Absolutely fuuuuuuming!!!! (with school!) Have now calmed down ;-)

galvanizersbaby

ceridwen wrote: »

err...because its only £2.

....carrying on reading through the thread to see if there's an answer as to the point about the school "being represented" by a child...puzzled....as the child doing this is doing it of themselves...because they want to I would have thought...dont understand this concept of a school "being represented" by a child....

Oh no - first PBS and then this goes and happens:rolleyes:
Trolltastic!

ifonlyitwaseasier

GB - Ceridwen isn't a troll, has a few of their own threads.

PBS - def a troll and going on the ignore list now.

PolishBigSpender

kahwilts wrote: »

HOW DARE YOU! You ignorant person. You should be absolutely disgraced, coming on these boards and making such pig ignorant comments.

Ah, yet another one who resorts to foul and abusive language. I'm honestly amazed at how many parents are immature enough to resort to such language rather than debating the point in a rational and calm manner.

What do you not get? Are you really that stupid? These boards are full of people who earn varying degrees of money. For some £2.00 is what they earn a second, for others it is the difference between feeding their kids and paying for heating!

Get real. If someone is really so desperate for money that they can either pay for the heating or feed their children - then quite honestly, the children should be put into care. They're obviously failing in some respect as parents - given that the UK effectively guarantees everyone a minimum income (unlike Poland!) - then no child should be going cold or hungry.

Anyway, I thought the UK gave every child 20 pounds a week - isn't this benefit supposed to be used for things like school trips?

For goodness sake, you should respect that what ever priveledges you may or may not have not everone is in the same position.

You should be put in the stocks!!!

I love the way you tell me to 'respect' people - and in the next breath, you tell me that I should be put in the stocks.

The fact remains that it was only 2 pounds. It's nothing. It's 20 minutes work. The original poster's other half would only have to do 20 minutes work to pay for this. Simple.

exup

PBS it was said before its not the amount - it was the unorganised way it was taken . . there was no warning beforehand and the lad had to pay out of his lunch money . where you are so quick to launch your offensive at UK parents inulting behaviour you still make light that its just £2.00

and what about all the other "just £2.00's" that keep adding up...

I have more of a feeling that you dont like to debate in a calm and rational manner - but would rather spark off anger with your own views and no matter whether they are right or wrong - refuse to change them no matter what evidence is put to you in the contrary --

I myself am not going to hurl insults at you - I have encountered similar people on these forums . and I feel the best way is to just add you to the ignore list.. thats pretty good going as this is the first thread I have ever seen you post in..

looby75

exup wrote: »

I myself am not going to hurl insults at you - I have encountered similar people on these forums . and I feel the best way is to just add you to the ignore list.. thats pretty good going as this is the first thread I have ever seen you post in..

works like a charm we've had the "pleasure" of her company over on DT for a while now and believe me her posts weren't any less bigoted or inflammatory there.

exup

looby75 wrote: »

works like a charm

yes it did

PolishBigSpender

exup wrote: »

PBS it was said before its not the amount - it was the unorganised way it was taken . . there was no warning beforehand and the lad had to pay out of his lunch money . where you are so quick to launch your offensive at UK parents inulting behaviour you still make light that its just £2.00

and what about all the other "just £2.00's" that keep adding up...

First things first, he didn't have to pay. He could've paid later - like all the other children did. If two pounds was really that much of a big deal, he could've simply not went - although any parent that would rather their child stayed behind for the sake of two pounds is quite honestly a dreadful parent.

As for 'just two pounds' - let's be realistic. The mother receives 20 pounds a week child benefit for the child - if she can't afford 2 pounds a week for things like rugby trips, then she should be ashamed of herself.

Natalie6999

PolishBigSpender wrote: »

First things first, he didn't have to pay. He could've paid later - like all the other children did. If two pounds was really that much of a big deal, he could've simply not went - although any parent that would rather their child stayed behind for the sake of two pounds is quite honestly a dreadful parent.

As for 'just two pounds' - let's be realistic. The mother receives 20 pounds a week child benefit for the child - if she can't afford 2 pounds a week for things like rugby trips, then she should be ashamed of herself.

Why don't you keep your opinions to yourself.

£20 per week goes nowhere, it doesn't even cover food.

If Poland is so perfect, why are you posting on here, kindly get back on your perfect Polish websites & leave everyone here alone.

MrsTinks

Right I think this thread has deteriorated so much now that it needs to be closed.
Remember that if you don't like a posters replies it's very easy to place them on "ignore" or if you feel their posts are abusive then please report them to Abuse who will review them.

MrsT