'Amazing, appalling, shocking' - the reality of Foodbank Britain

The Northern Echo: Bishop Seamus Cunnigham and Bishop Mark Bryant at Gateshead Foodbank Bishop Seamus Cunnigham and Bishop Mark Bryant at Gateshead Foodbank

“AMAZING, appalling, shocking.”

That was the verdict of Durham Foodbank co-ordinator Peter MacLellan on new figures, released today, revealing a 463 per cent rise in North-East foodbank users in just 12 months.

On his County Durham patch, 18,592 adults and children received three days’ emergency food relief from Trussell Trust foodbanks in 2013-14 – part of 59,146 across the North-East.

Durham Foodbank has been forced to open another 12 local distribution points in the last year – taking its total to 22 across the county.

Its volunteers now give out nearly nine tons of food every month, feeding more than double in the past 12 months as during the previous year.

And Mr MacLellan is adamant this is a real increase in need, rather than – as critics suggest – people becoming dependent, or even workshy.

“We work very hard not to create dependency,” he says.

“On average, people come to us 1.7 times.

“We monitor how vouchers are distributed, we speak to referrers and we have a three vouchers rule.

“But there are genuine and good reasons for someone to carry on needing food.”

He points to so-called sanctioning, the much-criticised withdrawal of Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) including for missing appointments, not applying for enough jobs and not doing enough to look for work.

If a person’s JSA is stopped, they may have to claim a hardship payment, which could see their weekly income fall from £70 to £40.

“That’s just not survivable for a lot of people,” Mr MacLellan says.

Earlier this week, the Anglican Bishop of Jarrow, Mark Bryant, and the Roman Catholic Bishop of Hexham and Newcastle, Seamus Cunningham, made a joint visit to Gateshead Foodbank, which has 160 volunteers and where a third of people ask for help due to benefit delays.

“These are not people who are trying to work the system,” Bishop Bryant says.

“These are people who are entitled to benefits and the system hasn’t delivered on time.

“You go on visits like this and hear the stories and come away saying: ‘Something isn’t right’.

“We have seriously got something wrong when people who, for a whole variety of reasons, are very vulnerable simply cannot afford either to feed themselves or feed their families.

“When you look at that you just have to say: ‘This cannot be right, something is wrong’.”

Durham Foodbank is entirely dependent on donations. No-one has yet been turned away hungry. For more information, visit durhamfoodbank.org.uk or call 0191-303-7559.

Comments (106)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:30am Wed 16 Apr 14

Voice-of-reality says...

Historically it has always been the role of individual localities, parishes, and the Church to provide alms. Perhaps, rather than squabbling about gay priests and other things that really do not matter - (the answer to such issues being very clear) - the Church should return to its core values, stop sitting on vast expanses of property and cash, stop charging its priests peppercorn rents, and actually deliver those alms.

Of course, if the underclass would also 'do their bit' by cutting down on luxuries and breeding - that would also help to alleviate the situation.
Historically it has always been the role of individual localities, parishes, and the Church to provide alms. Perhaps, rather than squabbling about gay priests and other things that really do not matter - (the answer to such issues being very clear) - the Church should return to its core values, stop sitting on vast expanses of property and cash, stop charging its priests peppercorn rents, and actually deliver those alms. Of course, if the underclass would also 'do their bit' by cutting down on luxuries and breeding - that would also help to alleviate the situation. Voice-of-reality
  • Score: 7

6:21am Wed 16 Apr 14

BMD says...

The Labour immigration policy of opening the floodgates to all non-skilled, semi-skilled and beggars from around the world, has crammed another 5 million into this country (This cynical policy was carried out, with the hope of 5 million extra votes for Labour)

The knock-on effect is the local population has more competition for employment and reduced rates of pay at local level.
The Labour immigration policy of opening the floodgates to all non-skilled, semi-skilled and beggars from around the world, has crammed another 5 million into this country (This cynical policy was carried out, with the hope of 5 million extra votes for Labour) The knock-on effect is the local population has more competition for employment and reduced rates of pay at local level. BMD
  • Score: 21

7:31am Wed 16 Apr 14

stevegg says...

A good % of this increase is because some people abuse the genorosity of free food (because its their nature) and will take it even though they dont need to as its free, I know of 2 people who have done this. Also people who have the money to buy food instead prioritise other items as being essential eg cigarettes, alcohol, mobile phones etc knowing they can get free food from these food banks. The truth always hurts!
A good % of this increase is because some people abuse the genorosity of free food (because its their nature) and will take it even though they dont need to as its free, I know of 2 people who have done this. Also people who have the money to buy food instead prioritise other items as being essential eg cigarettes, alcohol, mobile phones etc knowing they can get free food from these food banks. The truth always hurts! stevegg
  • Score: 34

8:24am Wed 16 Apr 14

Homshaw1 says...

The church hardly puts its money where its mouth is. It's sitting on a lot of assets. Is religion about having big impressive churches?
The church hardly puts its money where its mouth is. It's sitting on a lot of assets. Is religion about having big impressive churches? Homshaw1
  • Score: 15

9:10am Wed 16 Apr 14

Jackaranda says...

stevegg wrote:
A good % of this increase is because some people abuse the genorosity of free food (because its their nature) and will take it even though they dont need to as its free, I know of 2 people who have done this. Also people who have the money to buy food instead prioritise other items as being essential eg cigarettes, alcohol, mobile phones etc knowing they can get free food from these food banks. The truth always hurts!
As someone said in an earlier thread on this subject, they have been seen exiting these foodbanks, load up the cars and drive away with a tab hanging from their gobs!!
[quote][p][bold]stevegg[/bold] wrote: A good % of this increase is because some people abuse the genorosity of free food (because its their nature) and will take it even though they dont need to as its free, I know of 2 people who have done this. Also people who have the money to buy food instead prioritise other items as being essential eg cigarettes, alcohol, mobile phones etc knowing they can get free food from these food banks. The truth always hurts![/p][/quote]As someone said in an earlier thread on this subject, they have been seen exiting these foodbanks, load up the cars and drive away with a tab hanging from their gobs!! Jackaranda
  • Score: 11

9:36am Wed 16 Apr 14

AllAboardTheSkylark says...

Jackaranda wrote:
stevegg wrote:
A good % of this increase is because some people abuse the genorosity of free food (because its their nature) and will take it even though they dont need to as its free, I know of 2 people who have done this. Also people who have the money to buy food instead prioritise other items as being essential eg cigarettes, alcohol, mobile phones etc knowing they can get free food from these food banks. The truth always hurts!
As someone said in an earlier thread on this subject, they have been seen exiting these foodbanks, load up the cars and drive away with a tab hanging from their gobs!!
You clearly have no knowledge whatsoever of the process someone has to go through to access a food bank, nor do you have any idea of what a food parcel is made up of.

