in response to these comment "and one thought is that kids no longer get an automatic entitlement to a 2 bed flat."
Harming children for no good reason
- Thread starter JohnD
- Start date
Sponsored Links
D
Doggit
Now where in my posts have I done that. I've agreed that they do, I've just disputed the attempt to show it in the worst light possible by someone with an obvious political bias to do so.
And this from the independant fact checking service
Claim
By 2020 the government will have borrowed more than all Labour governments put together.
Conclusion
That’s true if you add up borrowing under Labour governments since 1945, whether or not you adjust for inflation. But it isn’t a fair comparison because the UK economy and the government have both got bigger.
As always; lies, damn lies, statistics, and how you portray them.
Also, the fact that the Tories borrowed more than Labour, just goes to show what I say about both parties, they're growing the economy through debt, rather than efficiency and production.
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 26 Jan 2017
- Messages
- 1,027
- Reaction score
- 65
- Country
I feel that the answer to FGM does lie within the Muslim community itself... Perhaps joining us in this century?
Ask the parents, some of whom consider spending their state benefits on a Sky TV subscription is better than buying good food and engaging in social interaction between parent(s) and child(ren).
The answer is that they are not in favour of harming children.
The judge may have made that ruling but that doesn't mean he is right.
How many children did tony bliar kill and maim in Iraq for no good reason?
And still he escapes justice.
Last edited:
So you think "parents watching Sky" is a good reason for the government to harm children?
How did you find out that all of the affected children have parents who watch Sky?
Or did you just assume it?
When do said parents find the time or the money to watch expensive Murdock telly? You'd hope they'd look at their children and think to themselves "society funds me and expects me to put in effort to do the right thing, therefore I should make the effort"
Nozzle
Nozzle
D
Doggit
Unfortunately, you've actually missed the point if the original post as well John. Just because the judge made the comment, doesn't mean it's a correct one.
A cap on housing benefit means that the mother has to make the decision of how she spends that reduced amount; the government does not dicatate to the mother how she spend it, so it is the mother that would be causing harm to the children if she attemted to continue a lifestyle that she couldn't afford.
Yes, that may mean that she has to make difficult decisions as to where she lives etc, but they are her choices, and not her right.
It will undoutably get overturned on appeal, and then get taken to the supreme court where they may well decide it's unlawful, but they'll take out the blame and harm rhetoric, and make a clear decision, rather than one based on emotion.
Unfortunately, this one applies to all sorts of social strata. If my daughter takes a packed lunch, it often gets raided by one of her friends whos parents live in a 4 bed house, and run a 16 reg ford s-max. Both parents earn good money, but feed the kids on the lowest of the low value food at best to afford the nice lifestyle.
If you lived in my world Nozzle, you'd know what things are really like. The Sky tv is often used to keep the kids enerained whilst the parents smoke and natter with their friends (also on benefits), and play with their phones. The parents then watch Sky and drink when the kids finally go to bed.
What is Murdock tele? An how does this differ from say the BBC, Chanel4, ITV etc?
Do you like your world?
D
Doggit
Not particularly, but I'm stuck with the reality of it until I can change either myself, or my surroundings.
I expect I'll quit it soon.
I expect I'll quit it soon.
Change your surroundings.
D
Doggit
Changing me's going to be easier. But thanks for the suggestion.
Sponsored Links
