This is everything that is wrong with the UK

The_White_Horse

Spartacus_Mills wrote: »

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.

allowed to starve - not be starved.

The_White_Horse

ninky wrote: »

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.

it can never work though, the lefty will not allow it.

do you think health and safety would let someone cut an old dear's lawn - he will require months of training and god knows what else before he is allowed to let rip with a flymo.

ninky_2

The_White_Horse wrote: »

it can never work though, the lefty will not allow it.

do you think health and safety would let someone cut an old dear's lawn - he will require months of training and god knows what else before he is allowed to let rip with a flymo.

oh overzealous health and safety is caused by lefties now is it? funny i thought no win no fee culture had quite a bit to do with it.

paybacktime2008

Spartacus_Mills wrote: »

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.

Unfortunately they do this from somewhere far away from reality. Ask the people (like me) who are working with this segment of society. It's not just the benefits it's the other huge amounts of cash and resources ploughed into these neighbourhoods - health, police, education, probabtion services, social services etc etc .

This problem will multiply as the next generation comes through and has 6 kids, and so on and so forth. And the generations can be 15/16 years too.

It can be simply solved without anyone starving. No further benefits for further children for exsisting claimants. Benefits cut off piont at 2 children for new claims.

I can't see anything wrong with my idea....but open to offers?!

MoneyMiser

The_White_Horse wrote: »

allowed to starve - not be starved.

Either 'allowed to starve' or 'be starved' are one and the same and you know it. Yes there are people taking advantage of the system, unfortunately in a world were people are out for themselves, this happens all over the world, NOT just Britain!

Either way, the kids are born into this and had no choice, so do not deserve to 'be starved' or 'allowed to be starved'.

Yes I agree the system does need to be looked at, to stop people taking advantage of it.

MM

The_White_Horse

MoneyMiser wrote: »

Either 'allowed to starve' or 'be starved' are one and the same and you know it. Yes there are people taking advantage of the system, unfortunately in a world were people are out for themselves, this happens all over the world, NOT just Britain!

Either way, the kids are born into this and had no choice, so do not deserve to 'be starved' or 'allowed to be starved'.

Yes I agree the system does need to be looked at, to stop people taking advantage of it.

MM

its not the same thing at all.

did you know, if you are walking in the park and you see someone drowning, you have no duty at all to go and save them (unless you are a policeman). You can walk on by, and they will die.

whilst you can argue the rights or wrongs of that action, it is completely different to actually dragging someone to the water and purposely holding them under the water until they are dead.

if you can't see the difference, then you are a fool.

there is a massive difference in stopping people having access to food by imprisoning them or blocking supplies and simply not giving them handouts and allowing them to starve, should they choose not to work and get food for their family.

MoneyMiser

The_White_Horse wrote: »

its not the same thing at all.

did you know, if you are walking in the park and you see someone drowning, you have no duty at all to go and save them (unless you are a policeman). You can walk on by, and they will die.

whilst you can argue the rights or wrongs of that action, it is completely different to actually dragging someone to the water and purposely holding them under the water until they are dead.

if you can't see the difference, then you are a fool.

there is a massive difference in stopping people having access to food by imprisoning them or blocking supplies and simply not giving them handouts and allowing them to starve, should they choose not to work and get food for their family.

It is you who is the fool WhiteHorse.

Your comparison to someone drowning is pathetic at best. If you see someone drowning, you do everything you can to help them, whether it be jump in after them, throw them a lifejacket or call for help.

These children have done nothing wrong to be refused the basic human rights. Yes, some sort of reform is needed like those mentioned by paybacktime2008. Benefits cut off after two children? Maybe not but the amount recieived should certainly decline. For example, after the first two children, child three gets 30% less, child four 50% less, child five 70% less. Something like that to put these types of familes off having more kids and force them into work.

MM

ninky_2

MoneyMiser wrote: »

It is you who is the fool WhiteHorse.

Your comparison to someone drowning is pathetic at best. If you see someone drowning, you do everything you can to help them, whether it be jump in after them, throw them a lifejacket or call for help.

unless you're a police community support officer

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/7006412.stm

Percy1983

Dare I say there is a very simple solution to all those children who would starve.

If your benefits are cut and you can't feed you children and make no effort to work then you should have said children taken off you. I know I couple who would do anything for a baby and can't have them... meanwhile you have people having children so they don't have to work.

Solves 2 problems in one go.

The_White_Horse

MoneyMiser wrote: »

Your comparison to someone drowning is pathetic at best. If you see someone drowning, you do everything you can to help them, whether it be jump in after them, throw them a lifejacket or call for help.


MM

What would you do if you saw someone drowning but you couldn't swim yourself or had a phobia of water.

What if the person drowning was a known !!!!!? Would you possibly sacrifice your own life to help them? Seriously, I am interested. What if it was someone you just despised?