Tories are certainly getting stuck into our benefits system...

Shakethedisease

You win then luv. Everyone who fought in the first two world wars were only there and died because they were conscripted and a bit of peer pressure.
They didn't actually believe any of that old 'hogwash' that the Nazi's were not very nice and may have been perfectly ok with an invasion to make the UK a 'much better place to live'...with a few concentration camps for mass extermination purposes ( for 'undesirables' ) thrown in here and there for good measure. How silly have I been then ? Just when a gal thinks she know's her 'history' eh !

One up to you then if it makes you feel better.

I was trying to take the thread back to the original point ? The coalition getting stuck into the benefits system. Remember ? I got a bit peeved at someone talking about 'leeches' and 'starve them' comments ? I think conscription and WWII may not be that relevant to the thread in question. But, again.. feel free to labour on about it. I'm ok being challenged. Just not sure !!!!!! it has to do with this thread any more ?

chewmylegoff

Shakethedisease wrote: »

You win then luv. Everyone who fought in the first two world wars were only there and died because they were conscripted and a bit of peer pressure.
They didn't actually believe any of that old 'hogwash' that the Nazi's were not very nice and may have been perfectly ok with an invasion to make the UK a 'much better place to live'...with a few concentration camps for mass extermination purposes ( for 'undesirables' ) thrown in here and there for good measure. How silly have I been then ? Just when a gal thinks she know's her 'history' eh !

One up to you then if it makes you feel better.

I was trying to take the thread back to the original point ? The coalition getting stuck into the benefits system. Remember ? I got a bit peeved at someone talking about 'leeches' and 'starve them' comments ? I think conscription and WWII may not be that relevant to the thread in question. But, again.. feel free to labour on about it. I'm ok being challenged. Just not sure !!!!!! it has to do with this thread any more ?

none of that has anything to do with what i said, but if it makes you feel better to just invent some nonsense then fine.

if you don't think it's got anything to do with the thread (and certainly what the ww1 generation might think has nothing to do with anything here) then don't bring it up in the first place, and don't throw around enormous generalisations about two whole generations when you have no idea whether they would actually support what you're saying or not.

Harry_Powell

WWI started when a bloke called Archie Duke shot an ostrich 'cause he was hungry.

rachelandgromit

I've been reading this thread with interest. I do believe the benefits culture needs some form of shake up but my point is about teenage pregnancies. Working in an area which has a high number of teenage pregnancies there appears to be a 'culture' of getting pregnant which is a means to an end which will get you a council house and benefits and 'be better off'. Almost daily I hear this comment and I just wonder if this problem needs addressing too. I cannot grasp why the government are 'paying' people to have children.

byebyedebt

rachelandgromit wrote: »

I've been reading this thread with interest. I do believe the benefits culture needs some form of shake up but my point is about teenage pregnancies. Working in an area which has a high number of teenage pregnancies there appears to be a 'culture' of getting pregnant which is a means to an end which will get you a council house and benefits and 'be better off'. Almost daily I hear this comment and I just wonder if this problem needs addressing too. I cannot grasp why the government are 'paying' people to have children.

Likewise, I too have come across this in one of my many jobs. For are too many, teenage pregnancies are a lifestyle choice. We are an overpopulated country. Child benefit should only be paid for a maximum of two children per family. To minimise disruption the government should give nine months notice of intent to limit it to two children, and apply to all new applicants. Existing benefit arrangements should be left. Child benefit should be renamed child state handouts.

mbga9pgf

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Read Lemonjelly's post/link.. and lets get back on topic if the thread is to continue. I'm fed up justifying one little comment I made amongst many on this thread.. when it really isn't relevant to the overall discussion. The reponses to my comment are only a 'scoring points/picking holes' thing and I'm not really interested in going any further with it on that basis. I've explained more than fully what I meant by it ( ie mbga9pgf's posts are bordering on the extreme and that those fighting in both WW's would be horrified by them and what they would mean for the most vunerable UK citizens)...