Perhaps you should put your money where your mouth is and instead of being misinformed spend a couple of evenings volunteering at a food bank ........ though I doubt you'd have the bottle.
[quote][p][bold]Jackaranda[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevegg[/bold] wrote: A good % of this increase is because some people abuse the genorosity of free food (because its their nature) and will take it even though they dont need to as its free, I know of 2 people who have done this. Also people who have the money to buy food instead prioritise other items as being essential eg cigarettes, alcohol, mobile phones etc knowing they can get free food from these food banks. The truth always hurts![/p][/quote]As someone said in an earlier thread on this subject, they have been seen exiting these foodbanks, load up the cars and drive away with a tab hanging from their gobs!![/p][/quote]You clearly have no knowledge whatsoever of the process someone has to go through to access a food bank, nor do you have any idea of what a food parcel is made up of. Perhaps you should put your money where your mouth is and instead of being misinformed spend a couple of evenings volunteering at a food bank ........ though I doubt you'd have the bottle. AllAboardTheSkylark
  • Score: -5

10:28am Wed 16 Apr 14

Voice-of-reality says...

Skylark,
You ignore two things about stevegg.
First, I am sure he would have 'the bottle'. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, he, unlike those using the foodbanks, would have had the good grace to buy his own - paid for through hard work.
VOR
Skylark, You ignore two things about stevegg. First, I am sure he would have 'the bottle'. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, he, unlike those using the foodbanks, would have had the good grace to buy his own - paid for through hard work. VOR Voice-of-reality
  • Score: 18

11:51am Wed 16 Apr 14

darloboss says...

well said AllAboardTheSkylark
these people know nowt about it they just jump on the bandwagon
well said AllAboardTheSkylark these people know nowt about it they just jump on the bandwagon darloboss
  • Score: 6

12:12pm Wed 16 Apr 14

tubgut says...

Another example of political incompetence, they spent billions on saving the banks who paid, the tax payers. If they were jobs about this would be much reduced. I hope that most people would be prefer to work rather than visit food banks. Sadly it will never get much better until we have our borders under control and a political party in power who put our people first and not last as do Lib-Lab-Con.
Another example of political incompetence, they spent billions on saving the banks who paid, the tax payers. If they were jobs about this would be much reduced. I hope that most people would be prefer to work rather than visit food banks. Sadly it will never get much better until we have our borders under control and a political party in power who put our people first and not last as do Lib-Lab-Con. tubgut
  • Score: 10

12:46pm Wed 16 Apr 14

Chippy70 says...

And we (the human race) call ourselves an advanced civilization! Here we are in the 21st century, livingin a so called none 3rd world country and we have to have food banks! I ask you folks just to stop for a moment and think about that. Are we going forward or backward?
And we (the human race) call ourselves an advanced civilization! Here we are in the 21st century, livingin a so called none 3rd world country and we have to have food banks! I ask you folks just to stop for a moment and think about that. Are we going forward or backward? Chippy70
  • Score: 8

12:55pm Wed 16 Apr 14

Homshaw1 says...

Every situation is different. It's difficult to have a concrete opinion. This is one crazy mixed up country - people in genuine need, people taking the p***, people in positions of power abusing their position, honest people trying to help. I've just about given up trying to work it all out.
Every situation is different. It's difficult to have a concrete opinion. This is one crazy mixed up country - people in genuine need, people taking the p***, people in positions of power abusing their position, honest people trying to help. I've just about given up trying to work it all out. Homshaw1
  • Score: 22

1:01pm Wed 16 Apr 14

tolpuddlemartyr1955 says...

"Of course, if the underclass would also 'do their bit' by cutting down on luxuries and breeding - that would also help to alleviate the situation."

What an absolutely lovely turn of phrase you have there, Voice-of-Unreality. Moreover, what an absolutely sad, pathetic, twisted person you prove yourself to be, by its use!
"Of course, if the underclass would also 'do their bit' by cutting down on luxuries and breeding - that would also help to alleviate the situation." What an absolutely lovely turn of phrase you have there, Voice-of-Unreality. Moreover, what an absolutely sad, pathetic, twisted person you prove yourself to be, by its use! tolpuddlemartyr1955
  • Score: -1

1:04pm Wed 16 Apr 14

benthompson says...

Homshaw1 wrote:
The church hardly puts its money where its mouth is. It's sitting on a lot of assets. Is religion about having big impressive churches?
I wish that was the case. Anyone who knows the true finances of the Church of England will confirm that its asset rich and very cash poor.

The Diocese of Durham does keep going but only by selling a vicarage or two every year. Sooner or later there will be no vicarages left to sell...

As for abusing food banks, some people will but that is an unavoidable by product of actually providing the service...
[quote][p][bold]Homshaw1[/bold] wrote: The church hardly puts its money where its mouth is. It's sitting on a lot of assets. Is religion about having big impressive churches?[/p][/quote]I wish that was the case. Anyone who knows the true finances of the Church of England will confirm that its asset rich and very cash poor. The Diocese of Durham does keep going but only by selling a vicarage or two every year. Sooner or later there will be no vicarages left to sell... As for abusing food banks, some people will but that is an unavoidable by product of actually providing the service... benthompson
  • Score: 9

1:05pm Wed 16 Apr 14

Mike2012 says...

Some Labour loonies in this thread! LIVE WITHIN YOUR MEANS people, you'll never go short (even on benefits) if you follow this ONE SIMPLE RULE. Like a drink? GET A JOB! Partial to cigarettes? GET A JOB! No job?.... CUT BACK ON LUXURIES.

Why is everything so hard for people to comprehend nowadays?
Some Labour loonies in this thread! LIVE WITHIN YOUR MEANS people, you'll never go short (even on benefits) if you follow this ONE SIMPLE RULE. Like a drink? GET A JOB! Partial to cigarettes? GET A JOB! No job?.... CUT BACK ON LUXURIES. Why is everything so hard for people to comprehend nowadays? Mike2012
  • Score: 5

1:05pm Wed 16 Apr 14

Pierremontquaker03 says...

