Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


New Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About time2sleep

  • Rank
    HPC Newbie
  1. There have always been those who take advantage of the system, any system, always will be. So what? Their existence is noted. But it doesn't need to be trumpeted over and over and over and over as it if proved any kind of point about anything else. It is what is is. the fact remains it is still difficult for genuinely disabled people to go through the hoops required for DLA and increasingly PIP claims. Funding is already under attack and the disabled have suffered disproportionatley during the recent recession and "austerity" climate. I'm a tax-payer and I consider the price of a civilised society where disabled people don't have to go begging for a living is well worth paying even if that means a few fraudsters or borderline cases slip through the net. Why does it wind you up so much? Lot of noise and fuss and drama about nothing.
  2. And you have made no point. Coo coo. Why are you strutting?
  3. The vast majority of those claiming disability benefits are genuninely disabled. Do you have any idea how strict the tests are these days? Sure, there may be a few cases which fall into a "grey" area, for example, certain disabilities are socially induced or maintained, perhaps some types of obesity, addiction, perhaps even some mental illnesses. If someone has been given such a shitty ride through life that they've become partly broken by it, my first question would be "where is the help for that person to enable them to participate more fully in society?" We don't even have enough jobs for the able-bodied and mentally well as it is. As for the out-and-out fraudsters, they are a tiny minority. Frankly if a small percentage of fraud is the price to be paid for those who are disabled to get the benefits they're entitled to, then I am willing as a tax-payer to pay that cost. It's the price of a civilised society, because the way that some of you seem to want disabled peopel to be treated is barbaric. The doubts to be cast on their "genuineness", the burden of proof you are asking them to take on to prove that they're not "fake", don't you think thye've got enough on their plate dealing with the frigging illness or disability in the first place? Believe me the tests are already hard, strict, inconvenient, punitive and occasionally humiliating for too many disabled people making benefits claims. And you want to make it harder?
  4. I am an unashamed sock puppet, though I was a regular reader of this forum for years before I saw your sleazy moniker appear. My point about sock puppets was well made. You were accusing anyone who disagreed with you of having mulitple posting identities so you could shrink your opposition into a series of clones of a poster or two whose opinions you find disagreeable. Well, I may be a sock puppet, but I'm not "operated" by any of the other posters on this thread. I've read the posts of those who you were attacking and they all have pretty unique styles and voices. I'd be very surprised indeed if any of them have multiple accounts. Nor do I have multiple accounts. I merely don't give a flying fox about internet identities so I tend to fairly frequently forget the user names and passwords I've used previously. No problem, I'm not idenitified with any of the names I've posted under. But if I create an account I will continue to use it until I forget the details, usually becasue I didn't post for a while. Frankly I don't even have a problem if anyone has a problem with my posting behaviour. There's a lot of value added to discussion forums by recognisable pseudonyms, the regular posters create a genuine community and good on them. But there's room for people just passing through as well, in my opnion, or people coming back with a different name because they lost an older one. If I'm banned for saying so, so be it. My point stands: the posters you attacked and accused of running multiple accounts look like perfectly genuine and unique posters to me and I've read this forum for many years. As for rational debate - the right wing crew that's taken over here lowers the tone to the extent its hardly worth having any more. Rationale debate with borderline idiots is not really possible. They always come away crowing and believing they won the argument. What was the phrase used by the Russians about the Americans: they play chess like a pigeon strutting all over the board shitting on it. and count that a victory. Just as its impossible to beat a pigeon at chess, so too its impossible to enter into rationale debate with a right-winger.
  5. Right, cybernoid, so everyone who disagrees with you is just a sock-puppet? Wow, with your methods we could really reduce the global overpopulation problem, huh? Just stick your fingers in your ears, go "la la la la la la" and anyone dissenting from your viewpoint disappears. No wonder you agree with yourself so much: all the dissenting voices in your head - those with a bit of compassion, perhaps, or some common sense, enlightened self-interest, and so on - just don't get a look in. You're like a man dug into a trench of himself. It's a shame for you.
  6. I'm going to correct myself for using the phrase "unwanted" prgenancy, because its far too black and white, and it doesn't do justice to the complexities of the situation. I'm sure there are lots of pregnancies which are neither simply "wanted" nor "unwanted", especially if unplanned. People are understandably ambivalent about a life-changing situation.
