Age 7 government child trust fund payments not being released!!!

emweaver

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

B]QUOTE=trynsave;33231565[BI would just like to thank emweaver for a private message telling me to 'back off' in response to comments I made earlier in this thread.[/B][/B]

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and a public forum is somewhere where we are allowed to air them.

I accept that perhaps I got a little personal for which I apologise, but I was just reacting to information supplied.

My general comments are ones I stand by. All non-essential spending has to stop asap and everyone in the country is going to have to accept that - fact!

I shall now bow out.

I think that is disgraceful.[/QUOTE]


I assure you I have sent no such message if I have a problem I clearly air in on the forums as others may know. Im not going to get into their stupid playground games and was shocked when I just saw their message

liam8282

State pensions actually been around since 1 January 1909

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7532601.stm

Unemployment benefits since 1911

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment_benefits

Unemployment benefits were first instituted in 1911. Over 2 million people were relying on the payments by 1921, as the United Kingdom was experiencing economic hardship after World War I.


Child benefit, 1946.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_benefit


Just goes to show that every pensioner today could have lived off the state all their lives. Just because they are pensioners does not mean they have contributed anything to society.

trynsave

emweaver wrote: »

I think that is disgraceful.

I assure you I have sent no such message if I have a problem I clearly air in on the forums as others may know. Im not going to get into their stupid playground games and was shocked when I just saw their message[/QUOTE]


I beg to differ. Either that or someone has hacked your message stystem. I won't publish the full message, there is no need, but please don't say that I am playing playground games and infer that I am lying.

However, like I have already said, I apologise for making some of my earlier comments personal to you. Thank was my error, but perhaps you shouldn't supply personal information if you are going to object to it being commented upon.

Private Messages in Folder: Inbox

</SPAN>
Folder Controls
Inbox contains 1 messages.
You have 1 messages stored, of a total 50 allowed. (Empty Folder)

Jump to Folder:

Messages: 1Private Messages in Folder: Inbox
</SPAN>
Date
Title / Sender

Messages: 1 Wednesday

26-05-2010back off
10:19 PM emweaver

shegirl

ultrawomble wrote: »

Sigh! I don't know why I bother.....

For example, as a tax-payer, you may feel that the £500 Sure Start Grant is too much - because (1) you only got £100, and (2) you're now having to foot the bill. The money is coming out of your pocket so you lose whilst someone else gains. Previously, when you received the grant (or its equivalent) you gained and someone else (tax-payers like me) lost. The money was there to help you when you needed it so what gives you the right to criticise the grant now? Simples. Or is that concept too much for you to grasp?

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

I don't know why you bother either,you're quite ridiculous.

Stating that I do not believe the grant should be £500 and that it shouldn't be for every child you pop out is not thinking with my own pocket.

The fact that I pay taxes and once received a £100 grant has nothing to do with it.

I have explained over and over why I do not believe the grant should be that amount and not for every child people 'entitled' have.

If you can't read and comprehend may I suggest you go back to school?

Ps that is not thinking with my pocket.Thinking with my pocket would be wanting something that benefits me and not considering anyone else.

Now give up as you really are stupidly irritating and dare I say it....as!

trynsave

ultrawomble wrote: »

I would have preferred that if private intimidation was occurring that it was resolved by the moderators i.e. the matter went through the appropriate channels rather than being aired on the public forum. Neither of us know the complete nature of the private correspondence other than what tryansave has posted and it's probably better not to add to the matter in this arena.

Perhaps that is what I should have done. However because I recognised that emweaver was a regular and well thanked forum member I made an assumption that the message, however unwelcome, was a one off. I also recognised that emweaver believed that I had overstepped the line by making my comments a little personal, hence my public apology on here.

My intention all along was just to air my personal views, not to insult anyone on here. Personally I think shegirl above has received much more abuse (not that two wrongs make a right of course).

liam8282

Maybe the poor should just become breeders for any sterile wealthy people, that would solve quite a few problems wouldn't it?!

We could also get all of those layabout lazy pensioners to be child minders, making sure we are getting our moneys worth from them receiving a pension.

Indie_Kid

Realistically, (ignoring multiple births) how much does equipment cost for a newborn baby?

shegirl

sh1305 wrote: »

Realistically, (ignoring multiple births) how much does equipment cost for a newborn baby?

If you look at the most essential things (rather than adding things they will have when older or things you just fancy),this is what you could get from Argos and there will be cheaper items around too.So this is the NEW cost:

Baby car seat £23.99 (was £29.99) http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Product/partNumber/3764879.htm

Cot £59.99 http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Product/partNumber/3763791.htm

Bath,Top and Tail Bowl,Bath Support and Thermometer £19.99 http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Product/partNumber/0985242.htm

Buggy £49.99 http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Product/partNumber/3765548/c_1/1%7Ccategory_root%7CNursery%7C14417537/c_2/3%7C15701330%7CPushchairs%2C+prams+and+carriers%7C14417542/c_3/4%7Ccat_14417542%7CPushchairs%7C14417543.htm

Bouncer (not 100% essential but everyone has them lol) £12.79
http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Product/partNumber/3753794/c_1/1%7Ccategory_root%7CNursery%7C14417537/c_2/3%7C15701330%7CBaby+toys%7C14417556/c_3/4%7Ccat_14417556%7CBaby+bouncers+and+swings%7C14417557.htm

For some reason can't view the cot mattresses on there.

So all the above for £166.75 then add on a cot mattress,cot bedding which can be bought quite cheaply in shops (or made yourself even cheaper lol),changing mat(£9.99 at argos but again can be bought cheaper),baby moniter I guess (£22.99 at argos) and then obviously clothes,nappies and little bits...steralizer and bottles if bottle feeding.

So in reality not £500,even for new,is needed!

IT can easily be done on less.It's down to choice really isn't it and many choose more expensive things.And,to be perfectly honest,if a parent cannot put any money at all towards any of those things (including clothes -primarini,charity shops all exsist) then they shouldn't be having a baby

mary671

liam8282 wrote: »

I don't know the exact start date of the welfare system, but I'll go for 1950.

Now 2010, so that's 60 years straight away.

What would the average age of a person getting a job be back then, say 15??

So a person born in 1935, (1950 - 15), could probably have lived on benefits all of their adult life. A pensioner today would only have to be born in 1945 (so say another 5 years and they could have been on benefits their entire life.)

This is a very rough calculation, but very easy to show how likely it is that a lot of pensioners today could have lived off benefits most of their lives.

Just as likely as everyone receiving benefits today being as undeserving of it as people on this thread are trying to make out.

You are just discriminating between young people today and pensioners today. Just because they are pensioners does not necessarly mean they have contributed so much to society.

At least I can have an open enough mind to see the bigger picture and see things from other peoples points of view.

Ok. & thanks for your facts that you posted. (I was wrong in my assumption about when welfare started). I don't feel I was discriminating between young and old .. this post was about the child trust fund hence my views on that. I do have views about pensions which I will post in the relevant section. I do have an open mind as well but think your posts were derogarory towards pensioners.... you equally have no facts to prove how much they have provided.

POPPYOSCAR

liam8282 wrote: »

Maybe the poor should just become breeders for any sterile wealthy people, that would solve quite a few problems wouldn't it?!

We could also get all of those layabout lazy pensioners to be child minders, making sure we are getting our moneys worth from them receiving a pension.

Only if they stop smoking, drinking and give up the kebabs and curries!!!!!

Actually this already happens,its called surragacy. And many pensioners are unpaid childminders to their grandchildren.