that phrase.
Families who have never worked and have no intention of doing so is in no way a sweeping generalisation.
I always find it quite amusing the gmnt literally milking billions and people get het up about some couple from stoke with 5 kids milking the system
Priorities eh.
As I said, they do exist. There's nothing sweeping about it. I speak from first hand experience that the exist
Politicians who earn, what 80k a year, where recently involved in a expenses scandal.
These people exist.
What shall we do about them?
All sorts of people blag the system.. why do we just focus on those at the bottom?
Who said that was the only focus?
It's amazing how you want to focus on those at the top but not the bottom too
Why is that amazing? Politicians and the media are constantly blaming poor people for causing all kinds of problems. Anything to keep the spotlight off those at the top. It works. Just look at these threads as an example.
Maybe I shouldn't be amazed...
Maybe I'm wrong in thinking that if you see corruption, you should say it's corruption. Regardless of whether you're rich or poor
You are welcome to.
But people seem to be fixated with £100 hear and there hustled by someone out of work. Then attack anyone who wants to discuss the £20 billion the Tories gave to their friends, donors and neighbours for some dodgy PPE contracts. As an example.
Some perspective would be good.
We could possibly have some perspective if you didn't make things up.
24 PPE contracts worth 1.6b with known connections s to the conservative party. Anything else is hearsay.
I can't post links here or I'll get banned.
In any case, if it's only £1.6 billion, is it still appropriate to ignore this and spend all the time blaming poor people?"
It's absolutely not appropriate to ignore this fact.
No idea who is blaming the poor for the PPE contracts awarded though |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Single mothers next?
Being a single mother is in now way a comparison to families who have never worked and have no intention of doing so.
How many of these people exist?
I have no idea. I'm not even interested in finding out. Do you know?
I'm not the one making sweeping generalisations about them.
Can you point me to the part where I made a 'sweeping generalisation'. Maybe I just can't read my own words?
Unless of course, you count 'these people exist', in which case you'll be wrong in your interpretation of that phrase.
Families who have never worked and have no intention of doing so is in no way a sweeping generalisation.
I always find it quite amusing the gmnt literally milking billions and people get het up about some couple from stoke with 5 kids milking the system
Priorities eh.
As I said, they do exist. There's nothing sweeping about it. I speak from first hand experience that the exist
Politicians who earn, what 80k a year, where recently involved in a expenses scandal.
These people exist.
What shall we do about them?
All sorts of people blag the system.. why do we just focus on those at the bottom?
Who said that was the only focus?
It's amazing how you want to focus on those at the top but not the bottom too
The entire thread is about people having kids so they dont have to work
No it isn't, but if it was, what has an expenses scandal got to do with it??
Just more of your whataboutery that you accuse everyone else of
You said you dont want to focus on those on the bottom but when a comparison is made ,you whinge about whataboutery.
Epic.
I never once said I don't want to focus on those at the bottom. You made an accusation that we only focus on those at the bottom and used the expenses scandal to prove some point that only exists in your head. I personally don't 'focus' on any of them but this thread is a discussion thread, you know, one where you can give thoughts and opinions related to the topic.
You want to hold those politicians to account but have refused to say anything bad against the ones who are cheating the benefits system.
"
I said previously people at all levels of society blag the system in some way.
You argument that we dont just look at those at the bottom is somewhat contradicted in the mountains of right wing hysteria and benefits porn shows on the tele. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Single mothers next?
Being a single mother is in now way a comparison to families who have never worked and have no intention of doing so.
How many of these people exist?
I have no idea. I'm not even interested in finding out. Do you know?
I'm not the one making sweeping generalisations about them.
Can you point me to the part where I made a 'sweeping generalisation'. Maybe I just can't read my own words?
Unless of course, you count 'these people exist', in which case you'll be wrong in your interpretation of that phrase.
Families who have never worked and have no intention of doing so is in no way a sweeping generalisation.
I always find it quite amusing the gmnt literally milking billions and people get het up about some couple from stoke with 5 kids milking the system
Priorities eh.
As I said, they do exist. There's nothing sweeping about it. I speak from first hand experience that the exist
Politicians who earn, what 80k a year, where recently involved in a expenses scandal.
These people exist.
What shall we do about them?
All sorts of people blag the system.. why do we just focus on those at the bottom?
Who said that was the only focus?
