New House Misery

JuniorSherlock

darkpool wrote: »

That chip on your shoulder is the largest I've ever seen. I think they could probably see it from space.

Well thank you for a most interesting discussion. Shame you have nothing of value to contribute. However other people have aired their views very well and it's heartening to think that there are decent people out there after all who realise that not everything is so black and white.

I've kids to collect from school now and then some work to catch up on. Enjoy the rest of your day.

WHITEVANMAN

Since you brought it up, why do you get on better with men than women?

JuniorSherlock

WHITEVANMAN wrote: »

Since you brought it up, why do you get on better with men than women?

Not sure actually. There's no one thing I can put my finger on. When I went to college the ones who went to the pub and were willing to have fun were the men I guess, so I just went along with that and was accepted as one of their group. They are the friends that I still keep in touch with and am very close to.

I do have female friends, but not as many.

Sorry, I know that's not an answer, but unless there are any amateur psychologists fancy having another go, I don't know why it's turned out that way.

WHITEVANMAN

JuniorSherlock wrote: »

Not sure actually. There's no one thing I can put my finger on. When I went to college the ones who went to the pub and were willing to have fun were the men I guess, so I just went along with that and was accepted as one of their group. They are the friends that I still keep in touch with and am very close to.

I do have female friends, but not as many.

Sorry, I know that's not an answer, but unless there are any amateur psychologists fancy having another go, I don't know why it's turned out that way.

Having a disproportionate amount of male friends than women is different from getting on better with men than women.

I would never try out amateur psychology on a forum, but maybe someday you might take some time to consider the question and the answers for yourself.

Appreciate the honest response.

darkpool

So if we spend 200billion pounds a year on benefits and we still have social problems is the lesson that extra money isn't the solution?

it is strange how 50 years ago you just never had teen mums then in a couple of generations you get whole estates full of teen mums. it's as if all the benefits we give the underclass are just encouraging bad behaviour.

i'll be honest, i think a traditional married couple will bring kids up better than a teen mum.

WHITEVANMAN

darkpool wrote: »

So if we spend 200billion pounds a year on benefits and we still have social problems is the lesson that extra money isn't the solution?

it is strange how 50 years ago you just never had teen mums then in a couple of generations you get whole estates full of teen mums. it's as if all the benefits we give the underclass are just encouraging bad behaviour.

i'll be honest, i think a traditional married couple will bring kids up better than a teen mum.

As an Athiest, I think it has a lot to do with the collapse of religious belief and values over the last 50 years! :eek:

darkpool

wvman, i can see your argument. but do you not think giving money/ houses to teen mums also has something to do with it?

Gwhiz

darkpool wrote: »

So if we spend 200billion pounds a year on benefits and we still have social problems is the lesson that extra money isn't the solution?

it is strange how 50 years ago you just never had teen mums then in a couple of generations you get whole estates full of teen mums. it's as if all the benefits we give the underclass are just encouraging bad behaviour.

i'll be honest, i think a traditional married couple will bring kids up better than a teen mum.

Throw easy money at people and the lazy, those with no desire to add anything to society and those with no wish to better themselves will simply take it. Do this over a few generations with parents re-enforcing the same attitude and you build a huge social problem.

It's too easy to do nothing under the welfare system that's been running for the last decade or more and it needs changing.

I heard today (although admittedly it was in the Express) that 75% of those on sickness benefit are fit to work. Even if it's 25% it totally unacceptable. The fact someone would choose not to work is alien to me, but it's obviously a massive issue.

Gwhiz

darkpool wrote: »

wvman, i can see your argument. but do you not think giving money/ houses to teen mums also has something to do with it?

The stats bear this out. The UK has highest teen pregnancy levels in Europe and the highest benefits for this. Those countries with little or no benefits have very low teen pregnancy levels. (I could dig out the stats but do not have them to hand)

WHITEVANMAN

darkpool wrote: »

wvman, i can see your argument. but do you not think giving money/ houses to teen mums also has something to do with it?

Of course, I wasnt suggesting for one instant it could be the only reason.