welshbairn Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 Usual dishonest pish from Ad Lib. By the time of the privatisation those conditions had largely been eradicated and the improvements could easily have been implemented by any switched on government. Before they were privatised British Telecom had detailed and costed plans to replace the the entire network with fibre optic. We could have been decades ahead of the the rest of the world. Instead you had rival cable companies digging up the same streets in major cities while doing nothing in the rest of the country. Now 30 years later if you're lucky enough to have your junction box wired up with fibre you only have the quarter mile or whatever of copper between your house and the box to worry about. Maybe another 30 years for that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fide Posted October 12, 2015 Author Share Posted October 12, 2015 I think you're alright Fide, but you're displaying symptoms of the instability that saw you melt down and quit P&B after the referendum. Between me and you 8mile, I didn't "melt down" after the referendum. I was one of the first on here after the referendum congratulating the "gracious" winners. Indeed, it was several months later that I "left". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fide Posted October 12, 2015 Author Share Posted October 12, 2015 It was a gradual meltdown.. the worst kind, very public and very funny. Sorry mate. No problem, Wizzers. Glad I entertained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon EF Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 Just a pity it wasn't one of the naw bags on a different result, it would have been much funnier and we could have watched and laughed together. But heyho thems the breaks. Give it a few years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon EF Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bairn Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 I don't understand people that don't believe in the undeserving poor. Lot of good hard working people lost their jobs in the recession, they deserve all the help they get, so do the sick and disabled people that can't work. Then you have your good for nothing layabouts that have zero interest in contributing to society, giving money to people like that is a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 I don't understand people that don't believe in the undeserving poor. Lot of good hard working people lost their jobs in the recession, they deserve all the help they get, so do the sick and disabled people that can't work. Then you have your good for nothing layabouts that have zero interest in contributing to society, giving money to people like that is a joke. i know you are trolling but there might be impressionable folk or youngsters checking in. First. What have you contributed to society? Its a bit rich for someone barely off their mothers tit and still in debt to the bank of the public purse pontificating on who should get and who shouldn't. Moving on to your "point". What would you do about the children of the undeserving poor? Also, what proportion of benefits claimants do you think fit into this category? So - workless through choice, no physical or mental illness? Enough to make it economically viable to bother distinguishing between them all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I'm Brian Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 Then you have your good for nothing layabouts that have zero interest in contributing to society, giving money to people like that is a joke. Could accurately describe many, many students Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerwickMad Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 Is starvation and homelessness a reasonable response to laziness in people?It's not a 'response', it's a consequence. If you don't pay your rent despite help being available to you, then yes, you will be evicted and become homeless. If you can't be arsed to do what is needed feed your family, then yes, you will starve. Thankfully these people are in the minority. I have sympathy for the vast majority of tenants who are struggling, but you also get a few who, however much help you offer them, they turn it away, they can't be arsed to be in when you call, and they prioritise things that they shouldn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bairn Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 i know you are trolling but there might be impressionable folk or youngsters checking in. First. What have you contributed to society? Its a bit rich for someone barely off their mothers tit and still in debt to the bank of the public purse pontificating on who should get and who shouldn't. Moving on to your "point". What would you do about the children of the undeserving poor? Also, what proportion of benefits claimants do you think fit into this category? So - workless through choice, no physical or mental illness? Enough to make it economically viable to bother distinguishing between them all? The children should be put in care. Don't really have much hope for kids being raised by lowlives. Also these goblins tend to have a high breeding rate (Child benefit should only be paid on the first three pregnancies IMO) so it's going to create economic problems for the next generation. As for the bottom paragraph, I really don't have a clue. My mum's friend chooses not to work, but that's because her husband earns enough to support the family so she can just stay at home and be a full time mummy, and doesn't claim JSA. People like that are fine, it's the people that claim JSA but don't actually want to work that bother me. 1.8m people claim JSA compared to 9m inactives (So that's students, sick/disabled, full time mummies etc). I think a big portion of that 1.8m have zero interest in working. