Baxter Parp Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 True but I know you write bizarre nonsense like this on a constant basis: Unsettling stuff. I think we all know all we need to know about Reynard, frankly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerwickMad Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 I fail to see how supporting a benefit cap of £500 per week, and still donating to a food bank is hypocrisy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 I fail to see how supporting a benefit cap of £500 per week, and still donating to a food bank is hypocrisy. Stop trying to introduce reason into the thread. Anyone who supports a benefit cap believes that the poor should be flogged in the street. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 I think we all know all we need to know about Reynard, frankly. Did you study me at college? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 True but I know you write bizarre nonsense like this on a constant basis: Unsettling stuff. Whats "unsettling" about it? The fact that kids were being encouraged to do this by their school? Its always gone on. Bag in the day I sent old underpants to the Blue Peter appeal so they could flog the cloth and buy a pony so that disabled kids could go for rides on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkoRaj Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 I did see a few embarrassing comments on fb regarding the 'hypocrisy' of jim Murphy. A few fucking loon balls to say the least. I'm sure hb and Reynard will enjoy this small selection of comments: "the man is an idiot, i hope the person who gets that bag of food enjoys the irony that the idiot that gave it is one of the reasons that that person is in that position" "Would love to know what he put in it, probably Tesco Everyday Value stuff bought on expenses." "it was filled with baxters and tunnocks tea cakes all the no supporting companies" Probably shouldn't be given them ammo but then it's not like it's wholly representative. Nutters in every section of society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 I saw a quote that said Miliband gave a donation and that too was rejected. Not sure if that's true or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 I did see a few embarrassing comments on fb regarding the 'hypocrisy' of jim Murphy. A few fucking loon balls to say the least. I'm sure hb and Reynard will enjoy this small selection of comments: "the man is an idiot, i hope the person who gets that bag of food enjoys the irony that the idiot that gave it is one of the reasons that that person is in that position" "Would love to know what he put in it, probably Tesco Everyday Value stuff bought on expenses." "it was filled with baxters and tunnocks tea cakes all the no supporting companies" Probably shouldn't be given them ammo but then it's not like it's wholly representative. Nutters in every section of society. Foodbanks are a pretty disgracefully used political football by some Yes campaigners. Didn't they pull a similar stunt in George Square after the vote? Plenty of people give to them of completely different political persuasions. Disgraceful that some utter c***s are preventing food being passed on to the needy, just so they can score a political point and sit smugly in the pub later, and f**k those who actually could do with the scran. Utter utter c***s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 I see there's still no proof from the Fibber but the Britnats have decided to wet their knickers regardless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Murphy hand stuff into a foobank? Hypocritical c*nt. I'm glad his gesture was treated with the disdain it deserves; imagine trying to get publicity at the hands of the impoverished. Sub human scum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmothecat Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 I'm surprised no one has mentioned him being a member of Friends for Israel. Another great thing about him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Another great thing about him. Anyone defending 21st century Israel needs to get their heads checked IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SodjesSixteenIncher Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Foodbanks are a pretty disgracefully used political football by some Yes campaigners. Didn't they pull a similar stunt in George Square after the vote? Plenty of people give to them of completely different political persuasions. Disgraceful that some utter c***s are preventing food being passed on to the needy, just so they can score a political point and sit smugly in the pub later, and f**k those who actually could do with the scran. Utter utter c***s. Simmer. I don't think you fully understand how charities work. I work in the third sector and we've turned away money. Not to play politics, pat ourselves on the back or anything - the information doesn't go anywhere. It's just that charities are constituted on what their purpose is and how they'll generate revenue. You then stick to it. The facts in this case are thus. The demand for foodbanks has exploded directly in line with benefit reform. An opposition MP who supports such policies put forward by a sitting party without a majority, is as responsible as anyone for this. If whoever runs this foodbank thinks taking part in a Jim Murphy publicity stunt will be at a greater detriment to their goals than the value of his polly bag, they're within their rights to tell him to bolt. It happens every day I'm afraid, try to deal with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerwickMad Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Simmer. I don't think you fully understand how charities work. I work in the third sector and