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

Deepmistrust

dmg24 wrote: »

Deepmistrust, could I suggest that you take a step back and look at how you are coming across in this thread? I am sure you have many valid points, but you are going round in circles and the only person that is making people cringe is yourself.

It's the self-appointed camp guard.

If Liam wants to witter on in desperation to convince (gawd knows who) that's he not a hypocrite, then I am more than happy to respond to him.

And as there are about 3 or 4 daily-mail reading finger waggers on this thread arguing the toss with me, hardly what I'd consider the "people".:rotfl:

LizzieS_2

Deepmistrust wrote: »

I always say, when you nothing about a subject it's probably best either to keep quiet and learn it, or forget it.

That particular (lack of) insight into Chomsky, is making me cringe on your behalf:rotfl:

I do not care much about American opinions - this is a British website. Have you worked out yet why the career claimants have made it so difficult for current claimants?

EDIT: You appear to be the only one who reads the Daily Mail - I meet plenty of the career claimants day in day out.

liam8282

Deepmistrust wrote: »

Whereas you of course, haven't just spent the last week frantically posting demanding you're not a hypocrite. :rotfl:I love irony.

More like to respond to your countless questions, and defend myself against your petty insults.

Your opinion may be 'valid' (the most pointless way to describe an opinion in itself), but that doesn't mean it can't be subject to criticism or even derided for the stupidity that you base it on.

Just as your own opinion has been subject to criticism and derided for the stupidity that you base it on.

If only you practice what you preach.

I have actually done some more profile stalking of my own, and you seem to have several differing opinions on the same subject, when it suits you.

For example, in a post in response to a 19 yo benefits claimant, you basically tell them they are not earning their JSA and that they should work more if they want a greater income.

In other posts you take points that I raised to you, "Just because something is legal, does that make it right", and use them yourself.

You go on to question a persons morality, rather in the same way that I did on this thread.

That is very ironic wouldn't you say?

liam8282

Deepmistrust wrote: »

It's the self-appointed camp guard.

If Liam wants to witter on in desperation to convince (gawd knows who) that's he not a hypocrite, then I am more than happy to respond to him.

And as there are about 3 or 4 daily-mail reading finger waggers on this thread arguing the toss with me, hardly what I'd consider the "people".:rotfl:

Did you get a lot of "detentions" at school and have to write a lot of "lines".

That is what your posts seem to be devolving into, the same old repetative drivel.

Deepmistrust

LizzieS wrote: »

I do not care much about American opinions - this is a British website. Have you worked out yet why the career claimants have made it so difficult for current claimants?

EDIT: You appear to be the only one who reads the Daily Mail - I meet plenty of the career claimants day in day out.

Chomsky's ideals are actually universal, but then I'm sure you'd know this if you knew anything;)

"American opinions"? How very racist of you.

I'm sure you do think you meet 'career claimants' (Wft) everyday in Lizzies world :rotfl:

Deepmistrust

liam8282 wrote: »

Did you get a lot of "detentions" at school and have to write a lot of "lines".

That is what your posts seem to be devolving into, the same old repetative drivel.

Why did you put "detentions" and "lines" in quotations?

I thought you were the grammar queen?

Or was it the drama queen?:rotfl:

Deepmistrust

liam8282 wrote: »

Just as your own opinion has been subject to criticism and derided for the stupidity that you base it on.

If only you practice what you preach.

I have actually done some more profile stalking of my own, and you seem to have several differing opinions on the same subject, when it suits you.

For example, in a post in response to a 19 yo benefits claimant, you basically tell them they are not earning their JSA and that they should work more if they want a greater income.

In other posts you take points that I raised to you, "Just because something is legal, does that make it right", and use them yourself.

You go on to question a persons morality, rather in the same way that I did on this thread.

That is very ironic wouldn't you say?

"For example, in a post in response to a 19 yo benefits claimant, you basically tell them they are not earning their JSA and that they should work more if they want a greater income."

You have to be a complete half-wit.

I've never posted a contrary opinion to working more hours gives a greater income. on the contrary, you've spent the last 2 week claiming working LESS gives a greater income.

I advised him to work more hours to increase his income.

EDIT: Did you expect that a person who refuses to call the unemployed "scroungers" would therefore go around telling everyone to be unemployed?
Jesus.Wept.

Great work again, inspector Clouseau hahaha:rotfl:

leveller2911

Pub anyone????

Deepmistrust

leveller2911 wrote: »

Pub anyone????

Haha, careful you might be labelled a scrounger if you dare to be in receipt of child benefit whilst drinking in the pub;)

liam8282

Deepmistrust wrote: »

"For example, in a post in response to a 19 yo benefits claimant, you basically tell them they are not earning their JSA and that they should work more if they want a greater income."

You fail to see the obvious as usual, you tell someone they are not earning the JSA. What several posters have told you on here, repeatedly.

You have to be a complete half-wit.

Yet more insults. The usual trait of a person to mask there own flaws.

I've never posted a contrary opinion to working more hours gives a greater income.

Where has anybody else on this thread?

on the contrary, you've spent the last 2 week claiming working LESS gives a greater income.

No, what I and several people have proved to you is that a person can achieve an equivalent income to that of a working person, for doing nothing.

I advised him to work more hours to increase his income.

But surely if he worked more, he would lose his benefits?

EDIT: Did you expect that a person who refuses to call the unemployed "scroungers" would therefore go around telling everyone to be unemployed?

Why do you keep insuating that I have called unemployed people scroungers?

Jesus.Wept.

Yes, at your monotonous posts.

Great work again, inspector Clouseau hahaha:rotfl:

Only following your lead.