I think most people would agree the most annoying thing about this is that it is something for nothing. I work all day and that provides me money to buy food for me and my family, I have worked hard to get the job and qualifications I have and spent many evenings and weekends studying etc.
And what happens when we turn on the TV, we see the food banks on the news and people filling up their car boots with food...and then we think how can they afford a car yet they cant afford food......but aswell what are they doing for it? Why not some charity work, projects etc , i.e. give something back to the community instead of just taking all of the time
I think most people would agree the most annoying thing about this is that it is something for nothing. I work all day and that provides me money to buy food for me and my family, I have worked hard to get the job and qualifications I have and spent many evenings and weekends studying etc. And what happens when we turn on the TV, we see the food banks on the news and people filling up their car boots with food...and then we think how can they afford a car yet they cant afford food......but aswell what are they doing for it? Why not some charity work, projects etc , i.e. give something back to the community instead of just taking all of the time Pierremontquaker03
  • Score: 22

1:08pm Wed 16 Apr 14

Mike2012 says...

Pierremontquaker03 wrote:
I think most people would agree the most annoying thing about this is that it is something for nothing. I work all day and that provides me money to buy food for me and my family, I have worked hard to get the job and qualifications I have and spent many evenings and weekends studying etc.
And what happens when we turn on the TV, we see the food banks on the news and people filling up their car boots with food...and then we think how can they afford a car yet they cant afford food......but aswell what are they doing for it? Why not some charity work, projects etc , i.e. give something back to the community instead of just taking all of the time
Nail on head. The something-for-nothin
g culture we have now is he ONLY reason for the surge in food banks.
[quote][p][bold]Pierremontquaker03[/bold] wrote: I think most people would agree the most annoying thing about this is that it is something for nothing. I work all day and that provides me money to buy food for me and my family, I have worked hard to get the job and qualifications I have and spent many evenings and weekends studying etc. And what happens when we turn on the TV, we see the food banks on the news and people filling up their car boots with food...and then we think how can they afford a car yet they cant afford food......but aswell what are they doing for it? Why not some charity work, projects etc , i.e. give something back to the community instead of just taking all of the time[/p][/quote]Nail on head. The something-for-nothin g culture we have now is he ONLY reason for the surge in food banks. Mike2012
  • Score: 10

1:11pm Wed 16 Apr 14

RealLivin says...

As usual the church is complaining about the treatment of the poor from its luxurious offices and palatially homes, try following in Jesus's foot steps and give all you have to help and god will look after you, after all thats what you preach to us. I now a lot of good christian people, I do not know of a good christian organisation, neither the church of England or the Catholic church.

A more practical approach would be for governments to actually tackle the problem of low paid jobs. Most food bank users are genuine but there are always those that abuse the system, directly by just lying about their circumstances or indirectly by wasting their money of drink, cigs and sky sports. However when you are made redundant you have an existing lifestyle and you cannot always cut your expenditure immediately, we all have ongoing commitments.

I understand that public expenditure need sot be cut but only where it is superfluous, the private sector by its nature will not commit to loosing profits to get us out of this mess so the government needs to create jobs on real projects and business not by moving numbers around transferring 1000's of public sector jobs to the private industry which in less than 2 years will have made 90% of those redundant as that number is not profitable.

The largest government expenses appear to be Civilian servants, MPs expenses with Parliament and the maintenance of Parliament it self, my solution would be to move Parliament to the north east, property is cheaper, fuel is cheaper and the general cost of living is cheaper, we can cram more tourists into parliament at a substantial rate so they can be screwed and not us. The upshot of this is MP's would understand what we have to offer, what affect London polices have on other areas, a boost for the whole of the north east, substantial cost savings at government level not just public sector workers, oh and we would get HS2 and a full motorway.

Food banks are a sign of a poor country its time the government invested in Britain and not leave it to fat cat private sector companies who take all the cream as well, lets put the great back into great Britain
As usual the church is complaining about the treatment of the poor from its luxurious offices and palatially homes, try following in Jesus's foot steps and give all you have to help and god will look after you, after all thats what you preach to us. I now a lot of good christian people, I do not know of a good christian organisation, neither the church of England or the Catholic church. A more practical approach would be for governments to actually tackle the problem of low paid jobs. Most food bank users are genuine but there are always those that abuse the system, directly by just lying about their circumstances or indirectly by wasting their money of drink, cigs and sky sports. However when you are made redundant you have an existing lifestyle and you cannot always cut your expenditure immediately, we all have ongoing commitments. I understand that public expenditure need sot be cut but only where it is superfluous, the private sector by its nature will not commit to loosing profits to get us out of this mess so the government needs to create jobs on real projects and business not by moving numbers around transferring 1000's of public sector jobs to the private industry which in less than 2 years will have made 90% of those redundant as that number is not profitable. The largest government expenses appear to be Civilian servants, MPs expenses with Parliament and the maintenance of Parliament it self, my solution would be to move Parliament to the north east, property is cheaper, fuel is cheaper and the general cost of living is cheaper, we can cram more tourists into parliament at a substantial rate so they can be screwed and not us. The upshot of this is MP's would understand what we have to offer, what affect London polices have on other areas, a boost for the whole of the north east, substantial cost savings at government level not just public sector workers, oh and we would get HS2 and a full motorway. Food banks are a sign of a poor country its time the government invested in Britain and not leave it to fat cat private sector companies who take all the cream as well, lets put the great back into great Britain RealLivin
  • Score: 1

1:15pm Wed 16 Apr 14

tolpuddlemartyr1955 says...

stevegg wrote:
A good % of this increase is because some people abuse the genorosity of free food (because its their nature) and will take it even though they dont need to as its free, I know of 2 people who have done this. Also people who have the money to buy food instead prioritise other items as being essential eg cigarettes, alcohol, mobile phones etc knowing they can get free food from these food banks. The truth always hurts!
Of course stevegg, you would never place yourself in the above category, would you? Funny how its always the "other person", who does the things you describe above!
As AllAboardTheSkylark say's in a post above, you and may I say others as well, have not a clue about the process one must go through to gain this kind of help. You talk as if one can just walk in off the street and that this help, is available week in week out! That's simply untrue.
What is proved time and time again, by people who post on this site, is how many inhumane, human beings there actually are. A sad indictment of present day, so-called, civilised society.
[quote][p][bold]stevegg[/bold] wrote: A good % of this increase is because some people abuse the genorosity of free food (because its their nature) and will take it even though they dont need to as its free, I know of 2 people who have done this. Also people who have the money to buy food instead prioritise other items as being essential eg cigarettes, alcohol, mobile phones etc knowing they can get free food from these food banks. The truth always hurts![/p][/quote]Of course stevegg, you would never place yourself in the above category, would you? Funny how its always the "other person", who does the things you describe above! As AllAboardTheSkylark say's in a post above, you and may I say others as well, have not a clue about the process one must go through to gain this kind of help. You talk as if one can just walk in off the street and that this help, is available week in week out! That's simply untrue. What is proved time and time again, by people who post on this site, is how many inhumane, human beings there actually are. A sad indictment of present day, so-called, civilised society. tolpuddlemartyr1955
  • Score: -4

1:45pm Wed 16 Apr 14

DarloXman says...