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerwickMad Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 i know you are trolling but there might be impressionable folk or youngsters checking in. First. What have you contributed to society? Its a bit rich for someone barely off their mothers tit and still in debt to the bank of the public purse pontificating on who should get and who shouldn't. Moving on to your "point". What would you do about the children of the undeserving poor? Also, what proportion of benefits claimants do you think fit into this category? So - workless through choice, no physical or mental illness? Enough to make it economically viable to bother distinguishing between them all? Of the 400 properties I used to manage in Berwick, I could count the family's like that on one hand. If you can get direct payments from them straight from DWP they will manage to stay in their properties. People who refuse to engage and don't do what is necessary to keep their housing benefit in payment will end up evicted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I'm Brian Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 The children should be put in care. Don't really have much hope for kids being raised by lowlives. Also these goblins tend to have a high breeding rate (Child benefit should only be paid on the first three pregnancies IMO) so it's going to create economic problems for the next generation. As for the bottom paragraph, I really don't have a clue. My mum's friend chooses not to work, but that's because her husband earns enough to support the family so she can just stay at home and be a full time mummy, and doesn't claim JSA. People like that are fine, it's the people that claim JSA but don't actually want to work that bother me. 1.8m people claim JSA compared to 9m inactives (So that's students, sick/disabled, full time mummies etc). I think a big portion of that 1.8m have zero interest in working. Of course you will have some sort of evidence to back up this claim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bairn Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 Of course you will have some sort of evidence to back up this claim Just a personal opinion. Stars of shows such as the scheme and benefit street certainly don't seem to be jobseeking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RH33 Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 The children should be put in care. Don't really have much hope for kids being raised by lowlives. Also these goblins tend to have a high breeding rate (Child benefit should only be paid on the first three pregnancies IMO) so it's going to create economic problems for the next generation. As for the bottom paragraph, I really don't have a clue. My mum's friend chooses not to work, but that's because her husband earns enough to support the family so she can just stay at home and be a full time mummy, and doesn't claim JSA. People like that are fine, it's the people that claim JSA but don't actually want to work that bother me. 1.8m people claim JSA compared to 9m inactives (So that's students, sick/disabled, full time mummies etc). I think a big portion of that 1.8m have zero interest in working. I'm on several different benefits, I have three kids and a mental health condition....please enlighten me as to whether I'm a goblin who should have her kids removed and placed in care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bairn Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 I'm on several different benefits, I have three kids and a mental health condition....please enlighten me as to whether I'm a goblin who should have her kids removed and placed in care. You have a mental health condition and are therefore fully deserving of all the support you get. I think removing JSA from those who are workless through choice would save only a small amount of money, but importantly it would remove the precedent where perfectly healthy people think it's acceptable to not bother getting a job and live off benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I'm Brian Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 Just a personal opinion. Stars of shows such as the scheme and benefit street certainly don't seem to be jobseeking. OK. That's a particularly rational opinion to have. It hardly equates to a big portion of the 1.8m JSA claimants. Think you should now set your sights on the jobless layabouts who are the biggest drain on the welfare budget. With their free personal care, TV's and bus passes. It only seems fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bairn Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 OK. That's a particularly rational opinion to have. It hardly equates to a big portion of the 1.8m JSA claimants. Think you should now set your sights on the jobless layabouts who are the biggest drain on the welfare budget. With their free personal care, TV's and bus passes. It only seems fair. The difference being that OAPs have worked and paid into the system all their lives, they deserve what they get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin_Nevis Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 You have a mental health condition and are therefore fully deserving of all the support you get. I think removing JSA from those who are workless through choice would save only a small amount of money, but importantly it would remove the precedent where perfectly healthy people think it's acceptable to not bother getting a job and live off benefits. I see you're bored and trolling again. I'll humour you though, what percentage of JSA claimants are deliberately choosing to spend 35 hours a week looking for work for a princely £2.09 per hour? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RH33 Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 So as I have an unspecified mental health condition it's ok. That's as generalising and sweeping as your original claims. There is a multitude of reasons people may be out of work or on benefits. If you are taking you're evidence from shows like benefit street which are edited to show the worst of the worst and often to suit political agenda, then you are need to be a little more critical in your analysis of sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 Anyone care to have a guess what it costs to put a child into care? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.