Bankruptcy!
- Thread starter finnbear270
- Start date
And who is Peter Stefanovic? Other than a Corbyn supporting Labour activist?
His argument is valid - ONLY if you accept his utterly implausible and unverified figures.
And of course there's the other side to it. Why should I subsidise someone elses excessive amount of children just so the bone idle parents can stay at home drinking, taking drugs and producing more children for me to keep?
Give me just one reason why I should feel that's my duty and obligation !
Give me just one reason why I should feel that's my duty and obligation !
as does my brother and my niece, both went to uni (and their partners) and can comfortably support their large families. Not like these doley's who expect everyone else to support them while they lay about at home all day. There should be a choice whereby you can opt out of subsidising the idle, should be enough willing labour supporters to keep them in the lifestyle to which they've become accustomed, I'm sure they would be only to happy to help
as does my brother and my niece, both went to uni (and their partners) and can comfortably support their large families. Not like these doley's who expect everyone else to support them while they lay about at home all day. There should be a choice whereby you can opt out of subsidising the idle, should be enough willing labour supporters to keep them in the lifestyle to which they've become accustomed, I'm sure they would be only to happy to help
I would like to include those who are "Ill", and working the system, I see people who have supposedly terminal illnesses who never get any worse ... sometimes at the top of stepladders in their rear gardens, but who come out the front door into the street on a stick.
enfieldspares
Well-Known Member
There's always going to be strong opinions on here. And unlike the USA Forums usually with a degree of polite, but forthright, debate.
Nevertheless as someone who is shortly, hoping, to reach pension age in the next decade what am I supposed to do? It is ONLY because my late mother, she died in 2014 aged 94 was a War Widow that the Gov't didn't have £80,000 away out of her estate in Death Duties solely because he house had increased in value and she chose to live at home and not go into a nursing home. But I did the care three days a week and her gardener's wife the other two. With weekend to herself. So she never had state funded care.
Now I want to leave that which has come to me to my son and to my wife. Yet, at the same time, I can see the reasonable argument as why should I pay more taxes, and yes more Death Duties so that someone can have home care for their elderly parent and yet not pay for it. Just the same as why should I pay for someone else's kids to have a free school breakfast.
Yet the fact is we ALL pay for someone else to have something we might never use. I don't live in The Falkland Islands. Never have, nearly once did all before 1982, now never wll. So shy should I pay to defend them? They don't pay anything to me and there never will be any exploitable oil there now fracking has been discovered and nuclear power is the thing.
But we live in a bigger society and to be candid as old people we are going to need those kids today eating their free school breakfasts to get good jobs, to become wealth creators, to start businesses to pay the tax in the future to keep ME in free bus passes, free prescriptions, free teeth and spectacles! So I see that as an investment for their distant future in two decades time so they can support my near future in two decades time.
The Winter Fuel Thing? These benefits usually cost more to means test that they are worth so it is cheaper to make it universal. Same reason we've stopped issuing paper tax discs, Game Licences, Dog Licences. Probably costs as much to means test a pensioner for Winter Fuel as it does to do their Tax Return or issue a Co-Term FAC. BUT if the pension ALL YEAR were decent such as the old folk could put something aside for the winter then it wouldn't be needed anyhow. It is an anachronism from when pensions were low value.
So whilst I resent paying for someone else's kids I can SEE the logic of that. But I can also see the logic of expecting the elderly if they have assets including their home to be billed for the care they require. Why should my family be forced through Death Duties to sell my mother's house to fund someone else's mother's care at home so their family doesn't have to sell their mother's house?
Nevertheless as someone who is shortly, hoping, to reach pension age in the next decade what am I supposed to do? It is ONLY because my late mother, she died in 2014 aged 94 was a War Widow that the Gov't didn't have £80,000 away out of her estate in Death Duties solely because he house had increased in value and she chose to live at home and not go into a nursing home. But I did the care three days a week and her gardener's wife the other two. With weekend to herself. So she never had state funded care.