Just a coincidence that this story is released on the day that pay rises are now ahead of inflation?

I've watched many a documentary on this subject - most with a very left wing bias yet there was just one case of the many demonstrated that I would suggest was justified - a young woman who had just come out of care and was still in education yet was not in receipt of any grants - that needs to change. Of all the other "most deserving" cases presented by the left wing media not one I would suggest was justified. Many were long term unemployed - yet owned cars, smoked and had family pets yet could not afford food for their children?? Those suffering benefit sanctions had missed an appointment - really - they will have missed multiple appointments and shown no effort in looking for work - ask anyone who works at a Jobcentre!

This is just the left wing banging the same old drum!
Just a coincidence that this story is released on the day that pay rises are now ahead of inflation? I've watched many a documentary on this subject - most with a very left wing bias yet there was just one case of the many demonstrated that I would suggest was justified - a young woman who had just come out of care and was still in education yet was not in receipt of any grants - that needs to change. Of all the other "most deserving" cases presented by the left wing media not one I would suggest was justified. Many were long term unemployed - yet owned cars, smoked and had family pets yet could not afford food for their children?? Those suffering benefit sanctions had missed an appointment - really - they will have missed multiple appointments and shown no effort in looking for work - ask anyone who works at a Jobcentre! This is just the left wing banging the same old drum! DarloXman
  • Score: -3

2:02pm Wed 16 Apr 14

BMD says...

BBC Panorama - "Benefit caps" (10th April) touched on a similar subject (Which backs up stevegg)

Aweis Osman, his wife and 7 children moved to the UK from Somalia.

The rent for Mr Osman's four bed house is around £500 a week (Paid by the tax-payer), the maximum amount that can be claimed under the benefits cap, meaning he must find cheaper accommodation unless he can prove he has a job.

When Brent council offered to move him to cheaper accommodation in Birmingham - he and his wife suddenly each had part-time jobs - is that a coincidence or strange twist in life?
BBC Panorama - "Benefit caps" (10th April) touched on a similar subject (Which backs up stevegg) Aweis Osman, his wife and 7 children moved to the UK from Somalia. The rent for Mr Osman's four bed house is around £500 a week (Paid by the tax-payer), the maximum amount that can be claimed under the benefits cap, meaning he must find cheaper accommodation unless he can prove he has a job. When Brent council offered to move him to cheaper accommodation in Birmingham - he and his wife suddenly each had part-time jobs - is that a coincidence or strange twist in life? BMD
  • Score: 10

2:06pm Wed 16 Apr 14

Voice-of-reality says...

Ironic that this comes out on the day that it is announced that a 12 year old has given birth with a similarlly underage partner. Fast forward.... and one sees a council house, a food bank, a satellite dish, a broken sofa (paid for by the social) abandoned in the garden, plenty of beer, a good supply of fags ... and so on.
If you can't afford to feed yourself don't bring others into the world. An idea that would also be welcome in the third world.
Ironic that this comes out on the day that it is announced that a 12 year old has given birth with a similarlly underage partner. Fast forward.... and one sees a council house, a food bank, a satellite dish, a broken sofa (paid for by the social) abandoned in the garden, plenty of beer, a good supply of fags ... and so on. If you can't afford to feed yourself don't bring others into the world. An idea that would also be welcome in the third world. Voice-of-reality
  • Score: 21

3:14pm Wed 16 Apr 14

settheworldonfire says...

AllAboardTheSkylark wrote:
Jackaranda wrote:
stevegg wrote:
A good % of this increase is because some people abuse the genorosity of free food (because its their nature) and will take it even though they dont need to as its free, I know of 2 people who have done this. Also people who have the money to buy food instead prioritise other items as being essential eg cigarettes, alcohol, mobile phones etc knowing they can get free food from these food banks. The truth always hurts!
As someone said in an earlier thread on this subject, they have been seen exiting these foodbanks, load up the cars and drive away with a tab hanging from their gobs!!
You clearly have no knowledge whatsoever of the process someone has to go through to access a food bank, nor do you have any idea of what a food parcel is made up of.

Perhaps you should put your money where your mouth is and instead of being misinformed spend a couple of evenings volunteering at a food bank ........ though I doubt you'd have the bottle.
I am sorry but the truth hurts...I have also seen these abuses of the food bank system first hand....Druggies and alcoholics who live on our street have been 4 times in 3 weeks for food...Then they have the audacity to brag about selling the food for drug and drink money....This is true...So all do gooders really need to take a step back and realize what abuse is taking place.....I have also seen people with bags and sometimes boxes of food putting them into their cars and then going to the closest pub...The food bank system of application needs to be addressed.....
1 way of not needing food banks is to go and get a job like the majority of us have....SCROUNGERS IS WHAT I SAY...
[quote][p][bold]AllAboardTheSkylark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jackaranda[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevegg[/bold] wrote: A good % of this increase is because some people abuse the genorosity of free food (because its their nature) and will take it even though they dont need to as its free, I know of 2 people who have done this. Also people who have the money to buy food instead prioritise other items as being essential eg cigarettes, alcohol, mobile phones etc knowing they can get free food from these food banks. The truth always hurts![/p][/quote]As someone said in an earlier thread on this subject, they have been seen exiting these foodbanks, load up the cars and drive away with a tab hanging from their gobs!![/p][/quote]You clearly have no knowledge whatsoever of the process someone has to go through to access a food bank, nor do you have any idea of what a food parcel is made up of. Perhaps you should put your money where your mouth is and instead of being misinformed spend a couple of evenings volunteering at a food bank ........ though I doubt you'd have the bottle.[/p][/quote]I am sorry but the truth hurts...I have also seen these abuses of the food bank system first hand....Druggies and alcoholics who live on our street have been 4 times in 3 weeks for food...Then they have the audacity to brag about selling the food for drug and drink money....This is true...So all do gooders really need to take a step back and realize what abuse is taking place.....I have also seen people with bags and sometimes boxes of food putting them into their cars and then going to the closest pub...The food bank system of application needs to be addressed..... 1 way of not needing food banks is to go and get a job like the majority of us have....SCROUNGERS IS WHAT I SAY... settheworldonfire
  • Score: 3

3:14pm Wed 16 Apr 14

RealLivin says...

BMD wrote:
BBC Panorama - "Benefit caps" (10th April) touched on a similar subject (Which backs up stevegg)

Aweis Osman, his wife and 7 children moved to the UK from Somalia.

