We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

Debate House Prices


In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Council evictions begin

1…343536373840»

Comments

  • StevieJ
    StevieJ Posts: 20,174 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    It seems that it is not only the disaffected youf :eek:
    A 70-year-old man who reportedly looted a Sainsbury’s is the oldest person to be arrested so far in connection with the riots that swept across London two weeks ago.

    http://uk.news.yahoo.com/70-year-old-%E2%80%98ashamed%E2%80%99-after-looting-sainsbury%E2%80%99s-during-riots.html

    I can't get my head around some of these sentences, young mum gets put in the slammer for receiving a pair of jeans, this guy, a serious talking to for looting a Sainsbury's store.
    'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher
  • john539
    john539 Posts: 16,968 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts
    Nearly Legal does its stuff. :T

    Wandsworth: headed for the naughty step?
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 0 Newbie
    pqrdef wrote: »
    Is there any evidence that this financial incentive works? E.g. do people on benefiits have larger families?

    Even supposing that to be true, I don't see how you're making the link with rioting.

    I'm not sure about family size but I'd be very surprised if they were not more likely to have kids at all than those who are working.

    The legal system and benefits system being the two big factors. If your a responsible man with a decent income you'd be crazy to have children under our current laws. The woman has a big financial incentive to leave you, gets custody of the kids and gets to choose how money intended for your children is spent. This leaves you to turn up every fortnight to watch someone playing daddy to your kids and listen to how their minds have been poisoned against you.

    If your scrounging parasitic filth you don't have any of the financial and work/life balance concerns that decent people have. In fact you have the reverse.
  • neverdespairgirl
    neverdespairgirl Posts: 16,501 Forumite
    edited 17 April at 9:56AM
    [quote=[Deleted User];46325601]
    The legal system and benefits system being the two big factors. If your a responsible man with a decent income you'd be crazy to have children under our current laws. The woman has a big financial incentive to leave you, gets custody of the kids and gets to choose how money intended for your children is spent. This leaves you to turn up every fortnight to watch someone playing daddy to your kids and listen to how their minds have been poisoned against you.
    [/QUOTE]

    I think that's mad. Usually, women end up worse off through divorce than men do.

    In our situation, we both earn about the same - OH about 15% more than me this year. He spends more than 20% (the CSA amount for 1 child) on our son, I'm sure!
    ...much enquiry having been made concerning a gentleman, who had quitted a company where Johnson was, and no information being obtained; at last Johnson observed, that 'he did not care to speak ill of any man behind his back, but he believed the gentleman was an attorney'.
  • pqrdef
    pqrdef Posts: 4,552 Forumite
    edited 17 April at 9:56AM
    [quote=[Deleted User];46325601]The woman has a big financial incentive to leave you[/QUOTE]
    Or maybe she's got other reasons to leave, but instead of facing that, you direct all your wrath against the benefits system. Hypothetically of course.
    "It will take, five, 10, 15 years to get back to where we need to be. But it's no longer the individual banks that are in the wrong, it's the banking industry as a whole." - Steven Cooper, head of personal and business banking at Barclays, talking to Martin Lewis
  • pqrdef
    pqrdef Posts: 4,552 Forumite
    Apropos of nothing, the FSA has decided that directors of failed banks shouldn't be automatically banned from being directors of banks, because that would be "unjust".

    So it seems that directors of banks are not collectively responsible. After all, some of them were probably too busy on the golf course to be paying any attention.
    "It will take, five, 10, 15 years to get back to where we need to be. But it's no longer the individual banks that are in the wrong, it's the banking industry as a whole." - Steven Cooper, head of personal and business banking at Barclays, talking to Martin Lewis
  • vivatifosi
    vivatifosi Posts: 18,746 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Mortgage-free Glee! PPI Party Pooper
    pqrdef wrote: »
    Apropos of nothing, the FSA has decided that directors of failed banks shouldn't be automatically banned from being directors of banks, because that would be "unjust".

    So it seems that directors of banks are not collectively responsible. After all, some of them were probably too busy on the golf course to be paying any attention.

    What really annoys me is that no action has been taken under the new Companies Act. It may be that it was too new, but AIUI it was in place when banks started collapsing like a pack of cards. It makes firms more responsible for their actions.
    Please stay safe in the sun and learn the A-E of melanoma: A = asymmetry, B = irregular borders, C= different colours, D= diameter, larger than 6mm, E = evolving, is your mole changing? Most moles are not cancerous, any doubts, please check next time you visit your GP.
  • pqrdef
    pqrdef Posts: 4,552 Forumite
    vivatifosi wrote: »
    What really annoys me is that no action has been taken under the new Companies Act. It may be that it was too new, but AIUI it was in place when banks started collapsing like a pack of cards. It makes firms more responsible for their actions.
    Could be dangerous. People might think about suing their auditors. The last thing we can afford is provoking auditors to insist on tighter asset valuations. We'd be swimming in bankruptcies.
    "It will take, five, 10, 15 years to get back to where we need to be. But it's no longer the individual banks that are in the wrong, it's the banking industry as a whole." - Steven Cooper, head of personal and business banking at Barclays, talking to Martin Lewis
This discussion has been closed.
★ ★ ★ Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 352K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 454.2K Spending & Discounts
  • 245K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.4K Life & Family
  • 258.8K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.
Update Your Picture