Now I want to leave that which has come to me to my son and to my wife. Yet, at the same time, I can see the reasonable argument as why should I pay more taxes, and yes more Death Duties so that someone can have home care for their elderly parent and yet not pay for it. Just the same as why should I pay for someone else's kids to have a free school breakfast.
Yet the fact is we ALL pay for someone else to have something we might never use. I don't live in The Falkland Islands. Never have, nearly once did all before 1982, now never wll. So shy should I pay to defend them? They don't pay anything to me and there never will be any exploitable oil there now fracking has been discovered and nuclear power is the thing.
But we live in a bigger society and to be candid as old people we are going to need those kids today eating their free school breakfasts to get good jobs, to become wealth creators, to start businesses to pay the tax in the future to keep ME in free bus passes, free prescriptions, free teeth and spectacles! So I see that as an investment for their distant future in two decades time so they can support my near future in two decades time.
The Winter Fuel Thing? These benefits usually cost more to means test that they are worth so it is cheaper to make it universal. Same reason we've stopped issuing paper tax discs, Game Licences, Dog Licences. Probably costs as much to means test a pensioner for Winter Fuel as it does to do their Tax Return or issue a Co-Term FAC. BUT if the pension ALL YEAR were decent such as the old folk could put something aside for the winter then it wouldn't be needed anyhow. It is an anachronism from when pensions were low value.
So whilst I resent paying for someone else's kids I can SEE the logic of that. But I can also see the logic of expecting the elderly if they have assets including their home to be billed for the care they require. Why should my family be forced through Death Duties to sell my mother's house to fund someone else's mother's care at home so their family doesn't have to sell their mother's house?
You shouldn't have to, and if we didn't subsidise the bone idle you probably wouldn't have to. Ask the labour voters on here, they'll have an answer as to why it's expected we (the workers) have to keep the doley's in a comfortable lifestyle with free housing and healthcare.
enfieldspares
Well-Known Member
I might also ask the Tory voters on here why there are no jobs in the coal industry, in the steel industry, in the textile industry, in the spinning industry (my family's business) and etc., etc.. I can walk through vast acres of Leicester and all the mills I knew as a kid, could name as a kid and whose owners' my late father broke bread with as a kid. All are demolished, derelict, turned into flats. It is all gone.
Here's a picture someone else too that I found on the internet "Frog Island, Leicester" of what's left of what my family once did for near on a Century.And the whole area all those jobs, dyers, hosiery and etc., gone.
View attachment 83432
The jobs that these people did, unskilled, but highly specialised and high earning piece work don't exist anymore in the UK. The same as in the steel industry, the coal industry. Times have moved on, globalisation, health and safety. What's left for kid's now? A 'effin' call centre or a zero hours contract a Pizza King?
Hard cases make bad law as they say. Yes there are some, maybe many, that abuse the system but there are also many people who can't find jobs because they aren't qualified to do anything but that work that has now disappeared to China, to Bangladesh, to Mexico, to Vietnam and etc., etc.. I don't have a problem with them.
And if they think Brexit is going to turn the clock back it isn't. Look inside your shoes, trousers, shirts, jerseys. All once made here and all now made outside the UK and outside the EU. Free Trade with countries outside the EU? They'll skin us alive again as they did before.
Last edited:
Hey up Enfield, please tell me where to get the free gnashers and specs. Last almost gobfull (NHS) cost me £450 and my last specs cost me £220. If you can get em in Leicestershire I'll make the pilgrimage.
RodP +1 My sons have nine kids between them,( 2 still at school) the rest all working. Two of my grand daughters are now breeding but they and their partners all work. There's work if you look for it and some good chances about if you have half a brain. One of my grandsons just went looking and got a Carpentry apprenticeship all because he tried hard and succeeded by perseverence ( with no help) off his own bat.
I'm proud of all of them and only the brightest one went to uni, the rest took jobs as they found them and certainly aren't afraid of work.