It's amazing how you want to focus on those at the top but not the bottom too
Why is that amazing? Politicians and the media are constantly blaming poor people for causing all kinds of problems. Anything to keep the spotlight off those at the top. It works. Just look at these threads as an example.
Maybe I shouldn't be amazed...
Maybe I'm wrong in thinking that if you see corruption, you should say it's corruption. Regardless of whether you're rich or poor
You are welcome to.
But people seem to be fixated with £100 hear and there hustled by someone out of work. Then attack anyone who wants to discuss the £20 billion the Tories gave to their friends, donors and neighbours for some dodgy PPE contracts. As an example.
Some perspective would be good.
We could possibly have some perspective if you didn't make things up.
24 PPE contracts worth 1.6b with known connections s to the conservative party. Anything else is hearsay.
I can't post links here or I'll get banned.
In any case, if it's only £1.6 billion, is it still appropriate to ignore this and spend all the time blaming poor people?
It's absolutely not appropriate to ignore this fact.
No idea who is blaming the poor for the PPE contracts awarded though"
No one is.
I'm using this as an example, barely reported in the prevalent right wing media. Meanwhile there are daily stories demonising poor people for benefit fraud, immigrants coating the tax payer, people struggling to cope with having enough money to feed their families etc.
By all means discuss anything. But poor people are disproportionately blamed for causing problems in the country, meanwhile those at the top with all the power get the attention diverted away from them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Single mothers next?
Being a single mother is in now way a comparison to families who have never worked and have no intention of doing so.
How many of these people exist?
I have no idea. I'm not even interested in finding out. Do you know?
I'm not the one making sweeping generalisations about them.
Can you point me to the part where I made a 'sweeping generalisation'. Maybe I just can't read my own words?
Unless of course, you count 'these people exist', in which case you'll be wrong in your interpretation of that phrase.
Families who have never worked and have no intention of doing so is in no way a sweeping generalisation.
I always find it quite amusing the gmnt literally milking billions and people get het up about some couple from stoke with 5 kids milking the system
Priorities eh.
As I said, they do exist. There's nothing sweeping about it. I speak from first hand experience that the exist
Politicians who earn, what 80k a year, where recently involved in a expenses scandal.
These people exist.
What shall we do about them?
All sorts of people blag the system.. why do we just focus on those at the bottom?
Who said that was the only focus?
It's amazing how you want to focus on those at the top but not the bottom too
Why is that amazing? Politicians and the media are constantly blaming poor people for causing all kinds of problems. Anything to keep the spotlight off those at the top. It works. Just look at these threads as an example.
Maybe I shouldn't be amazed...
Maybe I'm wrong in thinking that if you see corruption, you should say it's corruption. Regardless of whether you're rich or poor
You are welcome to.
But people seem to be fixated with £100 hear and there hustled by someone out of work. Then attack anyone who wants to discuss the £20 billion the Tories gave to their friends, donors and neighbours for some dodgy PPE contracts. As an example.
Some perspective would be good.
We could possibly have some perspective if you didn't make things up.
24 PPE contracts worth 1.6b with known connections s to the conservative party. Anything else is hearsay.
I can't post links here or I'll get banned.
In any case, if it's only £1.6 billion, is it still appropriate to ignore this and spend all the time blaming poor people?
It's absolutely not appropriate to ignore this fact.
No idea who is blaming the poor for the PPE contracts awarded though
No one is.
I'm using this as an example, barely reported in the prevalent right wing media. Meanwhile there are daily stories demonising poor people for benefit fraud, immigrants coating the tax payer, people struggling to cope with having enough money to feed their families etc.
By all means discuss anything. But poor people are disproportionately blamed for causing problems in the country, meanwhile those at the top with all the power get the attention diverted away from them. "
*Costing the tax payer. Although "coating" was pretty funny typo. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Single mothers next?
Being a single mother is in now way a comparison to families who have never worked and have no intention of doing so.
How many of these people exist?
I have no idea. I'm not even interested in finding out. Do you know?
I'm not the one making sweeping generalisations about them.
Can you point me to the part where I made a 'sweeping generalisation'. Maybe I just can't read my own words?
Unless of course, you count 'these people exist', in which case you'll be wrong in your interpretation of that phrase.
Families who have never worked and have no intention of doing so is in no way a sweeping generalisation.
I always find it quite amusing the gmnt literally milking billions and people get het up about some couple from stoke with 5 kids milking the system
Priorities eh.