The rent for Mr Osman's four bed house is around £500 a week (Paid by the tax-payer), the maximum amount that can be claimed under the benefits cap, meaning he must find cheaper accommodation unless he can prove he has a job.

When Brent council offered to move him to cheaper accommodation in Birmingham - he and his wife suddenly each had part-time jobs - is that a coincidence or strange twist in life?
Apart from the country going to ruin as Voice-of-reality says, first thing is look after our own, that is UK residents, black, white, Asian whoever, so unless you have a permanent job that cannot be done by a UK resident, or private income that will sustain you or a sponsor that can cover your costs then you should not be allowed into the UK, other Countries do this, USA, Australia. Again a London problem with polices country wide, causing chaos. Unless you were already living in London no public money should be paid for over charged accommodation, if you are not working. As its a supply and demand business I am sure they will get money for that house else where, may be not as much as the government is willing to hand out but enough to make its renting profitable.

What right does this man and his family have to come here and expect every one else to pay his way in one of the most expensive areas of the country. If subsided housing was removed from London, then all the workers would have to move out and as they wont be able to afford to travel back in from an area they could afford to live in, so business would be forced to move away and soon the capital would be reduced to chaos as the idle rich who can afford to live there wont have any workers to keep them idle.

Part time jobs would not cover the cost of said housing and part time jobs are not good for working people, a part time job is something you would consider to bring in the extra cash, but workers are now having to hold down 2/3 or 4 part time jobs and some of these are at this new zero hours which as far as I know means they will not give you any specified hours but will call you when they need you. I would love a part time job, but not a part time wage, we need real jobs with real living wages and this needs to be pushed from government.

Ps while there are all sorts of formulas for calculating the cost of living, (ie wages) there is only one that makes any real impression and that is the cost of fuel, fuel costs up = transport costs up, food up, heating costs up, and wages at best stay the same, a decent living wage would remove the food bank issue
[quote][p][bold]BMD[/bold] wrote: BBC Panorama - "Benefit caps" (10th April) touched on a similar subject (Which backs up stevegg) Aweis Osman, his wife and 7 children moved to the UK from Somalia. The rent for Mr Osman's four bed house is around £500 a week (Paid by the tax-payer), the maximum amount that can be claimed under the benefits cap, meaning he must find cheaper accommodation unless he can prove he has a job. When Brent council offered to move him to cheaper accommodation in Birmingham - he and his wife suddenly each had part-time jobs - is that a coincidence or strange twist in life?[/p][/quote]Apart from the country going to ruin as Voice-of-reality says, first thing is look after our own, that is UK residents, black, white, Asian whoever, so unless you have a permanent job that cannot be done by a UK resident, or private income that will sustain you or a sponsor that can cover your costs then you should not be allowed into the UK, other Countries do this, USA, Australia. Again a London problem with polices country wide, causing chaos. Unless you were already living in London no public money should be paid for over charged accommodation, if you are not working. As its a supply and demand business I am sure they will get money for that house else where, may be not as much as the government is willing to hand out but enough to make its renting profitable. What right does this man and his family have to come here and expect every one else to pay his way in one of the most expensive areas of the country. If subsided housing was removed from London, then all the workers would have to move out and as they wont be able to afford to travel back in from an area they could afford to live in, so business would be forced to move away and soon the capital would be reduced to chaos as the idle rich who can afford to live there wont have any workers to keep them idle. Part time jobs would not cover the cost of said housing and part time jobs are not good for working people, a part time job is something you would consider to bring in the extra cash, but workers are now having to hold down 2/3 or 4 part time jobs and some of these are at this new zero hours which as far as I know means they will not give you any specified hours but will call you when they need you. I would love a part time job, but not a part time wage, we need real jobs with real living wages and this needs to be pushed from government. Ps while there are all sorts of formulas for calculating the cost of living, (ie wages) there is only one that makes any real impression and that is the cost of fuel, fuel costs up = transport costs up, food up, heating costs up, and wages at best stay the same, a decent living wage would remove the food bank issue RealLivin
  • Score: 11

3:18pm Wed 16 Apr 14

settheworldonfire says...

tolpuddlemartyr1955 wrote:
stevegg wrote:
A good % of this increase is because some people abuse the genorosity of free food (because its their nature) and will take it even though they dont need to as its free, I know of 2 people who have done this. Also people who have the money to buy food instead prioritise other items as being essential eg cigarettes, alcohol, mobile phones etc knowing they can get free food from these food banks. The truth always hurts!
Of course stevegg, you would never place yourself in the above category, would you? Funny how its always the "other person", who does the things you describe above!
As AllAboardTheSkylark say's in a post above, you and may I say others as well, have not a clue about the process one must go through to gain this kind of help. You talk as if one can just walk in off the street and that this help, is available week in week out! That's simply untrue.
What is proved time and time again, by people who post on this site, is how many inhumane, human beings there actually are. A sad indictment of present day, so-called, civilised society.
IT'S NOT INHUMANE...WE STATE FACTS...THERE ARE TOO MANY SCROUNGER ON BENEFITS WHO HAVE NEVER HAD ANY INTENTION OF WORKING IN THEIR LIVES...HOWEVER THEY EXPECT TO HAVE EVERYTHING FOR FREE....IT IS TIME FOR ALL THIS TO STOP....
******************* RANT OVER ********************
******
Now they need to get a job like the rest of us...I HATE SCROUNGING BENEFIT BEGGARS...
[quote][p][bold]tolpuddlemartyr1955[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevegg[/bold] wrote: A good % of this increase is because some people abuse the genorosity of free food (because its their nature) and will take it even though they dont need to as its free, I know of 2 people who have done this. Also people who have the money to buy food instead prioritise other items as being essential eg cigarettes, alcohol, mobile phones etc knowing they can get free food from these food banks. The truth always hurts![/p][/quote]Of course stevegg, you would never place yourself in the above category, would you? Funny how its always the "other person", who does the things you describe above! As AllAboardTheSkylark say's in a post above, you and may I say others as well, have not a clue about the process one must go through to gain this kind of help. You talk as if one can just walk in off the street and that this help, is available week in week out! That's simply untrue. What is proved time and time again, by people who post on this site, is how many inhumane, human beings there actually are. A sad indictment of present day, so-called, civilised society.[/p][/quote]IT'S NOT INHUMANE...WE STATE FACTS...THERE ARE TOO MANY SCROUNGER ON BENEFITS WHO HAVE NEVER HAD ANY INTENTION OF WORKING IN THEIR LIVES...HOWEVER THEY EXPECT TO HAVE EVERYTHING FOR FREE....IT IS TIME FOR ALL THIS TO STOP.... ******************* RANT OVER ******************** ****** Now they need to get a job like the rest of us...I HATE SCROUNGING BENEFIT BEGGARS... settheworldonfire
  • Score: -5

4:28pm Wed 16 Apr 14

tolpuddlemartyr1955 says...