RodP +1 My sons have nine kids between them,( 2 still at school) the rest all working. Two of my grand daughters are now breeding but they and their partners all work. There's work if you look for it and some good chances about if you have half a brain. One of my grandsons just went looking and got a Carpentry apprenticeship all because he tried hard and succeeded by perseverence ( with no help) off his own bat.
I'm proud of all of them and only the brightest one went to uni, the rest took jobs as they found them and certainly aren't afraid of work.
I would suggest the answer is exactly the same as the answer to questions your grandparents might have asked about why there were so few blacksmiths, leech merchants, sword makers, saddlers, cart makers and so on.
Progress. The world has moved on and there is no special virtue in low added value manufacturing. I believe that lots of people round there work in the modern equivalent of the textile industry and engineering industry. The profit has stayed, lots of jobs stayed, the textiles end up here and the factories have gone.
big ears
Well-Known Member
He is a Barrister. Someone who was involved in medical negligence cases until recently. I think he can be trusted to tell the truth.
Essexsussex
Well-Known Member
like nearly everyone I know I haven't actually read The manifestos - but isn't it the case that free school lunches will still be provided for low earners? I (and my wife who is a teacher) thought it was absolutely disgraceful that we would get free lunches for our kids and the flip side that the schools are done shortfor other cost requirements. We absolutely should be paying for our kids meals - which is what will now happen
Really!!! This is a man who makes a very good living working for those that pay the most. This is a man who is obliged to side with his client (that'll be the one with the cheque book) knowing full well his client is in the wrong. Many cases reported of lawyers regretting defending a client they knew was in the wrong, so what's to say this one was any different?
Yep, he can be trusted,................. to cash the cheque at least. He could be a very moral and upstanding citizen, or he could be a lawyer
deeangeo
Well-Known Member
Really!!! This is a man who makes a very good living working for those that pay the most. This is a man who is obliged to side with his client (that'll be the one with the cheque book) knowing full well his client is in the wrong. Many cases reported of lawyers regretting defending a client they knew was in the wrong, so what's to say this one was any different?
Yep, he can be trusted,................. to cash the cheque at least. He could be a very moral and upstanding citizen, or he could be a lawyer
Musn't forget Bliar, also a barrister
Flyer4u0
Well-Known Member
Musn't forget Bliar, also a barrister
I thought his wife was the Barrister. He was a Solicitor???
deeangeo
Well-Known Member
You're right, Bliar was a pupil barrister at Oxford but not appointed to the bar. Still, I was nearly right!! A legal begal anyway LOL
I think you're failing to distinguish between telling the truth and not lying.
As I said, what he said holds water ONLY if you accept the premise that his figures are correct. Aside from it being quite obvious that they aren't, "poverty" as he refers to it is essentially anything he wants it to be. It definitely does NOT represent absolute poverty - i.e. what any normal person recognises as poverty.
What he and other lefties describe as widespread poverty is a construct of politically motivated whingeing by people who deny the concept of truth, backed up by spurious "studies" - cf. the quite ridiculous persistence of the idea that 1million + are dependent on food banks. A wilful and gross distortion of a report that food banks managed to distribute over a million meals in a years. 3meals per day, 365 days.....divide the number by 1,000. Also, there is no evidence of much effort being made to determine actual need - other than just turning up, saying you're hungry etc.
There's even a lunatic branch of the deranged left convinced that people are starving by the thousand and tens of thousands of disabled people are being killed by the government. This is the background of the "truth" that this former ambulance chaser is representing.
Bandit Country
Well-Known Member
I can't speak for every food bank in the UK, but the ones I'm involved with in Herefordshire require a referral slip from a caseworker before anything is handed out. Anyone who rocks up claiming to be hungry will be politely shown the door. It's not infallible, there will always be some who take the p*ss, but most folk are trying to do the right thing with a modicum of common sense and compassion. Of course not all charities are so well managed ... Kid's Company anyone? Another triumph of Conservative party policy...
Similar threads