As I said, they do exist. There's nothing sweeping about it. I speak from first hand experience that the exist
Politicians who earn, what 80k a year, where recently involved in a expenses scandal.
These people exist.
What shall we do about them?
All sorts of people blag the system.. why do we just focus on those at the bottom?
Who said that was the only focus?
It's amazing how you want to focus on those at the top but not the bottom too
The entire thread is about people having kids so they dont have to work
No it isn't, but if it was, what has an expenses scandal got to do with it??
Just more of your whataboutery that you accuse everyone else of
You said you dont want to focus on those on the bottom but when a comparison is made ,you whinge about whataboutery.
Epic.
I never once said I don't want to focus on those at the bottom. You made an accusation that we only focus on those at the bottom and used the expenses scandal to prove some point that only exists in your head. I personally don't 'focus' on any of them but this thread is a discussion thread, you know, one where you can give thoughts and opinions related to the topic.
You want to hold those politicians to account but have refused to say anything bad against the ones who are cheating the benefits system.
I said previously people at all levels of society blag the system in some way.
You argument that we dont just look at those at the bottom is somewhat contradicted in the mountains of right wing hysteria and benefits porn shows on the tele."
It's kinda boring now, you may say 'all levels of society blag the system', I've never once heard you deniunce a 'poor' person for doing so but everyday you spout some shit about rich people.
Why would I care what 'right wing hysteria' is spouted, or for that matter, why would I watch those fucking horrendous TV shows. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Single mothers next?
Being a single mother is in now way a comparison to families who have never worked and have no intention of doing so.
How many of these people exist?
I have no idea. I'm not even interested in finding out. Do you know?
I'm not the one making sweeping generalisations about them.
Can you point me to the part where I made a 'sweeping generalisation'. Maybe I just can't read my own words?
Unless of course, you count 'these people exist', in which case you'll be wrong in your interpretation of that phrase.
Families who have never worked and have no intention of doing so is in no way a sweeping generalisation.
I always find it quite amusing the gmnt literally milking billions and people get het up about some couple from stoke with 5 kids milking the system
Priorities eh.
As I said, they do exist. There's nothing sweeping about it. I speak from first hand experience that the exist
Politicians who earn, what 80k a year, where recently involved in a expenses scandal.
These people exist.
What shall we do about them?
All sorts of people blag the system.. why do we just focus on those at the bottom?
Who said that was the only focus?
It's amazing how you want to focus on those at the top but not the bottom too
Why is that amazing? Politicians and the media are constantly blaming poor people for causing all kinds of problems. Anything to keep the spotlight off those at the top. It works. Just look at these threads as an example.
Maybe I shouldn't be amazed...
Maybe I'm wrong in thinking that if you see corruption, you should say it's corruption. Regardless of whether you're rich or poor
You are welcome to.
But people seem to be fixated with £100 hear and there hustled by someone out of work. Then attack anyone who wants to discuss the £20 billion the Tories gave to their friends, donors and neighbours for some dodgy PPE contracts. As an example.
Some perspective would be good.
We could possibly have some perspective if you didn't make things up.
24 PPE contracts worth 1.6b with known connections s to the conservative party. Anything else is hearsay.
I can't post links here or I'll get banned.
In any case, if it's only £1.6 billion, is it still appropriate to ignore this and spend all the time blaming poor people?
It's absolutely not appropriate to ignore this fact.
No idea who is blaming the poor for the PPE contracts awarded though
No one is.
I'm using this as an example, barely reported in the prevalent right wing media. Meanwhile there are daily stories demonising poor people for benefit fraud, immigrants coating the tax payer, people struggling to cope with having enough money to feed their families etc.
By all means discuss anything. But poor people are disproportionately blamed for causing problems in the country, meanwhile those at the top with all the power get the attention diverted away from them. "
I can't control what the media chooses to report or show us.
But I can choose to take everything they report or show us with a pinch of salt and opt to do my own research if a subject interests me enough.
Honestly, most of them are utterly boring. You can always find 2 sides to every story  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Single mothers next?
Being a single mother is in now way a comparison to families who have never worked and have no intention of doing so.
How many of these people exist?
I have no idea. I'm not even interested in finding out. Do you know?
I'm not the one making sweeping generalisations about them.
Can you point me to the part where I made a 'sweeping generalisation'. Maybe I just can't read my own words?
