Apparently not.
Harming children for no good reason
- Thread starter JohnD
- Start date
Apparently not.
Sponsored Links
Why do you think the tories are in favour of harming children?
Any tory in particular? Osbourne?
Why don't you put the question to him? Instead of trolling on here.
Last edited:
I'm very interested in your weird suggestion that the actions of the government are not suitable topics for discussion.
I don't actually think you believe it.
Sponsored Links
Do you think benefits should be uncapped then, JD?
D
Doggit
Knowing JD, you won't get a straight answer, but being a socialist, you can guarantee he does.
- Joined
- 26 Sep 2016
- Messages
- 728
- Reaction score
- 70
- Country
Obviously he does. A point someone made earlier has escaped him though. Money (benefits) is given to these unemployed people with kids. It's then up to the parent/s how they spend the money. A good parent would spend it carefully and budget accordingly. It seems however that there are "bad parents" who'd rather spend their benefits on cigarettes, booze, (dare I say drugs), the latest mobile phones etc, etc. Their children are the last thing they think about.
Yep I can see Johnnyboy's point though,, Let's blame the bloody government (again) He really hates them. Ya know Johnnyboy, if the clutch packs up on your car,, blame the government. If your telly breaks down,, blame the government.. If your dog get's run over,, blame the government. If you personally get into debt,,, yep blame the government.
D
Doggit
I can see where you're coming from Judy, but I can't work out all of them
If the dogs run over, then the governments to blame because there's not enough dog wardens.
If he gets into debt, then it's the governments fault for not regulating the banks, to stop them giving out unlimited credit to those who can't handle their money.
If the tellys broken down, then the government sold off the power companies, and they haven't been regulating the electrical supply properly, and that caused the telly to blow.
But for the life of me, I can't work out how the governments to blame for the clutch going. Ahh, just got it. They haven't built enough roads to handle the amount of traffic, and he's had to use the clutch too much in stop start trafic.
See they're all justifiable points, so what are you whinging about.
If the dogs run over, then the governments to blame because there's not enough dog wardens.
If he gets into debt, then it's the governments fault for not regulating the banks, to stop them giving out unlimited credit to those who can't handle their money.
If the tellys broken down, then the government sold off the power companies, and they haven't been regulating the electrical supply properly, and that caused the telly to blow.
But for the life of me, I can't work out how the governments to blame for the clutch going. Ahh, just got it. They haven't built enough roads to handle the amount of traffic, and he's had to use the clutch too much in stop start trafic.
See they're all justifiable points, so what are you whinging about.
Do you think so?
Have you grasped that benefits cuts apply to parents even if they do not have Sky?
Do you think that children will eat better, or have better shoes, if the parents have less money?
Do you think the children will be cared for better, if their family is pushed deeper into poverty?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...made-poorer-by-the-benefits-cap-a7718776.html
"Nearly 200,000 children from the lowest income families have seen their parents’ income fall as a result of the Government’s new lower benefits cap, statistics have revealed.
Figures released by the Department for Work and Pensions have been described by charities as “deeply worrying” after showing that 93 per cent of households hit by the cap had children living in them."
- Joined
- 26 Sep 2016
- Messages
- 728
- Reaction score
- 70
- Country
Johnnyboy, do you think these children you keep on bleating about would eat better, be dressed better, if their feckless parents didn't crave the latest smartphone? Didn't spend money on clubbing it? Didn't spend money on , fags, alcohol, designer gear?
Have you grasped the fact that a lot of parents actually do have Sky/ Virgin Media/ BT ? (and are not prepared to give these up whatever the cost)
Do you think these kids would eat better if their parents were actually prepared to give up things that should be considered luxuries?
Nah didn't think so...
the benefits cap is quite evil and fully the fault off politicians off all guises
you sell off the social housing cut price to bribe the voters and don't replace it then wonder why the housing bill rockets
you also overheat the housing market trying to get the economy going by freeing up peoples pension funds to invest in housing as its better than 0.025% returns on savings
you also allow unrestricted investment from abroad further inflating housing costs but worse still locking up properties that remain empty as only an investment as they dont wish to be a landlord
the cap is very random and in fact causes social cleansing and reducing the help from freinds and family as they are often moved away from there freinds and family by hundreds off miles
so reduces there ability to work
you sell off the social housing cut price to bribe the voters and don't replace it then wonder why the housing bill rockets
you also overheat the housing market trying to get the economy going by freeing up peoples pension funds to invest in housing as its better than 0.025% returns on savings
you also allow unrestricted investment from abroad further inflating housing costs but worse still locking up properties that remain empty as only an investment as they dont wish to be a landlord
the cap is very random and in fact causes social cleansing and reducing the help from freinds and family as they are often moved away from there freinds and family by hundreds off miles
so reduces there ability to work
Last edited:
Sponsored Links
