380,000 now on the dole, Including Housing benefit

gardner1

BigAunty wrote: »

Wasn't there a time when the Netherlands was seen by the British (and other nationalities) as a benefit haven?

And didn't they change their criteria to thwart benefit tourism or am I mis-remembering?

no your right so why cant the uk do it
australia has the right idea as well

FTBFun

Road_Hog wrote: »

Still, you go believing that all of this is happening naturally by chance and is not in anyway being engineered.

I think you give politicians' far too much credit to get anything like this organised.

A._Badger

FTBFun wrote: »

I think you give politicians' far too much credit to get anything like this organised.

Leaving Common Purpose out of it, it doesn't need to be organised in the narrow sense. It just needs to become the received wisdom of the ruling class. Read-up on your Gramsci..None of this is new.

The same tactic is routinely used by polemicists of all kinds - a minor example being the 'five a day' scam. Proved to be bogus, yet still slapped all over supermarkets, which capitalise on it to sell goods, knowing it is widely believed by hoi polloi (particularly the ones who like to flatter themselves that they are educated), simply by dint of repetition.

FTBFun

A._Badger wrote: »

Leaving Common Purpose out of it, it doesn't need to be organised in the narrow sense. It just needs to become the received wisdom of the ruling class. Read-up on your Gramsci..None of this is new.

The same tactic is routinely used by polemicists of all kinds - a minor example being the 'five a day' scam. Proved to be bogus, yet still slapped all over supermarkets, which capitalise on it to sell goods, knowing it is widely believed by hoi polloi (particularly the ones who like to flatter themselves that they are educated), simply by dint of repetition.

How is five-a-day "proved to be bogus"?

I thought eating a decent amount of fruit and vegetables was a good thing.

A._Badger

FTBFun wrote: »

How is five-a-day "proved to be bogus"?

I thought eating a decent amount of fruit and vegetables was a good thing.

Thank you for demonstrating my point so well. You have just regurgitated a popular myth based on the unresearched, poorly reported nonsense which we are served-up by the mass media, and which you appear to have swallowed without pause for sensible, sceptical, thought.

The 'five a day' mantra was invented as a slogan to promote a campaign aimed at reducing the incidence of cancer.

Sadly it was a myth. So much so that even the BBC (!) reported its unmasking: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8605270.stm

Perhaps now might be a good time to dig around in that bag of received wisdom to see what other shoddy goods you might have been handed.

FTBFun

A._Badger wrote: »

Thank you for demonstrating my point so well. You have just regurgitated a popular myth based on the unresearched, poorly reported nonsense which we are served-up by the mass media, and which you appear to have swallowed without pause for sensible, sceptical, thought.

The 'five a day' mantra was invented as a slogan to promote a campaign aimed at reducing the incidence of cancer.

Sadly it was a myth. So much so that even the BBC (!) reported its unmasking: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8605270.stm

Perhaps now might be a good time to dig around in that bag of received wisdom to see what other shoddy goods you might have been handed.

Thanks, I saw that link earlier.

So the "five-a-day" campaign, which as its original aim, was to look at reducing cancer rates (which actually your link says it did, although marginally).

However, cancer isn't just the only issue at stake I would think - look at obesity levels generally for instance and the levels of heart disease. Although the original idea of "five-a-day" turns out to not be as beneficial for one particular aim, surely promotion of eating a good amount of fruit and veg in a balanced diet is a good thing?

A._Badger

FTBFun wrote: »

Thanks, I saw that link earlier.

So the "five-a-day" campaign, which as its original aim, was to look at reducing cancer rates (which actually your link says it did, although marginally).

However, cancer isn't just the only issue at stake I would think - look at obesity levels generally for instance and the levels of heart disease. Although the original idea of "five-a-day" turns out to not be as beneficial for one particular aim, surely promotion of eating a good amount of fruit and veg in a balanced diet is a good thing?

That's exactly the same bizarre logic the AGW propagandists use: 'Well, even if we are wrong it's a good thing to do!'

If you base government policies on lies you will end-up being ruled by unprincipled liars.

Some might say we already are.

homelessskilledworker

The_White_Horse wrote: »

because if you say anything, the screaming lefty will shout you down, calling you a racist, xenophobe, little englander, unenlightened etc. maybe even homophobic for good order.

don't you realise, it is great for our multicultural society that the local primary is full of somalians. you can't put a price on that. the fact most guardian reading hypocrites send their kids private is neither here nor there. the main issue is that they can buy some wonderful imported cheeses in the local multi cultured shops.

meanwhile in London and surrounding areas there are already 300,000 more kids than primary places. and if you ask the lefty, despite in most inner city primaries english is not even the third language, the immigrants have nothing to do with it.

just keep coming, pay nothing and keep taking. that is the lefty way. don't worry, the filthy workers will pay from their taxes for everything because the working man is the real criminal.

stupid lefties.

And is'nt it really odd how when a UK national marries an immigrant 99% of the time they seem to settle in the UK, how strange.

robmatic

homelessskilledworker wrote: »

And is'nt it really odd how when a UK national marries an immigrant 99% of the time they seem to settle in the UK, how strange.

What exactly are you implying here?

WhiteHorse

homelessskilledworker wrote: »

And is'nt it really odd how when a UK national marries an immigrant 99% of the time they seem to settle in the UK, how strange.

It's called the 'Shirley Valentine Syndrome'.