Unless of course, you count 'these people exist', in which case you'll be wrong in your interpretation of that phrase.
Families who have never worked and have no intention of doing so is in no way a sweeping generalisation.
I always find it quite amusing the gmnt literally milking billions and people get het up about some couple from stoke with 5 kids milking the system
Priorities eh.
As I said, they do exist. There's nothing sweeping about it. I speak from first hand experience that the exist
Politicians who earn, what 80k a year, where recently involved in a expenses scandal.
These people exist.
What shall we do about them?
All sorts of people blag the system.. why do we just focus on those at the bottom?
Who said that was the only focus?
It's amazing how you want to focus on those at the top but not the bottom too
The entire thread is about people having kids so they dont have to work
No it isn't, but if it was, what has an expenses scandal got to do with it??
Just more of your whataboutery that you accuse everyone else of
You said you dont want to focus on those on the bottom but when a comparison is made ,you whinge about whataboutery.
Epic.
I never once said I don't want to focus on those at the bottom. You made an accusation that we only focus on those at the bottom and used the expenses scandal to prove some point that only exists in your head. I personally don't 'focus' on any of them but this thread is a discussion thread, you know, one where you can give thoughts and opinions related to the topic.
You want to hold those politicians to account but have refused to say anything bad against the ones who are cheating the benefits system.
I said previously people at all levels of society blag the system in some way.
You argument that we dont just look at those at the bottom is somewhat contradicted in the mountains of right wing hysteria and benefits porn shows on the tele.
It's kinda boring now, you may say 'all levels of society blag the system', I've never once heard you deniunce a 'poor' person for doing so but everyday you spout some shit about rich people.
Why would I care what 'right wing hysteria' is spouted, or for that matter, why would I watch those fucking horrendous TV shows."
A saw a kid rob a packet of chewies from the asda once.
Shocking it was. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Single mothers next?
Being a single mother is in now way a comparison to families who have never worked and have no intention of doing so.
How many of these people exist?
I have no idea. I'm not even interested in finding out. Do you know?
I'm not the one making sweeping generalisations about them.
Can you point me to the part where I made a 'sweeping generalisation'. Maybe I just can't read my own words?
Unless of course, you count 'these people exist', in which case you'll be wrong in your interpretation of that phrase.
Families who have never worked and have no intention of doing so is in no way a sweeping generalisation.
I always find it quite amusing the gmnt literally milking billions and people get het up about some couple from stoke with 5 kids milking the system
Priorities eh.
As I said, they do exist. There's nothing sweeping about it. I speak from first hand experience that the exist
Politicians who earn, what 80k a year, where recently involved in a expenses scandal.
These people exist.
What shall we do about them?
All sorts of people blag the system.. why do we just focus on those at the bottom?
Who said that was the only focus?
It's amazing how you want to focus on those at the top but not the bottom too
Why is that amazing? Politicians and the media are constantly blaming poor people for causing all kinds of problems. Anything to keep the spotlight off those at the top. It works. Just look at these threads as an example.
Maybe I shouldn't be amazed...
Maybe I'm wrong in thinking that if you see corruption, you should say it's corruption. Regardless of whether you're rich or poor
You are welcome to.
But people seem to be fixated with £100 hear and there hustled by someone out of work. Then attack anyone who wants to discuss the £20 billion the Tories gave to their friends, donors and neighbours for some dodgy PPE contracts. As an example.
Some perspective would be good.
We could possibly have some perspective if you didn't make things up.
24 PPE contracts worth 1.6b with known connections s to the conservative party. Anything else is hearsay.
I can't post links here or I'll get banned.
In any case, if it's only £1.6 billion, is it still appropriate to ignore this and spend all the time blaming poor people?
It's absolutely not appropriate to ignore this fact.
No idea who is blaming the poor for the PPE contracts awarded though
No one is.
I'm using this as an example, barely reported in the prevalent right wing media. Meanwhile there are daily stories demonising poor people for benefit fraud, immigrants coating the tax payer, people struggling to cope with having enough money to feed their families etc.
By all means discuss anything. But poor people are disproportionately blamed for causing problems in the country, meanwhile those at the top with all the power get the attention diverted away from them.
I can't control what the media chooses to report or show us.
But I can choose to take everything they report or show us with a pinch of salt and opt to do my own research if a subject interests me enough.
Honestly, most of them are utterly boring. You can always find 2 sides to every story "
Indeed.
