This is everything that is wrong with the UK

ninky_2

The_White_Horse wrote: »

more lefty idiocy.

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

perhaps you prefer this then horsey. damn clever them victorians.

http://www.victorianweb.org/history/poorlaw/eligible.html

One of the principles of the new regime of poor relief that was introduced by the 1834 Poor Law Amendment Act was that of 'less eligibility'. The principle did not apply to children. They were held to be blameless for their predicament, were educated and then found apprenticeships or other work.
'Less eligibility' was defined as follows: that the situation of the able-bodied recipient of poor relief "on the whole shall not be made really or apparently as eligible as the independent labourer of the lowest class." By this, it was meant that the condition of a pauper in the workhouse should be not as attractive as that of the poorest labourer outside the workhouse. Effectively, a person who was able-bodied had to be destitute in order to qualify for poor relief.

The_White_Horse

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

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.

This thread should stay here in all its glory so people can see a true hysterical lefty at work. Its actually very funny:

Normal Poster: These people who have 14 kids should be allowed to starve

Lefty: So its ok to gas small children and babies

Normal Poster: No, i didn't say purposely starve them, i said left to starve if they don't want to work

Lefty: NAZI NAZI NAZI HOMOPHOBE FACIST RACIST etc etc and so on and so on

Blacklight

Spartacus_Mills wrote: »

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.

The problem there is that they have a vote. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas.

Take the vote off those who choose not to work perhaps?

paybacktime2008

ninky wrote: »

perhaps you prefer this then horsey. damn clever them victorians.

http://www.victorianweb.org/history/poorlaw/eligible.html

One of the principles of the new regime of poor relief that was introduced by the 1834 Poor Law Amendment Act was that of 'less eligibility'. The principle did not apply to children. They were held to be blameless for their predicament, were educated and then found apprenticeships or other work.
'Less eligibility' was defined as follows: that the situation of the able-bodied recipient of poor relief "on the whole shall not be made really or apparently as eligible as the independent labourer of the lowest class." By this, it was meant that the condition of a pauper in the workhouse should be not as attractive as that of the poorest labourer outside the workhouse. Effectively, a person who was able-bodied had to be destitute in order to qualify for poor relief.

We have the pill and other forms of contraception. Having children is a choice. If you choose to have multiple children with no form of supporting them why should others pay for your stupidity?

1984ReturnsForReal_2

The_White_Horse wrote: »

Normal Poster: These people who have 14 kids should be allowed to starve

That is not "Normal"

Personally I think you are a wind up merchant.



By the way... I would be more than happy if the people that consider the deliberate starving to death of children (in fact anyone not just children) to be acceptable are wiped of the face of the planet by whatever means possible, painful or not.

If you are not a wind up merchant that includes you.

Spartacus_Mills

Blacklight wrote: »

The problem there is that they have a vote. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas.

Take the vote off those who choose not to work perhaps?

A bit harsh, you are going back to a two tier society and the logical extension is the poorhouse.

It is not an easy question to answer but that is what our politicians are paid to do and they need to address it.

The_White_Horse

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

That is not "Normal"

Personally I think you are a wind up merchant.



By the way... I would be more than happy if the people that consider the deliberate starving to death of children (in fact anyone not just children) to be acceptable are wiped of the face of the planet by whatever means possible, painful or not.

If you are not a wind up merchant that includes you.

I think you have a difficulty in understanding english language or perhaps concepts. there is a massive difference between purposely starving people to death ie stopping them having access to food - and simply not giving people handouts and allowing them to CHOOSE to starve rather than working. The father could clean peoples toilets for a fiver couldn't he? He could then buy some bread for his brood.

Tell me you are not utterly thick and can appreciate the difference between the concepts. Please tell me lefty that someone who has the right to vote can understand something SO simple....

ninky_2

paybacktime2008 wrote: »

We have the pill and other forms of contraception. Having children is a choice. If you choose to have multiple children with no form of supporting them why should others pay for your stupidity?

i agree with you. but i don't think the white_horse has the right solutions to this.

i actually support some form of work for benefits scheme for longterm claimants.

Spartacus_Mills

The_White_Horse wrote: »

I think you have a difficulty in understanding english language or perhaps concepts. there is a massive difference between purposely starving people to death ie stopping them having access to food - and simply not giving people handouts and allowing them to CHOOSE to starve rather than working. The father could clean peoples toilets for a fiver couldn't he? He could then buy some bread for his brood.

Tell me you are not utterly thick and can appreciate the difference between the concepts. Please tell me lefty that someone who has the right to vote can understand something SO simple....

TBF to 1984 you did make the absolute statement that they should be allowed to starve. Perhaps you should have stated fend for themselves instead ?

PS - Please do not class me as a lefty. I am in the centre.

paybacktime2008

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

So this sort of thing is ok for you??



(PICTURE DELETED DUE TO REQUEST NOT TO SHOW THE REALITY OF STARVED TO DEATH PEOPLE)


or this?

(PICTURE DELETED DUE TO REQUEST NOT TO SHOW THE REALITY OF STARVED TO DEATH PEOPLE)

I take it that quote relates to me. You know you were wrong - Just swallow it and shut it. If you think you were right please put the pictures back. After all people need to see this reality don't they??