You use hyperbole to supposedly "state fact". Hundreds of thousands of people "actually in work", receive benefits, because of parsimonious employers and successive governments, Lab and coalition, that let them get away with paying low pay, whilst placing the burden then, on the state.
Your use of capitals is deemed as shouting settheworldonfire, you do understand this don't you? But I guess, someone with so little of consequence to say, needs to shout, as that is all they have.
You hate scrounging benefit beggars do you? Well I detest objectionable people like you as, I suspect, do many of the silent majority who read these sites but choose not to contribute!!!
You use hyperbole to supposedly "state fact". Hundreds of thousands of people "actually in work", receive benefits, because of parsimonious employers and successive governments, Lab and coalition, that let them get away with paying low pay, whilst placing the burden then, on the state. Your use of capitals is deemed as shouting settheworldonfire, you do understand this don't you? But I guess, someone with so little of consequence to say, needs to shout, as that is all they have. You hate scrounging benefit beggars do you? Well I detest objectionable people like you as, I suspect, do many of the silent majority who read these sites but choose not to contribute!!! tolpuddlemartyr1955
  • Score: -1

4:45pm Wed 16 Apr 14

st-george1 says...

It is important for the-Church with £multi-Billion assets, to speak out on behalf of those who need help BUT they start taking the superior moral high ground about the need for austerity by being rude, offensive and too politically-motivate
d, despite their reputation for child sex abuse already being in tatters …
When the church does the right thing for the right reasons, they may just gain a little more respect and appreciate that abusing young children in their care for decades really is 1000’s of times worse than those on the outside claiming to be hungry and destitute I would say !
IF this was happening in some Third World country, Amnesty International among others would be jumping up and down with righteous indignation at the sanctimonious behaviour of the CHURCH here in Britain and around the world so let’s hope the Government will see through these holier-than-thou people and do what is necessary, otherwise the church will continue its dark shadow across the world … a chilling reminder of the global reach of their somewhat evil ideology
It is important for the-Church with £multi-Billion assets, to speak out on behalf of those who need help BUT they start taking the superior moral high ground about the need for austerity by being rude, offensive and too politically-motivate d, despite their reputation for child sex abuse already being in tatters … When the church does the right thing for the right reasons, they may just gain a little more respect and appreciate that abusing young children in their care for decades really is 1000’s of times worse than those on the outside claiming to be hungry and destitute I would say ! IF this was happening in some Third World country, Amnesty International among others would be jumping up and down with righteous indignation at the sanctimonious behaviour of the CHURCH here in Britain and around the world so let’s hope the Government will see through these holier-than-thou people and do what is necessary, otherwise the church will continue its dark shadow across the world … a chilling reminder of the global reach of their somewhat evil ideology st-george1
  • Score: 4

5:28pm Wed 16 Apr 14

Homshaw1 says...

benthompson wrote:
Homshaw1 wrote:
The church hardly puts its money where its mouth is. It's sitting on a lot of assets. Is religion about having big impressive churches?
I wish that was the case. Anyone who knows the true finances of the Church of England will confirm that its asset rich and very cash poor.

The Diocese of Durham does keep going but only by selling a vicarage or two every year. Sooner or later there will be no vicarages left to sell...

As for abusing food banks, some people will but that is an unavoidable by product of actually providing the service...
Wealth is wealth be it money or property.

"There is more chance that a camel should pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man enter the Kingdom of God" Now where did I read that.

All I'm saying is practice what you preach.
[quote][p][bold]benthompson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Homshaw1[/bold] wrote: The church hardly puts its money where its mouth is. It's sitting on a lot of assets. Is religion about having big impressive churches?[/p][/quote]I wish that was the case. Anyone who knows the true finances of the Church of England will confirm that its asset rich and very cash poor. The Diocese of Durham does keep going but only by selling a vicarage or two every year. Sooner or later there will be no vicarages left to sell... As for abusing food banks, some people will but that is an unavoidable by product of actually providing the service...[/p][/quote]Wealth is wealth be it money or property. "There is more chance that a camel should pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man enter the Kingdom of God" Now where did I read that. All I'm saying is practice what you preach. Homshaw1
  • Score: 1

7:10pm Wed 16 Apr 14

burnboy72 says...

Some of the comments on here are frankly shameful in my opinion. This government would have us believe that one of the main reasons for the massive increase in the use of foodbanks is that people are more aware of their existence because they advertise themselves better than they used to, not as a result of their draconian benefit changes. I am sure there are some, as described by people on this thread (but I would bet never seen by), who abuse the foodbank system, although I would think that these are a very small minority because of the referral system that is in place for anybody wanting to use them (in some parts of the country Job centres are referring people, though the government denies this is the case). The majority of benefit payments paid out in this county are given to pensioners, though no government will cut this drastically for fear of alienating the "grey vote". Another large recipient of benefits are those paid to those actually in work in the form of tax credits etc. (which is essentially a state subsidy for low wages). Even working people are having to use foodbanks nowadays, hardly the workshy scroungers some previous contributers have mentioned. As mentioned in a previous post if some of the things being done by this government were being done by some third world dictator, Cameron, Hague et al would be on the news each night complaining and calling for EU/UN action.
Some of the comments on here are frankly shameful in my opinion. This government would have us believe that one of the main reasons for the massive increase in the use of foodbanks is that people are more aware of their existence because they advertise themselves better than they used to, not as a result of their draconian benefit changes. I am sure there are some, as described by people on this thread (but I would bet never seen by), who abuse the foodbank system, although I would think that these are a very small minority because of the referral system that is in place for anybody wanting to use them (in some parts of the country Job centres are referring people, though the government denies this is the case). The majority of benefit payments paid out in this county are given to pensioners, though no government will cut this drastically for fear of alienating the "grey vote". Another large recipient of benefits are those paid to those actually in work in the form of tax credits etc. (which is essentially a state subsidy for low wages). Even working people are having to use foodbanks nowadays, hardly the workshy scroungers some previous contributers have mentioned. As mentioned in a previous post if some of the things being done by this government were being done by some third world dictator, Cameron, Hague et al would be on the news each night complaining and calling for EU/UN action. burnboy72
  • Score: 6

7:17pm Wed 16 Apr 14

Voice-of-reality says...

Of course another take on this is that there are just too many people in the country (and indeed the world) from a green perspective and for the good of the planet.
Of course another take on this is that there are just too many people in the country (and indeed the world) from a green perspective and for the good of the planet. Voice-of-reality
  • Score: 21

7:19pm Wed 16 Apr 14

benthompson says...