And if a poor person is conducting let's say £100 or £1000 worth of fraud. And the government are at say your low estimate of £1.6 billion.
You can see why some people feel like the conversation is pulled away from the larger issue, and onto a convenient scapegoat.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Single mothers next?
Being a single mother is in now way a comparison to families who have never worked and have no intention of doing so.
How many of these people exist?
I have no idea. I'm not even interested in finding out. Do you know?
I'm not the one making sweeping generalisations about them.
Can you point me to the part where I made a 'sweeping generalisation'. Maybe I just can't read my own words?
Unless of course, you count 'these people exist', in which case you'll be wrong in your interpretation of that phrase.
Families who have never worked and have no intention of doing so is in no way a sweeping generalisation.
I always find it quite amusing the gmnt literally milking billions and people get het up about some couple from stoke with 5 kids milking the system
Priorities eh.
As I said, they do exist. There's nothing sweeping about it. I speak from first hand experience that the exist
Politicians who earn, what 80k a year, where recently involved in a expenses scandal.
These people exist.
What shall we do about them?
All sorts of people blag the system.. why do we just focus on those at the bottom?
Who said that was the only focus?
It's amazing how you want to focus on those at the top but not the bottom too
Why is that amazing? Politicians and the media are constantly blaming poor people for causing all kinds of problems. Anything to keep the spotlight off those at the top. It works. Just look at these threads as an example.
Maybe I shouldn't be amazed...
Maybe I'm wrong in thinking that if you see corruption, you should say it's corruption. Regardless of whether you're rich or poor
You are welcome to.
But people seem to be fixated with £100 hear and there hustled by someone out of work. Then attack anyone who wants to discuss the £20 billion the Tories gave to their friends, donors and neighbours for some dodgy PPE contracts. As an example.
Some perspective would be good.
We could possibly have some perspective if you didn't make things up.
24 PPE contracts worth 1.6b with known connections s to the conservative party. Anything else is hearsay.
I can't post links here or I'll get banned.
In any case, if it's only £1.6 billion, is it still appropriate to ignore this and spend all the time blaming poor people?
It's absolutely not appropriate to ignore this fact.
No idea who is blaming the poor for the PPE contracts awarded though
No one is.
I'm using this as an example, barely reported in the prevalent right wing media. Meanwhile there are daily stories demonising poor people for benefit fraud, immigrants coating the tax payer, people struggling to cope with having enough money to feed their families etc.
By all means discuss anything. But poor people are disproportionately blamed for causing problems in the country, meanwhile those at the top with all the power get the attention diverted away from them.
I can't control what the media chooses to report or show us.
But I can choose to take everything they report or show us with a pinch of salt and opt to do my own research if a subject interests me enough.
Honestly, most of them are utterly boring. You can always find 2 sides to every story
Indeed.
And if a poor person is conducting let's say £100 or £1000 worth of fraud. And the government are at say your low estimate of £1.6 billion.
You can see why some people feel like the conversation is pulled away from the larger issue, and onto a convenient scapegoat.
"
I can see the argument.
TBH, this has turned out exactly how I thought it would. How dare we say anything against the poor when the rich are doing worse. Does that make it ok? I don't think it does |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Single mothers next?
Being a single mother is in now way a comparison to families who have never worked and have no intention of doing so.
How many of these people exist?
I have no idea. I'm not even interested in finding out. Do you know?
I'm not the one making sweeping generalisations about them.
Can you point me to the part where I made a 'sweeping generalisation'. Maybe I just can't read my own words?
Unless of course, you count 'these people exist', in which case you'll be wrong in your interpretation of that phrase.
Families who have never worked and have no intention of doing so is in no way a sweeping generalisation.
I always find it quite amusing the gmnt literally milking billions and people get het up about some couple from stoke with 5 kids milking the system
Priorities eh.
As I said, they do exist. There's nothing sweeping about it. I speak from first hand experience that the exist
Politicians who earn, what 80k a year, where recently involved in a expenses scandal.
These people exist.
What shall we do about them?
All sorts of people blag the system.. why do we just focus on those at the bottom?
Who said that was the only focus?
It's amazing how you want to focus on those at the top but not the bottom too
Why is that amazing? Politicians and the media are constantly blaming poor people for causing all kinds of problems. Anything to keep the spotlight off those at the top. It works. Just look at these threads as an example.
