ab
Andy Booth Terrier
[M0:0]
Posts: 3,001
|
Post by ab on Aug 10, 2011 13:01:24 GMT 1
That's bollocks Merk. Everyone doesn't have the same chance. Everyone is dealt widely different hands, some with hands so bad they they fold before even starting. Maybe it might be a good idea for those whose children are likely to get a disastrous hand to think twice about having them in the first place. After all, most of the cards are dealt by the parents in terms of the upbringing they can provide. Giving them a few extra high value cards and showing them how to make a decent hand of what they've got doesn't really work if they're going to play the ropey cards they had in the first place.
|
|
merkin
Darren Bullock Terrier
Posts: 878
|
Post by merkin on Aug 10, 2011 13:19:46 GMT 1
I said everyone had a chance...not the same chance.
People aren't folding though are they. They are nicking and burning cards that don't belong to them.
That is why I would beat them to death with a crib board or play an eternal game of 52 card pick with them
|
|
brispie
Andy Booth Terrier
[M0:0]
Posts: 3,386
|
Post by brispie on Aug 10, 2011 13:31:17 GMT 1
Do you think the parents of those children stop and think when conceiving? Of course not. It's seen as the thing to do. My parents fully expected me to have a mortgage, and kids by the time I was 21 and that is the pressure they are put under.
|
|
merkin
Darren Bullock Terrier
Posts: 878
|
Post by merkin on Aug 10, 2011 13:44:03 GMT 1
I'd say they do...usually rubbing their hands at free houses, child benefits, benefit this, benrfit that...they don't do it for a laugh...they do it for the benefits to them as opposed to how they can benefit a kid.
The welfare state and treatment of the *poor* is fundamentally fucked.
...as fundamentally fucked as some of the accounting practices and company law that exists.
In the long run, these riots maybe a good thing as it will show how genuinely scum some people are and what they do with the help they are given.
Maybe, the country can then start working for a living again.
|
|
ab
Andy Booth Terrier
[M0:0]
Posts: 3,001
|
Post by ab on Aug 10, 2011 13:50:51 GMT 1
No, of course they don't, that's the problem. I don't know about you but most people I know (middle class, of course) do and did have to think hard about whether and when to have children - could they afford a house or flat with enough bedrooms, would they be able to do so if one or both reduced their work to spend time looking after them, could they move house or job to an area which made it possible, did they think they'd be able to do a good job of raising children, is the person they are with really likely to hang around long enough to support them, can they cope with the idea of not just being able to do what they want when they want to and so on.
Part of the problem is that there are a lot of people who never have to even think in this way - life is by no means cushy but if they have children they will neither starve nor be on the streets. If they are coming from having little, they don't lose much by closing off career and social opportunities in the way that becoming a parent can do for "middle class" folk. Even with the cuts, the level of support that is available is very high for those who accept it. But having too much support can make too much of the hard work of bringing up a family seem to be someone else's problem - kids truanting or misbehaving at school, that's not my problem, the teachers should sort it out but woebetide if they get in my face to tell me how I should bring up my kids etc.
It would not be right to punish those who have already made these choices (or rather been allowed to behave in a consequenceless way) but part of the solution should be to make having a family much more of a decision. This is not about single mothers - in fact much more needs to be done to educate boys about being a father. For me, being a dad and husband beats anything I've done academically or in my career hands down. When the social role of boys in some segments of society is turned into one where the only aspect of parenting they have any interest in is the shagging and where they don't have to bear any responsibility after that, society is obviously going to be fucked.
|
|
Bernie
Jimmy Glazzard Terrier
[M0:0]
Posts: 4,322
|
Post by Bernie on Aug 10, 2011 14:00:39 GMT 1
|
|
merkin
Darren Bullock Terrier
Posts: 878
|
Post by merkin on Aug 10, 2011 14:28:50 GMT 1
I disagree...these people are not that thick
They think about it, realise there are no consequences, so just do it....as opposed to completely ignore the consequences.
It would soon change if the consequences were that these women were stabbed to death, or the men chained to the slags that they impregnated.
