This is everything that is wrong with the UK

Cleaver

The_White_Horse wrote: »

what was wrong with "i would"?

The lack of a capital used for the word 'i' [sic]?

Percy1983

The_White_Horse wrote: »

there should be no benefits except FOOD STAMPS for these people.

The would probably sell them to get the PS3 games.

paybacktime2008

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

I thought adding a bit of reality to what the OP wishes & hopes for would improve the debate.

After all it is very important that the OP clarifies his remarks about being OK about starving to death children.

Perhaps I am wrong about the pictures.

Personally I am aware that the end result (dead people) started a hate campaign similar to what the OP posted then progressed further including things like withdrawal of all means of financial support before the gas chambers were built.

Maybe you would like to delete them then.

Old_Slaphead

Blacklight wrote: »

I'll be voting for Brown so that he can tax the high earners to pay for this.

It's simply not fair that people who've sacrificed their late teenage years and saddled themselves with massive debt putting themselves through higher education in order to make a better life for themselves, pay the same as benefit cheats and lazy people to have their dustbins emptied when they can clearly afford to pay double.

Why should they get to keep more than 40% of their earnings when young girls who've dropped out of high school to have children so they can lounge about with their mates so they don't have to get a job, have no money to pay for foreign holidays? It's simply not fair when middle class hard working individuals who applied themselves and now have a decent job in banking have the money to subsidise them.

And I'm certainly against letting their relatives have all their wealth when they die. They should be taxed to high heaven to pay for poor peoples skinny dogs.

That's why I'm voting Labour.

[edit] Didn't see 1984's post, was too busy ranting. Take it down, it's out of order and this isn't the place.

Is this in code ??????

ninky_2

perhaps the fair stallion would care to consider this fine and noble proposition.

http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html


I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee or a ragout. I do therefore humbly offer it to public consideration that of the hundred and twenty thousand children already computed, twenty thousand may be reserved for breed, whereof only one-fourth part to be males; which is more than we allow to sheep, black cattle or swine; and my reason is, that these children are seldom the fruits of marriage, a circumstance not much regarded by our savages, therefore one male will be sufficient to serve four females. That the remaining hundred thousand may, at a year old, be offered in the sale to the persons of quality and fortune through the kingdom; always advising the mother to let them suck plentifully in the last month, so as to render them plump and fat for a good table. A child will make two dishes at an entertainment for friends; and when the family dines alone, the fore or hind quarter will make a reasonable dish, and seasoned with a little pepper or salt will be very good boiled on the fourth day, especially in winter.

kennyboy66_2

Kohoutek wrote: »

We've had a welfare system for several hundred years, I don't think many people have starved since it was established, despite the fact it used to be pretty minimal compared with the current system.

The benefits system no longer a safety net that encouraged people to go out and find work, it actually discourages work and in these cases is a viable alternative to working.

Other than the Irish of course (Ireland was part of United Kingdom of Britain and Ireland after the 1801 Act of Union).

The_White_Horse

ninky wrote: »

perhaps the fair stallion would care to consider this fine and noble proposition.

http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html


I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee or a ragout. I do therefore humbly offer it to public consideration that of the hundred and twenty thousand children already computed, twenty thousand may be reserved for breed, whereof only one-fourth part to be males; which is more than we allow to sheep, black cattle or swine; and my reason is, that these children are seldom the fruits of marriage, a circumstance not much regarded by our savages, therefore one male will be sufficient to serve four females. That the remaining hundred thousand may, at a year old, be offered in the sale to the persons of quality and fortune through the kingdom; always advising the mother to let them suck plentifully in the last month, so as to render them plump and fat for a good table. A child will make two dishes at an entertainment for friends; and when the family dines alone, the fore or hind quarter will make a reasonable dish, and seasoned with a little pepper or salt will be very good boiled on the fourth day, especially in winter.

more lefty idiocy.

how about this proposition - STOP HAVING KIDS YOU CAN'T AFFORD TO CLOTHE, FEED OR HOUSE

Spartacus_Mills

The_White_Horse wrote: »

its all of them.

its people like you, that can't let the children suffer, that allow these filthy parents to keep breeding like bacteria. they always know a fool will come along to say "but we can't let the children starve, but we can't make the children homeless, but we can't make the children watch a tv less than 42" etc etc. they know they will never be turfed out because of people like you.

There needs to be a hard line taken. This may cause pain for a few, but it will achieve a greater good in the end.

Of course we do not want the children to suffer but at the moment the family are incentivised to not work and to breed. I do not blame the family for one minute for this. However there has to be a better way of doing things. We cannot continue to dole money out to these people like it is going out of fashion.

Food stamps I agree with for them. Some form of public service for their benefit would be a better solution be it weeding pensioners laws or digging ditches. The sort of work not covered by the council but for the public good. We cannot teach these people, and their offspring, that something for nothing is a good thing.

I rather like the refreshing honesty of the woman in the article and do not blame her at all.

Spartacus_Mills

The_White_Horse wrote: »

i told you - none, because they are all a load of rubbish.

my question is valid - who is stopping this family from working?

I am not advocating starving people on purpose, but if a family unit decides to to have 10 children when they can't afford 1, that should remain their problem and not the tax payers. If they can't afford to eat, then it is their problem. not mine. that is why i only have two children. I could have 15 children as well, but I don't.

I think you clarified the point WRT starving by raising the issue of food vouchers.

Plus one of the couple could go out and work for a living and bring money in. They need the essentials, clothing, heating, housing and so on but they do not need the luxuries like a 42" TV or holidays every year.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

paybacktime2008 wrote: »

Maybe you would like to delete them then.

Not really. A bit of reality is needed when idiots are writing rubbish.

But as you suggested nicely I have.



This thread needs to go to DT where is belongs. Or better still a cesspit.