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

Deepmistrust

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

To quote Deepmistrust earlier "Surragacy is illegal"

Well it isn't according to the Surragacy Uk Website, and I quote

"Surragacy is not illegal in the UK but restricted by various legal rules"

But I suppose with all your superior knowledge you know better than them as you do everyone else.

I suggest you get on to Surragacy UK and tell them of their big mistake.

As the discussion was about paying for children, i would have thought it was obvious I was talking about payment for surrogacy (aside from expenses).
Even someone with only half a wit, reading it in context could work that one out.

Deepmistrust

liam8282 wrote: »

There is no right or wrong answer to the points covered in this thread, only the matter of perspective that different people look at it from.

However, deepmistrust failure to accept any other persons opinion other than their own, is most certainly wrong.

I can see where deepmistrust argument stems from, the people I have been talking about aren't doing anything illegal and are claiming what they are "entitled" to. But does that make it right?

From my perspective no.

Many of the points you have used in this thread, have been factual points (which often were untrue, and unproven, and often unprovable).

That is considered passing off opinion as fact. And when you do that, many things can be considered factually wrong or inaccurate.

mary671

Deepmistrust wrote: »

As the discussion was about paying for children, i would have thought it was obvious I was talking about payment for surrogacy (aside from expenses).
Even someone with only half a wit, reading it in context could work that one out.

Oh to be able to put you up a chimney never to be heard from again!

liam8282

Just ignore him / her, they might go away. :rotfl:

POPPYOSCAR

Deepmistrust wrote: »

As the discussion was about paying for children, i would have thought it was obvious I was talking about payment for surrogacy (aside from expenses).
Even someone with only half a wit, reading it in context could work that one out.

And so it continues...................

Percy1983

liam8282 wrote: »

There is no right or wrong answer to the points covered in this thread, only the matter of perspective that different people look at it from.

We both know that, It just amusing me that he keeps saying we are wrong but won't say what is right.

Anyway where is my colourful (and professional) reply to 510 Mr Deepmistrust?

I was looking forward to it.

Deepmistrust

Percy1983 wrote: »

Yet again you are taking me out of context, I am not saying we should stop the poor having children. I am saying we should stop babies being born for the wrong reasons which generally fall on the poor but Ia m not saying all poor people have them for the wrong reasons.

Force abortions on people who don't comply with the "right reasons"?

This is getting quite surreal now.

As for 16 year olds having babies for houses, come and visit me in sunny Oldham and you will understand what I mean.

Any area of the UK can point to it's percentage of teenage mums, the obvious non sequitur is to suggest they don't love their children, because they also happen to qualify for housing help.
OK, I am going to put what I would propose down, and instead of saying its wrong tell me what you would do differently, sound fair?#

-Child related benefits are only applicable on the first 3 children.



-Benefits should be changed so you NEVER have more money than some who works and is in the same situation. You should have enough for warn accommodation, food and water, anything else should be earned.
Which is what working tax credits actually do. Hence they top up the low incomes of WORKERS to ensure they ARE better off working. In that respect at least, they DO WORK.

-Child trust funds are stopped (already done thank god)
Never argued in favour of CTF's anyway, can't say stopping them will impact on child poverty, or even see how the implementation of them improves child poverty (it doesn't).

-In poor families expecting a baby if they need help with afford needed items they will be given the items which will be a standard setup of basic but functional items, no money passed over.
No, treating adults like naughty children in society will never work. It will only create further class divisions. People can manage very well to source items THEY decide THEY need (different families will have different needs for different equipment) on a top up grant (assuming they need assistance because of low incomes), just as well as you or I could decide what we need. I have no desire to see the stigmatisation of the children of low income familes by providing them with uniformed state approved equipment.

-WTC's can stay to help those on lower incomes but are still doing there bit. Umm...that is all they do anyway. Only workers on low incomes are actually entitled to them anyway.

-All able bodied unemployed people should do at least 8 hours of community service/charity work a week, failure to do so without good reason results in a 50% reduction in that weeks benefits.
Are you going to pay their childcare if necessary too? I'm all for a voluntary system of charity work. But you have to be careful you'll end up with an army of unemployed doing jobs the local authorities should be employing workers for, for free. Thus actually creating unemployment unintentionally. (One example - my local Oxfam shop employs paid staff, and has a few volunteers and also takes on those people on community service. To drastically increase the people in society FORCED to do community service will result in more unpaid workers than jobs. Or more likely create opportunity for some employers or businesses to use this free labour to their advantage. And to the disadvantage of workers).
In principle there is nothing wrong with unemployed workers doing this, but it can't be forced, because then you have to consider the effects like the above (such as childcare etc).

-All EMA is scrapped, you should be in higher education because you want to be, not as a stop gap of money until you are 18 and collect a proper dole. There is a lot unfair about EMA, and who qualifies, but if it does encourage poorer children who otherwise would be forced to leave school early to contribute to the family pot, and earn themselves some decent qualifications to improve their own job prospects, then it's money well spent. Those that receive it, actually DO have to attend college and learn something.

Feel free to use your far superior brain to tell me its all wrong but in doing so what would you do differently and why?
I do honestly find your thinking quite narrow and you unwilling to explore the reasons behind a lot of things. Have you ever considered that a capitalist society actually NEEDS unemployed workers? Capitalism also needs immigration - we have both in large numbers - who benefits? Not the poor for sure. But employers have a rich bank of unemployed workers to pick from, all willing to compete with each other for work, and this brings wages down (hence the need for the minimum wage in the first place). This country, like any western capitalist state is governed not by the people we elect, but by the institutions that pander only to the needs of the corporations. Why do you think there is always such emphasis on the "needs of the economy" rather than the "needs of the people"?

As you may see form the above as much as you keep saying I am attacking the poor, I actually attacking the none workers amongst us, I am more then up for helping the poor who do something.
I'm assuming you haven't actually met anyone laid off or unemployed because they can't find work? I'm assuming you've never been unemployed, therefore can't put yourself in the shoes of anyone that has? When a factory closes down in a small village, do you think the large proportion of people it employed suddenly become chavs whose children should never have been born?

It's always easy to attack the most vunerable in society, the poorest amongst us. But it's far braver to go for those that keep them poor and vunerable in the first place.

Btw, just out of interest, what do you think about the following REAL wastes of money/scroungers etc?

David Laws
And MP's expenses in light of recent events.

Trident

The billions spent on immoral or illegal wars of aggression
(and the subsequent billions dollar deals being snapped up by the likes of Exxon Mobile and BP)

Bank bailouts that never actually helped out either the small business or the people that needed help

Bankers bonuses funded by government bailouts (i.e .Fred Goodwin)

?

Deepmistrust

Percy1983 wrote: »

We both know that, It just amusing me that he keeps saying we are wrong but won't say what is right.

Anyway where is my colourful (and professional) reply to 510 Mr Deepmistrust?

I was looking forward to it.

I'm sorry for making you wait an hour or two. I'm not actually glued to the PC. Sorry.

*rolls eyes*

POPPYOSCAR

liam8282 wrote: »

Just ignore him / her, they might go away. :rotfl:

If only....

I think they are having far to much fun insulting everyone.

Deepmistrust

liam8282 wrote: »

Just ignore him / her, they might go away. :rotfl:

Hahaha, says Liam who can't keep away.:rotfl:
Seriously I'm sorry, I know you wanted the internet all to yourself. I do understand why you can't take it when I trounce your posts all over the net. Sorry about that.