  7. Ireland is a special case in some ways. Termination of pregnancy in Eire is illegal unless it is performed to save the life of the mother. It is also forbidden by the Catholic church, so culturally as well as legally there are a lot of reasosn why an unwanted pregnancy in Ireland is more liekly to go to term. It is not surprising then that the proportion of lone parent families is above the EU average. You link the figures to benefits without thinking about other possible explanations. Correlation does not prove causation, so even if your association between high benefits and high rates of single parenthood was correct it would still not prove that the first causes or even encourages the second. Byron78's posts cast doubt on your assertion in any case, especially his observation about the US situation - it is hardly a country which makes it easy to survive for anyone without work, it is hardly a land where the streets are paved with benefits cheques, yet it has a high rate of single parent families. But... you have almost impenetrable armour against reasoned argument, so I don't expect to make one chink in your prejudice. I guess I've said my piece on this thread.
  8. Wow. You are completely immune to the statistics and determined to stick to your personal anecdotes, aren't you? HALF of single parents had children within marriage. Of the remaining half I don't have a statistic for how many were in stable relationships when the kids were born, but it is definitely more than zero, which indicates that A MAJORITY OF SINGLE PARENTS WERE NOT SINGLE PARENTS WHEN THEY HAD THEIR CHILDREN. 60% of all single parents are in work, rising to 71% when their children are 11-15 years old. No apologies for the caps lock. You seem to require it.
  9. I still don't get this refrain about "career prospects". I had a period of single parenthood, and as you tend to meet people in similar situations as yourself, I got to know other single parents (as well as married parents), mainly through our kids doing activities together. Of the single parents I met, not one of them was given a free house. You could put your name on the waiting list, but contrary to popular opinion, being a single mum or dad doesn't get you a council house. Your kid is going to be grown up before you have half enough points to be a serious applicant. I can accept that maybe it's different in different parts of the country, but for the most part - in the cities where housing is in short supply - being a single parent does not get you a house. From where I was sitting it looked like to get a house you needed to have an alchohol problem at the very least. That didn't make me want to go out and become an alcoholic, nor did it make me things that alcoholics are cunning careerists. If being a single parent is such a great career move, perhaps you have considered getting yourself sprogged up? After all the opportunity is available to anyone with gonads, either sex.
  10. I agree that the statistic is uninformative with respect to the age that people become single parents, but considering that 49% of single parents had their children within marriage, and given statistics on average age at marriage, it seems unlikely that a majority were teenagers. According to ONS stats for 2012, "irths to mothers aged under 25 were most likely to be jointly registered by cohabiting parents", although there are more joint registrants at different addresses or sole registrants in thsi age group. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/vsob1/characteristics-of-Mother-1--england-and-wales/2012/sb-characteristics-of-mother-1--2012.html#tab-Partnership-status-of-parents In other words, the real life picture is a lot more diverse and complicated than your steretypical view would have it. Besides the salient figures from Gingerbread are surely that 60% of single parents are in work, rising to 71% when the children are aged 11-15. Approximately half had children inside marriage, and since 1 in 4 households in the UK is headed by a single parent, they represent a significant section of British families. Also, as I said before, many people pass through a stage of single parenting after relationship break-down, so rather than being a category of persons (or sub-persons in some people's view), "single parents" are just regular people undergoing a particular set of circumstances at a particular life stage. The myth of the career single-parent can be lazily applied to a minority, but as a "career" it really isn't all that well-paid, the holiday allowance is shit and the hours are pretty much 24-7. if you calculated the hourly pay for this "career choice", I can guarantee you it would be significantly less than minimum wage.
  11. Hmmm... it's apparent from your sig that you have a problem with single mums, it seems because you met one who had a nicer house than you. But putting aside anecdote and personal sense of grievance, what do you know about single parents? Since this is a thread about statistics, here are a few about single parent families. Stereotypes are just that. The reality is that half of single parents had their children inside marriage. More than half of them work, Many others, not reflected in the stats, will have had children in a relationship which was stable at the time. Relationships, sadly, break down. Poverty is one stressor that can contribute to marital breakdown, so I reckon that making people even poorer after the breakdown of a relationship is not particularly helpful. Benefits for single parents are far from huge and bringing up children is expensive. You might have in mind a vicious little cartoon of a fag-puffing, booze-marinated fat slag with a cricket team of snotty, half-naked children running feral while she spends the child benefit at the nail salon, bu the reality is completely different. Instead think of a mother or father doing the best they can to make ends meet after the marriage breaks down, perhaps requiring benefits for a period of time while the child or children are very young. Generally the parent returns to work when the kids are in secondary school. Oh, and quite often the or she goes on to make a new stable, lasting relationship with a new partner. Single parenthood is not a category of being, its a set of circumstances that many people find themselves living with for a time, until their circumstances change again.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.