Maybe I shouldn't be amazed...
Maybe I'm wrong in thinking that if you see corruption, you should say it's corruption. Regardless of whether you're rich or poor
You are welcome to.
But people seem to be fixated with £100 hear and there hustled by someone out of work. Then attack anyone who wants to discuss the £20 billion the Tories gave to their friends, donors and neighbours for some dodgy PPE contracts. As an example.
Some perspective would be good.
We could possibly have some perspective if you didn't make things up.
24 PPE contracts worth 1.6b with known connections s to the conservative party. Anything else is hearsay.
I can't post links here or I'll get banned.
In any case, if it's only £1.6 billion, is it still appropriate to ignore this and spend all the time blaming poor people?
It's absolutely not appropriate to ignore this fact.
No idea who is blaming the poor for the PPE contracts awarded though
No one is.
I'm using this as an example, barely reported in the prevalent right wing media. Meanwhile there are daily stories demonising poor people for benefit fraud, immigrants coating the tax payer, people struggling to cope with having enough money to feed their families etc.
By all means discuss anything. But poor people are disproportionately blamed for causing problems in the country, meanwhile those at the top with all the power get the attention diverted away from them.
I can't control what the media chooses to report or show us.
But I can choose to take everything they report or show us with a pinch of salt and opt to do my own research if a subject interests me enough.
Honestly, most of them are utterly boring. You can always find 2 sides to every story
Indeed.
And if a poor person is conducting let's say £100 or £1000 worth of fraud. And the government are at say your low estimate of £1.6 billion.
You can see why some people feel like the conversation is pulled away from the larger issue, and onto a convenient scapegoat.
I can see the argument.
TBH, this has turned out exactly how I thought it would. How dare we say anything against the poor when the rich are doing worse. Does that make it ok? I don't think it does"
No, it doesn't make it okay at all. But some perspective is good.
Also plenty of poor people are prosecuted and brought to justice for their crimes of fraud....... You know the rest.... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Sutely the whole.. I'll knock out kids and live off benefits my entire life plan is slightly flawed as you dont see to many 50 year olds knocking out kids?"
Boris is 56. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Single mothers next?
Being a single mother is in now way a comparison to families who have never worked and have no intention of doing so.
How many of these people exist?
I have no idea. I'm not even interested in finding out. Do you know?
I'm not the one making sweeping generalisations about them.
Can you point me to the part where I made a 'sweeping generalisation'. Maybe I just can't read my own words?
Unless of course, you count 'these people exist', in which case you'll be wrong in your interpretation of that phrase.
Families who have never worked and have no intention of doing so is in no way a sweeping generalisation.
I always find it quite amusing the gmnt literally milking billions and people get het up about some couple from stoke with 5 kids milking the system
Priorities eh.
As I said, they do exist. There's nothing sweeping about it. I speak from first hand experience that the exist
Politicians who earn, what 80k a year, where recently involved in a expenses scandal.
These people exist.
What shall we do about them?
All sorts of people blag the system.. why do we just focus on those at the bottom?
Who said that was the only focus?
It's amazing how you want to focus on those at the top but not the bottom too
Why is that amazing? Politicians and the media are constantly blaming poor people for causing all kinds of problems. Anything to keep the spotlight off those at the top. It works. Just look at these threads as an example.
Maybe I shouldn't be amazed...
Maybe I'm wrong in thinking that if you see corruption, you should say it's corruption. Regardless of whether you're rich or poor
You are welcome to.
But people seem to be fixated with £100 hear and there hustled by someone out of work. Then attack anyone who wants to discuss the £20 billion the Tories gave to their friends, donors and neighbours for some dodgy PPE contracts. As an example.
Some perspective would be good.
We could possibly have some perspective if you didn't make things up.
24 PPE contracts worth 1.6b with known connections s to the conservative party. Anything else is hearsay.
I can't post links here or I'll get banned.
In any case, if it's only £1.6 billion, is it still appropriate to ignore this and spend all the time blaming poor people?
It's absolutely not appropriate to ignore this fact.
No idea who is blaming the poor for the PPE contracts awarded though
No one is.
I'm using this as an example, barely reported in the prevalent right wing media. Meanwhile there are daily stories demonising poor people for benefit fraud, immigrants coating the tax payer, people struggling to cope with having enough money to feed their families etc.
