Guest pioneer31 Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 Well if you read the story you would be able to determine that it is hysterical nonsense. It plainly states that those not able to work and lone parents are included in these figures forget the article the DSS bill is £160 Billion. Now, chew on that......or are you one of the people that we're discussing? No it isn't - didn't study history either? Oh, Jews weren't lumped under one label were they not? Which school did you go to? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pioneer31 Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 Ah, I see - some other figures that you have heard recently. Don't bother looking will you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
interestrateripoff Posted August 26, 2009 Author Share Posted August 26, 2009 Its always Thatchers fault - from ZanuLabour excuse book 101. If guilty -> blame Thatcher.The fact that under Labour the job centre would recommend that you signed on for Incapacity just to get you off the unemployed register had nowt to do with it. Deluded idiot. I think you'll find that was Thatcher who started the game of hiding the unemployed from the stats, a game continued by Labour despite the rhetoric. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest_FaFa!_* Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 Yep - but once you take away all their benefit they are not going to be able to afford to raise their children.You can then have the pleasure of taking their children from them - I'm sure the tears of the 'benefit scum' would bring a smile to your face Any changes to the benefits system would have to be for new claimants, rather than old. So people would be told from now on you don' t get money for kids. It shouldn't be backdated. Single parents I think would be a different issue, before you bring it up. Clearly the system doesn't work currently and needs reform. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pioneer31 Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 Why not a carrot rather than a stick? Oh, go on I'd love to hear your ideas....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckmojo Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 Telegraph article - Same subject Households with nobody working up to 3.3millionThe number of households with no one over the age of 16 working has increased by 240,000 over the past year to 3.3 million, official figures from the Office for National Statistics showed. Published: 9:46AM BST 26 Aug 2009 The ONS also reported that the number of working-age people in so-called workless households jumped by 500,000 to 4.8 million in the year to June. The workless household rate increased by 1.1 per cent to 16.9 per cent, the highest since 1999 and the biggest year-on-year increase since Labour came to power in 1997. Related Articles Two million people have never worked, Tories reveal The number of households with someone in work fell by 410,000 to 10.7 million, the figures revealed. The workless household rate was highest for lone parents at 40.4 per cent, followed by one-person households at 30.1 per cent, with the worst figures recorded in the North East at 23.2 per cent. The lowest rate was in the East of England at 12.2 per cent. Figures showed that the biggest fall in the employment rate over the past year was for married fathers, down 2.1 per cent to 88.8 per cent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
symo Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 Could they not be paid to sort through the rubbish reclaiming valuable metals from old electrical equipment, PCs, mobile phones etc? Just a thought Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pioneer31 Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 Very rich bankers The collapse of the banking system would cause untold damage (even though I don't like them either) Reducing benefits for the workshy will do no damage, except upset the little blighters and reduce the balance sheet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichB Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 The 5 million figure is nonsense.It includes people who are not able to work for one thing, it also includes lone parents - you going to force these people into work? I believe that was the Labour plan, yes. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6312127.stm "The rules on lone parents' benefits may be changed in a government attempt to get more back into work earlier. Single parents can currently receive Income Support without having to seek work until their youngest child is 16. But Work Secretary John Hutton told BBC Radio 4 he thought it not "unreasonable" to cut that age to 12." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pioneer31 Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 Telegraph article - Same subject Huh? Not Daily Mail???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Spaniard Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 Any changes to the benefits system would have to be for new claimants, rather than old. So people would be told from now on you don' t get money for kids. It shouldn't be backdated. Single parents I think would be a different issue, before you bring it up. Clearly the system doesn't work currently and needs reform. Something to think about from the US: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-40...re-trap-we.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pioneer31 Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 Single parents can currently receive Income Support without having to seek work until their youngest child is 16. But Work Secretary John Hutton told BBC Radio 4 he thought it not "unreasonable" to cut that age to 12." What the hell am I working for..... Think I might join this gravy train. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest_FaFa!_* Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 Something to think about from the US:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-40...re-trap-we.html Interesting article (never thought I'd say that about the Mail!). Cheers for the link! Any thoughts, Bateman? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearback Mountain Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 What the hell am I working for.....Think I might join this gravy train. I know one woman who made an issue of getting pregnant (in a toilet of all places) just before her youngest reached the age of 16 so she could keep on with the child support benefit. That my friends is a true story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pioneer31 Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 Who are Labour trying to fool? They MAY reform benefits for lone parents? They will do sweet FA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pioneer31 Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 Interesting article (never thought I'd say that about the Mail!). Cheers for the link!Any thoughts, Bateman? He/She has gone trolling elswhere I suspect or nipped down to cash the giro and 20 B&H Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bateman Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 Huh?Not Daily Mail???? Indeed - and with totally different figures Oh, Jews weren't lumped under one label were they not?Which school did you go to? If your understanding of Nazism is that shallow I don't think it is worth discussing the topic further with you Reducing benefits for the workshy will do no damage, except upset the little blighters and reduce the balance shee LOL - give the rich more money and starve the poor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minos Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 (edited) I know one woman who made an issue of getting pregnant (in a toilet of all places) just before her youngest reached the age of 16 so she could keep on with the child support benefit.That my friends is a true story. I know of a woman, who hadn't managed to settle down before her ovaries started clanging, decided to get pregnant to get a council house and retire to motherhood. No father around so the taxpayer funds it all. I love Labour. Edited August 26, 2009 by Minos Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d2thdr Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 The best contraceptive would be reigning in the benefits..They can have all the kids they like, but I'll be damned if they think I should pay for them... Forced contraception seems mental, but I'm inclined to agree. How else can we stop the Benefit-Bunnies breeding ? Let them rot, eventually when hunger pangs become uncontrollable, they will get off their arses to rob from us. Will they work? Not a chance. These are the people who will vote Labour next election. However, even if labour comes into power again.... ....they will need to get these people off benefits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarahBell Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 Forced contraception seems mental, but I'm inclined to agree. How else can we stop the Benefit-Bunnies breeding ? Sterilise at birth. Licence to breed. Pass fitness tests and mental capacity tests. No job = no breeding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redmen9 Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 Think popular opinion is quickly turning against all this benefits culture, with people feeling hard up with not much spare cash. Was watching telly yesterday morning, for my sins, and instead of the usual property porn/ramping programmes that you usually find at that time of day on came a programme called 'Saints and Scroungers'. Saints & Scroungers How undercover surveillance put an end to one woman's 12-year-long identity fraud scam. Investigators in Wales bust a salsa dancing scrounger, and we meet Doreen Edwards, who was desperate for help after her husband of 57 years passed away. Hosted by that funny baldy little spiv cockney grease monkey fella, it set out to catch benefit fraudsters and serve them their comeuppance! Looks like rather than watching people getting rich off HPI, the new wave of popular UK entertainment is watching unscrupulous greedy workshy twunts being caught and punished. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pioneer31 Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 Indeed - and with totally different figures Same overall message durr You don't recognise trends do you? If your understanding of Nazism is that shallow I don't think it is worth discussing the topic further with you Is that reading the Daily Mail and calling for compulsory contraception then? LOL - give the rich more money and starve the poor Banks do have a role in society What role do benefits claimaints (your fraternity) have? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dopamine Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 Sterilise at birth. Licence to breed. Pass fitness tests and mental capacity tests.No job = no breeding. Would you want to give the state this much power? Who decides what 'fitness' is? It's a neat solution, but it's a slippery slope that leads to totalitarianism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bateman Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 Same overall message durrYou don't recognise trends do you? So which article do you believe? What role do benefits claimaints (your fraternity) have? The £160b figure includes pensions and disability benefit - you going to cut them too? You feel that you have right to determine what value people bring to society? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noodle doodle Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 At least five million people of working age have not done a day's work since Labour came to power, research suggests.... An analysis of official data shows that three million in England and Wales had no job between 1996 and 2001, while a further two million had never had a job. so what happened to those 3 million after 2001? My maths says 8 years have passed since then. I find it unlikely none of them have worksed since then. Basically the second statement contradicts the first one, it's a logical fubar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.