I think there is a difference.
|
|
brispie
Andy Booth Terrier
[M0:0]
Posts: 3,386
|
Post by brispie on Aug 10, 2011 15:02:40 GMT 1
They don't think about the benefits. Well the people I know who did it don't. They do it because it is the cultural norm.
They don't think about the money either AB. They usually live close to their parents, so rely on them for support. They have very low aspirations, so think of nothing other than having enough money to look after their family and having a bit left to buy some fags, booze for a semblance of social life. If they get a holiday once a year at Skeggy/Blackpool/Scarborough/Whitley Bay then great. They have no career plan, no aim of further education. Having a baby is the pinnacle of life. They probably realise pretty quickly that it actually isn't, but they wouldn't necessarily be able to articulate that.
I don't think taking their benefits away would solve it. They would still have the kids, but just rely on parents/crime to get by as there are few jobs for most people at the moment and childcare costs an arm and a leg if granny can't do it because she's working as well.
|
|
ab
Andy Booth Terrier
[M0:0]
Posts: 3,001
|
Post by ab on Aug 10, 2011 15:44:29 GMT 1
No, that's my point. I'm sure they don't think about the money or anything else. They should but don't because they don't have to.
The cultural norm is shit and should be changed. It's just another way of descibing a sense of entitlement to something which for most people is hard earned. It might have been OK in an era when there was a relatively plentiful amount of unskilled work available but it doesn't work now and there's no particularly good reason to carry on encouraging a way of life that offers nothing very positive to the people who undertake it.
You've come from that background, so I'm mildly surprised that you are so sanguine about the fact that you end up supporting people who have had the same upbringing and chances as you to not bother trying to live responsibly in the way that you have.
|
|
merkin
Darren Bullock Terrier
Posts: 878
|
Post by merkin on Aug 11, 2011 9:50:24 GMT 1
This Polish worker who leapt to safety.
Came in March this year yet amazingly had a job at Poundland.
No jobs for the alienated youth of today.
They have alienated them fucking selves because they are the kind of people that you would be wary of on the street - never mind put in front of customers.
|
|
brispie
Andy Booth Terrier
[M0:0]
Posts: 3,386
|
Post by brispie on Aug 11, 2011 9:56:52 GMT 1
But Ab, this has happened for ever. If you saw Who Do You Think You Are? last night it talked about one of June Brown's ancestors having 5 children born into poverty in the late 18th century. It just means that there are more and more people living in property poverty.
The reasons why benefits began to be introduced in the early part of the 20th century is because poverty was so bad. I don't want to go back to that and I'm not convinced that cutting benefits will mean that doesn't happen.
'Supporting' is a word I don't even think. Some people need help and I have no problem with the state giving it to them. If people are blagging the system it's up to the government to resolve that.
Most people I know who have ever taken benefits have needed them (myself included). My sister probably falls into the category of people that so irk merkin. She first got pregnant at 22 and had another child with another man 7 years later. Neither of them stayed with her and she still lives at home on benefits. However, she does work part time as a dinner lady, just enough hours so she retains her benefits.
If the rules changed on hours worked, she'd have to give up the job to retain her benefits. If her benefits got cut she wouldn't be able to work more, as there is no work and she is entirely unskilled, so the children would go without.
|
|
merkin
Darren Bullock Terrier
Posts: 878
|
Post by merkin on Aug 11, 2011 11:03:26 GMT 1
Irk doesn't get close The top and bottom of it is that we can't afford to go on like we are going. There are so many things wrong and so many people taking the piss that it would be difficult to know where to begin. I have a number of family members *wasting their lives* working with the scum of the earth and the vasy majority of their time is just wasted on people that don't help themselves. Fuck them as their kids are suffering anyway. I could open up a soup kitchen and some of these kids would be better fed.
|
|
ab
Andy Booth Terrier
[M0:0]
Posts: 3,001
|
Post by ab on Aug 11, 2011 11:18:49 GMT 1
Help people who need help, not people who don't bother to try to look after themselves first. How do you stop people blagging the system? By making it much tougher to qualify for help and limiting help to those who really need it. I'd increase benefits hugely for those who have made NI contributions but time limit them. If you've never worked or bothered to do the things that might give you a chance of working why should you get much if anything beyond a strong push to sort yourself out, not when you feel like it, but as soon as humanly possible?