we've turned away money. Not to play politics, pat ourselves on the back or anything - the information doesn't go anywhere. It's just that charities are constituted on what their purpose is and how they'll generate revenue. You then stick to it. The facts in this case are thus. The demand for foodbanks has exploded directly in line with benefit reform. An opposition MP who supports such policies put forward by a sitting party without a majority, is as responsible as anyone for this. If whoever runs this foodbank thinks taking part in a Jim Murphy publicity stunt will be at a greater detriment to their goals than the value of his polly bag, they're within their rights to tell him to bolt. It happens every day I'm afraid, try to deal with it. Then they want to get a grip and realise that people can have different political opinions to themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SodjesSixteenIncher Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Then they want to get a grip and realise that people can have different political opinions to themselves. ^ Doesn't get it. If a charity's stated aim is to say alleviate food poverty, then it's not massively unreasonable to refuse to take part in a promo for someone quite clearly culpable in the dramatic rise of food poverty. It's really a pretty basic concept that charities aren't there just to take any donation from anyone. Practice your best Welsh accent, phone up a women's refuge centre tomorrow saying you're Ched Evans and want to donate £20 in exchange for a wee press event. See how that goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerwickMad Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Stop trying to introduce reason into the thread. Anyone who supports a benefit cap believes that the poor should be flogged in the street. I work as a housing officer and sit down and help people on benefits with their household budgets. I have to say, I don't agree with all of the governments welfare reforms especially the effects on the disabled, but it would be stupid to claim everything is bad about it. I know a number of families effected by the bedroom tax where members of the household have had to go out and get work, whereas in the past they were happy to sit on benefits. I don't think they'd go back to the rut they were in now. Our arrears have actually went down amongst those effected by the bedroom tax, which we didn't expect. There is a lot of short term pain, don't get me wrong and unfortunately food banks are needed because of the shortfall in people's incomes, but I can still see that in a few years time, overall, the balance could be better between sitting on benefits and work paying. It isn't hypocrisy for someone to believe this, but also thinking helping those in need at the moment is a good thing to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 ^ Doesn't get it. If a charity's stated aim is to say alleviate food poverty, then it's not massively unreasonable to refuse to take part in a promo for someone quite clearly culpable in the dramatic rise of food poverty. It's really a pretty basic concept that charities aren't there just to take any donation from anyone. Practice your best Welsh accent, phone up a women's refuge centre tomorrow saying you're Ched Evans and want to donate £20 in exchange for a wee press event. See how that goes. If you were to post a list of the things BerwickHalfwit and his ilk 'don't get' you would break the Internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerwickMad Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 ^ Doesn't get it. If a charity's stated aim is to say alleviate food poverty, then it's not massively unreasonable to refuse to take part in a promo for someone quite clearly culpable in the dramatic rise of food poverty. It's really a pretty basic concept that charities aren't there just to take any donation from anyone. Practice your best Welsh accent, phone up a women's refuge centre tomorrow saying you're Ched Evans and want to donate £20 in exchange for a wee press event. See how that goes. This isn't a rapist looking for publicity ffs! It's someone with a differing political opinion. It's perfectly reasonable to back welfare reform and also to believe it's good to help the poor. Nobody wants to see people getting poorer, but people have different opinions on how to get to the point where things are improving. If this c**t at the foodbank can't understand this, he needs to get a grip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerwickMad Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 If you were to post a list of the things BerwickHalfwit and his ilk 'don't get' you would break the Internet.The irony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SodjesSixteenIncher Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 This isn't a rapist looking for publicity ffs! It's someone with a differing political opinion. It's perfectly reasonable to back welfare reform and also to believe it's good to help the poor. Nobody wants to see people getting poorer, but people have different opinions on how to get to the point where things are improving. If this c**t at the foodbank can't understand this, he needs to get a grip. Jesus, I'm not comparing Murphy to a rapist. Im using another example to break it down into the most simple terms possible for you, the idea that charities aren't obliged to take money from anywhere. It's not a case of "different opinions", Jim Murphy won't have seen the inside of the launderette that does his suits in years, he doesn't have to nip down the foodbank to drop in his donation. He's there to use the place to legitimise himself and the charity has decided helping him do this is unacceptable. Completely fair enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.