No they wouldnt. Trey getting a consensus at the Royal British Legion.People gave their lives in the 2 great wars not to end up with a nation of leechers and whiners, but to free this country from facism.

Many would turn in their grave at the thought that those that work hard for their money are taxed to death for those who could work, but cant give !!!!!! so instead get signed off. No-one would starve. Its just they wouldnt have a chance not to work. People are not going to make the decision to work doing something unpleasant for cash unless the alternative is more repugnant.

We need to disincentivise a life on benefits, and by god, the Conservatives have done a fantastic job of starting down that road.

Shakethedisease

my point is about teenage pregnancies. Working in an area which has a high number of teenage pregnancies there appears to be a 'culture' of getting pregnant which is a means to an end which will get you a council house and benefits and 'be better off'

Go back and read up a bit on council housing dear. Getting yourself pregnant doesn't actually cut it any more in getting one nowadays. There aren't enough of them left. You're about 20 years out of date with that I'm afraid.

We are an overpopulated country.

..err because we are living longer ? More immigrants etc. Not due to the birth-rate.

Most of them just aren't life-experienced enough to know what they are doing and how their lives will change afterwards. No idea whatsoever.. ( speaking from experience as a teenage mum at 17 ). I turned out ok.. don't write them all off because of one mistake. Most grow up very quickly afterwards, with the child often the incentive to better themselves.

People gave their lives in the 2 great wars not to end up with a nation of leechers and whiners, but to free this country from facism.

Oh go and steal candy off a baby (who's mother is on benefits). Might make you feel better. And you whine enough for 100 of them put together.

StevieJ

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Ah ok ? So they were ok with Nazi-ism then. Just got conscripted and fought and died because a wee form came through the door saying they were off to the front line. Right-oh..

Glad you cleared that up for us all. *yawns*

Tell it to the soldiers fighting now and see what you get telling them they're 'only there' because of 'peer pressure' ?

Should imagine the applications will increase as Tory cuts bite, maybe not peer pressure more financial.

leveller2911

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Go back and read up a bit on council housing dear. Getting yourself pregnant doesn't actually cut it any more in getting one nowadays. There aren't enough of them left. You're about 20 years out of date with that I'm afraid.


Sorry to tell you this but your wrong.....If a girl goes and gets herself pregnant, she DOES get preference over a couple living together whether they are married or not,but don't have children......

She will need to bid ( more children equels more points)on the social housing offered BUT a couple who are married/living together will have NO chance whatso ever, this is fact and reality.....


With Social housing the facts still are that if you do things properly (ie be in a stable relationship,but decide not to have children yet)
Your bottom of the list ....

We live in East Sussex and this is fact here, I find it hard to believe that different Councils have a different policy..Its always whats best for the children......

A._Badger

leveller2911 wrote: »

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Go back and read up a bit on council housing dear. Getting yourself pregnant doesn't actually cut it any more in getting one nowadays. There aren't enough of them left. You're about 20 years out of date with that I'm afraid.


Sorry to tell you this but your wrong.....If a girl goes and gets herself pregnant, she DOES get preference over a couple living together whether they are married or not,but don't have children......

She will need to bid on the social housing offered BUT a couple who are married/living together will have NO chance whatso ever, this is fact and reality.....


With Social housing the facts still are that if you do things properly (ie be in a stable relationship,but decide not to have children yet)
Your bottom of the list ....

We live in East Sussex and this is fact here, I find it hard to believe that different Councils have a different policy..Its always whats best for the children......

As I've said here before, twice in the past few years I have accidentally overheard conversations in which teenage girls have openy discussed the prospects of gettng pregnant, to get away from home, get out of a boring job and get a home of their own.

In the small country town where I spend most of my time, unmarried motherhod seems to be the primamry career option for teeange girls.

But why should anyone be surprised? If you pay someone to do something, many will.