There should have been no influx of Eastern European immigrants because all the unskilled work they took should have already been filled by local people desperate to take it.
Brispie - you'll hopefully be a fan of Ian Duncan Smith's proposals on welfare which would make it pay much better for your sister to work more. The problem comes from a welfare system which makes it pay better not to work. If you're housed and have enough money to pay for the basics without having to lift a finger, why would you go and do 40 hours a week, have to pay for child care, miss out on time with your family and pay taxes to support those who sit at home instead? Going out to work minimum wage should always be substantially better for everyone than sitting there with your hand out and moaning that there's no opportunities for you. But when there's outrage at the suggestion that a family's total welfare entitlement should be capped at £26k (or about the same as you'd get after tax if you had a single Higher Rate Taxpayer in the household FFS) it is obvious that we're a long way from this.
|
|
|
Post by Wizaard on Aug 11, 2011 11:59:52 GMT 1
When there are people with 5 and 6 kids getting £700 a week in benefits tax free, with 100% Council Tax Benefit and Housing Benefit, free prescriptions etc etc then there is going to be no incentive to find a job. You'd need to be earning about £70K a year to catch up with that, and no unskilled job is going to do that. It's the passported side of some benefits from some that really make it not worth the hassle of finding work.
Empty rhetoric from IDS as no constituency MP is going to want to face the wrath of his electorate in pushing it through.
|
|
brispie
Andy Booth Terrier
[M0:0]
Posts: 3,386
|
Post by brispie on Aug 11, 2011 12:30:49 GMT 1
IDS's proposals would work fine if we were currently job rich. Which we are not.
There needs to be a balance. Wizbits example is obviously extreme and I'd even agree thatthey get way too much. My only concern is blanket cuts would harm the genuine benefit claimants.
|
|
brispie
Andy Booth Terrier
[M0:0]
Posts: 3,386
|
Post by brispie on Aug 11, 2011 12:31:53 GMT 1
Oh and to bring it back to the riots, the talk I've hard this morning of cutting the benefits and re-considering their housing for those convicted of the riots will surely only exacerbate the situation and make them more likely to get involved in petty crime?
|
|
merkin
Darren Bullock Terrier
Posts: 878
|
Post by merkin on Aug 11, 2011 12:47:18 GMT 1
I'd tag them and make them live their parents.
|
|
merkin
Darren Bullock Terrier
Posts: 878
|
Post by merkin on Aug 11, 2011 13:00:18 GMT 1
Agree with you ab_ on some of your ideas about better benefit rewards for those who have actually paid plenty of NI and tax in the past.
Don't agree that all local people were desperate for the work that the immigrants are doing.
In addition, they are not even skilled enough for unskilled work. Even unskilled work requires an element of basic ability, skills and effort. They also look like the scrotes that they are.
|
|
ab
Andy Booth Terrier
[M0:0]
Posts: 3,001
|
Post by ab on Aug 11, 2011 14:30:32 GMT 1
IDS's proposals are scheduled to come in over a period of years on the basis of the government's expectations of growth and recovery. We'll see in 2015 how that works out, but if it has, I would be surprised if the great unwashed in the minority of Labour constituencies would be able to change the policy by whining to their MPs. Should and could really have been done 10 years or more ago had Blair had the first clue about doing anything other than just winning elections.
|
|
gymmers
Iain Dunn Terrier
[M0:17]
Posts: 545
|
Post by gymmers on Aug 11, 2011 15:09:14 GMT 1
My son has to have major surgery on his hand because, on Friday, a 'disaffected' adult with an attitude problem and a belief in his invincibility and under the influence if alcohol, accidentally dropped his bottle of Jack Daniels, and in a fit of temper, picked up the remains of the bottle and flung it at my ex's car whilst my son was sat on it.
My 16 year old boy may never regain full use of his hand. Maybe I should try and 'understand and forgive' his assailant because he did time, once and can't get a job and is disaffected and drinks too much and robs from shops
Maybe
LIKE FUCK
|
|
gymmers
Iain Dunn Terrier
[M0:17]
Posts: 545
|
Post by gymmers on Aug 11, 2011 15:13:35 GMT 1
Talking of which.... Botz..... How much criminal law knowledge do you currently have? My son wants compensation (understandably). The Police have a name and it's a S20 offence, but the assailant's family have been friends of ours for years and want my son to drop it. It's all getting quite intimidating. Could my son claim Criminal Injuries Comp without pursuing a prosecution?