Homshaw1 wrote:
benthompson wrote:
Homshaw1 wrote:
The church hardly puts its money where its mouth is. It's sitting on a lot of assets. Is religion about having big impressive churches?
I wish that was the case. Anyone who knows the true finances of the Church of England will confirm that its asset rich and very cash poor.

The Diocese of Durham does keep going but only by selling a vicarage or two every year. Sooner or later there will be no vicarages left to sell...

As for abusing food banks, some people will but that is an unavoidable by product of actually providing the service...
Wealth is wealth be it money or property.

"There is more chance that a camel should pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man enter the Kingdom of God" Now where did I read that.

All I'm saying is practice what you preach.
That would be a good attack if Darlington's food banks weren't run by the Kings Church (Monday, Wednesday, Friday) and St Mary's, Cockerton (Thursday)...
[quote][p][bold]Homshaw1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]benthompson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Homshaw1[/bold] wrote: The church hardly puts its money where its mouth is. It's sitting on a lot of assets. Is religion about having big impressive churches?[/p][/quote]I wish that was the case. Anyone who knows the true finances of the Church of England will confirm that its asset rich and very cash poor. The Diocese of Durham does keep going but only by selling a vicarage or two every year. Sooner or later there will be no vicarages left to sell... As for abusing food banks, some people will but that is an unavoidable by product of actually providing the service...[/p][/quote]Wealth is wealth be it money or property. "There is more chance that a camel should pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man enter the Kingdom of God" Now where did I read that. All I'm saying is practice what you preach.[/p][/quote]That would be a good attack if Darlington's food banks weren't run by the Kings Church (Monday, Wednesday, Friday) and St Mary's, Cockerton (Thursday)... benthompson
  • Score: 0

8:35pm Wed 16 Apr 14

Robert_ says...

My mum brought up 3 kids doing low paid menial jobs like cleaning or being a dinner lady. She now relies on food banks to eat. Disgraceful for a 'rich' 'developed' country.

The church is doing the organising. Great work lord.....

Do the clergy go to bed thanking it for the food we have?

Just as misguided and delusional as the politicians....
My mum brought up 3 kids doing low paid menial jobs like cleaning or being a dinner lady. She now relies on food banks to eat. Disgraceful for a 'rich' 'developed' country. The church is doing the organising. Great work lord..... Do the clergy go to bed thanking it for the food we have? Just as misguided and delusional as the politicians.... Robert_
  • Score: 1

9:01pm Wed 16 Apr 14

Jonn says...

In another recent NE article on food banks, a commentor said he had been watching and counting people using a certain food bank while sat parked in his car, these people were apparently smoking and driving off in cars. This turned out to be total rubbish as the particular food bank is on a busy main road and has nowhere to park anywhere near so he could not have witnessed what he claimed.
Makes you wonder how legitimate all these other commentors are and what they 'claim' to have witnessed outside food banks. Probably boll@cks too.
In another recent NE article on food banks, a commentor said he had been watching and counting people using a certain food bank while sat parked in his car, these people were apparently smoking and driving off in cars. This turned out to be total rubbish as the particular food bank is on a busy main road and has nowhere to park anywhere near so he could not have witnessed what he claimed. Makes you wonder how legitimate all these other commentors are and what they 'claim' to have witnessed outside food banks. Probably boll@cks too. Jonn
  • Score: 1

9:10pm Wed 16 Apr 14

laboursfoe says...

Jonn wrote:
In another recent NE article on food banks, a commentor said he had been watching and counting people using a certain food bank while sat parked in his car, these people were apparently smoking and driving off in cars. This turned out to be total rubbish as the particular food bank is on a busy main road and has nowhere to park anywhere near so he could not have witnessed what he claimed.
Makes you wonder how legitimate all these other commentors are and what they 'claim' to have witnessed outside food banks. Probably boll@cks too.
I'm sure there are those with genuine hardship.

I'm sure there are also those that do take the p155 though, the same as there are some that take the p155 with council houses and benefits.
[quote][p][bold]Jonn[/bold] wrote: In another recent NE article on food banks, a commentor said he had been watching and counting people using a certain food bank while sat parked in his car, these people were apparently smoking and driving off in cars. This turned out to be total rubbish as the particular food bank is on a busy main road and has nowhere to park anywhere near so he could not have witnessed what he claimed. Makes you wonder how legitimate all these other commentors are and what they 'claim' to have witnessed outside food banks. Probably boll@cks too.[/p][/quote]I'm sure there are those with genuine hardship. I'm sure there are also those that do take the p155 though, the same as there are some that take the p155 with council houses and benefits. laboursfoe
  • Score: 0

9:42pm Wed 16 Apr 14

LUSTARD says...

you cant do away with scroungers thieves and layabouts , vast industries are supported by these people , prison staff private now i believe, dole office staff, burglar alarm companies, private security firms, the church, politicians, good god if it wernt for the underclass etc theyd have no big gobs winging on , stop the dole jail them vote us in well do it. so they take control of vast amounts of cash and power are you thick, and it hardly changes with different parties.
you cant do away with scroungers thieves and layabouts , vast industries are supported by these people , prison staff private now i believe, dole office staff, burglar alarm companies, private security firms, the church, politicians, good god if it wernt for the underclass etc theyd have no big gobs winging on , stop the dole jail them vote us in well do it. so they take control of vast amounts of cash and power are you thick, and it hardly changes with different parties. LUSTARD
  • Score: 10

12:49am Thu 17 Apr 14

tolpuddlemartyr1955 says...

Well, at least some of the silent majority have decided to poke their heads above the parapet and confront the "all benefit recipients are scroungers" brigade. But, as is to be expected, some of the hyperbole merchants, pushing the "all benefit recipients are scroungers" argument, have crawled out of their intellectually and factually incorrect holes, to once again prove, that just because one can type, doesn't prove that they have a grasp of facts, or reality!!!
Well, at least some of the silent majority have decided to poke their heads above the parapet and confront the "all benefit recipients are scroungers" brigade. But, as is to be expected, some of the hyperbole merchants, pushing the "all benefit recipients are scroungers" argument, have crawled out of their intellectually and factually incorrect holes, to once again prove, that just because one can type, doesn't prove that they have a grasp of facts, or reality!!! tolpuddlemartyr1955
  • Score: -11

12:58am Thu 17 Apr 14

tolpuddlemartyr1955 says...