By all means discuss anything. But poor people are disproportionately blamed for causing problems in the country, meanwhile those at the top with all the power get the attention diverted away from them.
I can't control what the media chooses to report or show us.
But I can choose to take everything they report or show us with a pinch of salt and opt to do my own research if a subject interests me enough.
Honestly, most of them are utterly boring. You can always find 2 sides to every story
Indeed.
And if a poor person is conducting let's say £100 or £1000 worth of fraud. And the government are at say your low estimate of £1.6 billion.
You can see why some people feel like the conversation is pulled away from the larger issue, and onto a convenient scapegoat.
I can see the argument.
TBH, this has turned out exactly how I thought it would. How dare we say anything against the poor when the rich are doing worse. Does that make it ok? I don't think it does
No, it doesn't make it okay at all. But some perspective is good.
Also plenty of poor people are prosecuted and brought to justice for their crimes of fraud....... You know the rest...."
Are rich people never prosecuted and brought to justice for fraud?
Politicians are in a different league ill agree but surely rich people are prosecuted too? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Single mothers next?
Being a single mother is in now way a comparison to families who have never worked and have no intention of doing so.
How many of these people exist?
I have no idea. I'm not even interested in finding out. Do you know?
I'm not the one making sweeping generalisations about them.
Can you point me to the part where I made a 'sweeping generalisation'. Maybe I just can't read my own words?
Unless of course, you count 'these people exist', in which case you'll be wrong in your interpretation of that phrase.
Families who have never worked and have no intention of doing so is in no way a sweeping generalisation.
I always find it quite amusing the gmnt literally milking billions and people get het up about some couple from stoke with 5 kids milking the system
Priorities eh.
As I said, they do exist. There's nothing sweeping about it. I speak from first hand experience that the exist
Politicians who earn, what 80k a year, where recently involved in a expenses scandal.
These people exist.
What shall we do about them?
All sorts of people blag the system.. why do we just focus on those at the bottom?
Who said that was the only focus?
It's amazing how you want to focus on those at the top but not the bottom too
Why is that amazing? Politicians and the media are constantly blaming poor people for causing all kinds of problems. Anything to keep the spotlight off those at the top. It works. Just look at these threads as an example.
Maybe I shouldn't be amazed...
Maybe I'm wrong in thinking that if you see corruption, you should say it's corruption. Regardless of whether you're rich or poor
You are welcome to.
But people seem to be fixated with £100 hear and there hustled by someone out of work. Then attack anyone who wants to discuss the £20 billion the Tories gave to their friends, donors and neighbours for some dodgy PPE contracts. As an example.
Some perspective would be good.
We could possibly have some perspective if you didn't make things up.
24 PPE contracts worth 1.6b with known connections s to the conservative party. Anything else is hearsay.
I can't post links here or I'll get banned.
In any case, if it's only £1.6 billion, is it still appropriate to ignore this and spend all the time blaming poor people?
It's absolutely not appropriate to ignore this fact.
No idea who is blaming the poor for the PPE contracts awarded though
No one is.
I'm using this as an example, barely reported in the prevalent right wing media. Meanwhile there are daily stories demonising poor people for benefit fraud, immigrants coating the tax payer, people struggling to cope with having enough money to feed their families etc.
By all means discuss anything. But poor people are disproportionately blamed for causing problems in the country, meanwhile those at the top with all the power get the attention diverted away from them.
I can't control what the media chooses to report or show us.
But I can choose to take everything they report or show us with a pinch of salt and opt to do my own research if a subject interests me enough.
Honestly, most of them are utterly boring. You can always find 2 sides to every story
Indeed.
And if a poor person is conducting let's say £100 or £1000 worth of fraud. And the government are at say your low estimate of £1.6 billion.
You can see why some people feel like the conversation is pulled away from the larger issue, and onto a convenient scapegoat.
I can see the argument.
TBH, this has turned out exactly how I thought it would. How dare we say anything against the poor when the rich are doing worse. Does that make it ok? I don't think it does
No, it doesn't make it okay at all. But some perspective is good.
Also plenty of poor people are prosecuted and brought to justice for their crimes of fraud....... You know the rest....
Are rich people never prosecuted and brought to justice for fraud?
Politicians are in a different league ill agree but surely rich people are prosecuted too?"
I would suggest not, either because they can afford expensive legal teams, because they find loop holes (off shore tax havens etc), or because the media effectively shifts attention and scrutiny away from them.