He doesn't know what to do :-(
|
|
|
Post by Wizaard on Aug 11, 2011 15:20:02 GMT 1
Bad situation to be in. 10/10 on the sympathy meter, obv.
Maybe you'd be better going ahead with the prosecution to remind the pisshead of his responsibilities and that actions have consequences?
Let it slide and he'll carry on down a self destructive path. He'll thank you for it one day.
Obviously, in the meantime his family will batter you and make your life a living hell...
Decisions, decisions.
|
|
ab
Andy Booth Terrier
[M0:0]
Posts: 3,001
|
Post by ab on Aug 11, 2011 15:34:15 GMT 1
Talking of which.... Botz..... How much criminal law knowledge do you currently have? My son wants compensation (understandably). The Police have a name and it's a S20 offence, but the assailant's family have been friends of ours for years and want my son to drop it. It's all getting quite intimidating. Could my son claim Criminal Injuries Comp without pursuing a prosecution? He doesn't know what to do :-( All the relevant info on the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme is at www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/compensation-schemes/cica/You don't need the assailant to have been convicted (although this does help in proving the claim). The awards tend not to be particularly generous but don't need the use of a solicitor or the Courts and won't leave the assailant's family out of pocket. Obviously I'm not living it, but in the abstract I'd take the view that if they're being c**** about it they have forfeited whatever friendship they claim to have had with you or your family over the years. Just mention to the Police that you're concerned about reprisals if your son proceeds with the criminal complaint and it'll increase the chance of him getting sent down - it is in their interests to play as nice as possible.
|
|
|
Post by GlasgowTangerine on Aug 11, 2011 15:37:21 GMT 1
|
|
owlie
Iain Dunn Terrier
[M0:2]
Posts: 526
|
Post by owlie on Aug 11, 2011 15:45:50 GMT 1
Talking of which.... Botz..... How much criminal law knowledge do you currently have? My son wants compensation (understandably). The Police have a name and it's a S20 offence, but the assailant's family have been friends of ours for years and want my son to drop it. It's all getting quite intimidating. Could my son claim Criminal Injuries Comp without pursuing a prosecution? He doesn't know what to do :-( So your lad doesn't mind this idiot going free? The intimidation should make him more determined to see him punished, but then that's easy for me to say in "lovely" Wythenshawe, there violence on the streets is a daily occurrence*. * I exaggerate, there hasn't been a murder near the factory for nearly 3 weeks now.
|
|
ab
Andy Booth Terrier
[M0:0]
Posts: 3,001
|
Post by ab on Aug 11, 2011 16:16:23 GMT 1
|
|
gymmers
Iain Dunn Terrier
[M0:17]
Posts: 545
|
Post by gymmers on Aug 11, 2011 16:50:39 GMT 1
Owlie. He wants his assailant to be punished. He doesn't want his family home set on fire or his Dad (unexpectedly) having both his knees broken.
The friendship has gone. The woman across the road (the assailants sister)... I am her daughter's Godmother
My son is a child. He's 16. He has a dilemma. He wants to protect his family
|
|
brispie
Andy Booth Terrier
[M0:0]
Posts: 3,386
|
Post by brispie on Aug 11, 2011 17:06:27 GMT 1
I would have been there AB. Maybe not at 11, but certainly at 15.
|
|
ab
Andy Booth Terrier
[M0:0]
Posts: 3,001
|
Post by ab on Aug 11, 2011 17:10:56 GMT 1
You should be wheeled out to show them what they can make of themselves if they grow out of being scrotes before it is too late.
|
|
|
Post by supawooly on Aug 11, 2011 17:44:27 GMT 1
Can I not admire them both? If people feel that society isn't working for them they will eventually do something about it. The Suffragettes did destroy important pieces of art and set fire to churches, but everyone forgets that and thinks they were nice and cuddly as they sat chained to railings. Some of them had nice norks though.
|
|