Obviously some rich people are prosecuted, but the decks are stacked in their favour.
And obviously I don't have any stats to hand to back this up, so who really knows. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *andy 1Couple
over a year ago
northeast |
"Single mothers next?
Being a single mother is in now way a comparison to families who have never worked and have no intention of doing so.
How many of these people exist?
I have no idea. I'm not even interested in finding out. Do you know?
I'm not the one making sweeping generalisations about them.
Can you point me to the part where I made a 'sweeping generalisation'. Maybe I just can't read my own words?
Unless of course, you count 'these people exist', in which case you'll be wrong in your interpretation of that phrase.
Families who have never worked and have no intention of doing so is in no way a sweeping generalisation.
I always find it quite amusing the gmnt literally milking billions and people get het up about some couple from stoke with 5 kids milking the system
Priorities eh.
As I said, they do exist. There's nothing sweeping about it. I speak from first hand experience that the exist
Politicians who earn, what 80k a year, where recently involved in a expenses scandal.
These people exist.
What shall we do about them?
All sorts of people blag the system.. why do we just focus on those at the bottom?
Who said that was the only focus?
It's amazing how you want to focus on those at the top but not the bottom too
The entire thread is about people having kids so they dont have to work
No it isn't, but if it was, what has an expenses scandal got to do with it??
Just more of your whataboutery that you accuse everyone else of "
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"Should you have children if you can't afford to care for them?"
What if you could afford to have them when you had them… but real life happens…and thing get tight or really tough!
It’s too simple a question because as much as I would like life to be sweetness and light… it isn’t necessarily like that |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Should you have children if you can't afford to care for them?"
Depends on what you mean. Time or Money?
I understand that money is important to many by looking at opinions here but if you don't have the time, that could also have a negative effect.
The expense of children is relative to what you think they should have growing up. They should have the basics and everything else is a blessing. As someone mentioned here, love and care is as key as everything else. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
". . . love and care is as key as everything else.
Sorry. Don't really want to get into this only to point out that if you don't feed them they tend to die lol. "
I did mention the basics.
Also, to care is to look after them which covers feeding, no?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *atEvolutionCouple
over a year ago
atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke |
". . . love and care is as key as everything else.
Sorry. Don't really want to get into this only to point out that if you don't feed them they tend to die lol.
I did mention the basics.
Also, to care is to look after them which covers feeding, no?
"
Ah. My bad. As you were lol.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
". . . love and care is as key as everything else.
Sorry. Don't really want to get into this only to point out that if you don't feed them they tend to die lol.
I did mention the basics.
Also, to care is to look after them which covers feeding, no?
Ah. My bad. As you were lol. "
It's all good. 
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
Looking at Boris’ income shows you the quality and stupidity of our PM
He can earn so much money and be skint because he has no concept of being responsible for his own finances. It’s insulting to less privileged hard working people that this arse is our PM.
From marrying a rich heiress to acquire his first apartment to his unknown number of children the man is a joke who’s had a charmed existence and no understanding of people’s struggles.
From the standard
A single speaking engagement in Delhi earned him a fee of £122,899 from media firm India Today which also paid for flights and accommodation. He pocketed £94,507 from GoldenTree Asset Management for flying to the United States. A speech in Dublin earned him another £51,250.
Altogether Mr Johnson made £450,475 from nine paid speaking engagements. The former journalist also cashed in on the demand from people to read his views as speculation mounted that he might succeed Mrs May.
He made £295,790 from columns and articles. His weekly piece for the Telegraph took him 10 hours a month to write and netted £22,916 each month — a rate of £2,291 an hour. All of Mr Johnson’s extra-parliamentary earnings were declared in the register of members’ financial interests. But senior Tories think the sudden bulge in his income left him having to shoulder a big tax demand the following year.
“Boris is famously chaotic with money — it is not hard to imagine him spending the money and then finding out he owes an absolute fortune in income tax to the Treasury,” said a Tory grandee.
“It would certainly explain why within months of arriving at Downing Street he is said to have been complaining that he could not afford to live on a PM’s salary and started asking donors to pay for the redecoration of his flat.”
How many hard up people can get sponsors? Or a loan for favours by any other name!!
Two tax experts told the Standard that Mr Johnson would have been liable for a total of more than £350,000 — which is more than twice the £157,372 salary that Mr Johnson receives as PM. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