Voice-of-reality wrote:
Of course another take on this is that there are just too many people in the country (and indeed the world) from a green perspective and for the good of the planet.
So, VOR, you go from blaming benefit scroungers and breeders, for our problems, to now blaming to many people in this country and indeed, breeders "worldwide" and then have the temerity to wrap it up in a pseudo ecological garnish! Your latterday argument, holds no more water, than your original breeder argument did, you sad inhumane, unthinking, person.
[quote][p][bold]Voice-of-reality[/bold] wrote: Of course another take on this is that there are just too many people in the country (and indeed the world) from a green perspective and for the good of the planet.[/p][/quote]So, VOR, you go from blaming benefit scroungers and breeders, for our problems, to now blaming to many people in this country and indeed, breeders "worldwide" and then have the temerity to wrap it up in a pseudo ecological garnish! Your latterday argument, holds no more water, than your original breeder argument did, you sad inhumane, unthinking, person. tolpuddlemartyr1955
  • Score: -20

2:15am Thu 17 Apr 14

Voice-of-reality says...

TP1955, Unpopular though the idea may at first appear, I cannot help but wonder whether, given limited financial resources and so on, the country would really miss a million of those who contribute effexctively nothing to the greater good. I would reject the contention that such an idea is inhumane - quite the opposite, it would 'replenish the stock' and strengthen the financial health for those who remained.
TP1955, Unpopular though the idea may at first appear, I cannot help but wonder whether, given limited financial resources and so on, the country would really miss a million of those who contribute effexctively nothing to the greater good. I would reject the contention that such an idea is inhumane - quite the opposite, it would 'replenish the stock' and strengthen the financial health for those who remained. Voice-of-reality
  • Score: 20

6:02am Thu 17 Apr 14

Jonn says...

laboursfoe wrote:
Jonn wrote:
In another recent NE article on food banks, a commentor said he had been watching and counting people using a certain food bank while sat parked in his car, these people were apparently smoking and driving off in cars. This turned out to be total rubbish as the particular food bank is on a busy main road and has nowhere to park anywhere near so he could not have witnessed what he claimed.
Makes you wonder how legitimate all these other commentors are and what they 'claim' to have witnessed outside food banks. Probably boll@cks too.
I'm sure there are those with genuine hardship.

I'm sure there are also those that do take the p155 though, the same as there are some that take the p155 with council houses and benefits.
I'm sure the MAJORITY are in genuine hardship.
As in every single walk of life, from politicians to bankers to police to traffic wardens, you will have chancers, fraudsters and people who take the pi$$.
Trying to discredit food banks by immediately highlighting the odd pi$$ taker is transparent desperation. The admittance that food banks are needed by so many in one of the richest countries in the world would be to admit that this current Governments 'recovery' isn't all that it seems.
[quote][p][bold]laboursfoe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jonn[/bold] wrote: In another recent NE article on food banks, a commentor said he had been watching and counting people using a certain food bank while sat parked in his car, these people were apparently smoking and driving off in cars. This turned out to be total rubbish as the particular food bank is on a busy main road and has nowhere to park anywhere near so he could not have witnessed what he claimed. Makes you wonder how legitimate all these other commentors are and what they 'claim' to have witnessed outside food banks. Probably boll@cks too.[/p][/quote]I'm sure there are those with genuine hardship. I'm sure there are also those that do take the p155 though, the same as there are some that take the p155 with council houses and benefits.[/p][/quote]I'm sure the MAJORITY are in genuine hardship. As in every single walk of life, from politicians to bankers to police to traffic wardens, you will have chancers, fraudsters and people who take the pi$$. Trying to discredit food banks by immediately highlighting the odd pi$$ taker is transparent desperation. The admittance that food banks are needed by so many in one of the richest countries in the world would be to admit that this current Governments 'recovery' isn't all that it seems. Jonn
  • Score: 5

6:09am Thu 17 Apr 14

BMD says...

From one of the National papers:-

Mother-of-two Sinead Clarkson, 36, from Rochdale, Greater Manchester, has been claiming benefits for the last 20 years. She has encouraged her daughter Melissa to also have a baby for 'an easy life on benefits'.

You cant beat the "Teachings of the Mother"
From one of the National papers:- Mother-of-two Sinead Clarkson, 36, from Rochdale, Greater Manchester, has been claiming benefits for the last 20 years. She has encouraged her daughter Melissa to also have a baby for 'an easy life on benefits'. You cant beat the "Teachings of the Mother" BMD
  • Score: 6

7:58am Thu 17 Apr 14

Jonn says...

BMD wrote:
From one of the National papers:-

Mother-of-two Sinead Clarkson, 36, from Rochdale, Greater Manchester, has been claiming benefits for the last 20 years. She has encouraged her daughter Melissa to also have a baby for 'an easy life on benefits'.

You cant beat the "Teachings of the Mother"
The Daily Mail, a disgusting newspaper, also an intergral part of the Tory Propaganda machine.
[quote][p][bold]BMD[/bold] wrote: From one of the National papers:- Mother-of-two Sinead Clarkson, 36, from Rochdale, Greater Manchester, has been claiming benefits for the last 20 years. She has encouraged her daughter Melissa to also have a baby for 'an easy life on benefits'. You cant beat the "Teachings of the Mother"[/p][/quote]The Daily Mail, a disgusting newspaper, also an intergral part of the Tory Propaganda machine. Jonn
  • Score: -2

9:11am Thu 17 Apr 14

David Lacey says...

You might be correct in your assertion, but do you deny the truth of the story?
You might be correct in your assertion, but do you deny the truth of the story? David Lacey
  • Score: 6

9:18am Thu 17 Apr 14

tubgut says...

One of the real issues is the decline of British industry, standards and values. The UK is the worlds sixth largest economy and people need food banks why? Look at recent history, education is in chaos, constant rule changes, young adults are leaving school without the basic abilities making them unemployable. We no longer know who we are as a race, the lunatic fringe has taken over most agendas the majority ignored. We have a strategic situation that requires a strategic response starting with changing those who govern us. We are on track to become a third world county.
One of the real issues is the decline of British industry, standards and values. The UK is the worlds sixth largest economy and people need food banks why? Look at recent history, education is in chaos, constant rule changes, young adults are leaving school without the basic abilities making them unemployable. We no longer know who we are as a race, the lunatic fringe has taken over most agendas the majority ignored. We have a strategic situation that requires a strategic response starting with changing those who govern us. We are on track to become a third world county. tubgut
  • Score: 5

9:22am Thu 17 Apr 14

BMD says...

Jonn wrote:
BMD wrote: From one of the National papers:- Mother-of-two Sinead Clarkson, 36, from Rochdale, Greater Manchester, has been claiming benefits for the last 20 years. She has encouraged her daughter Melissa to also have a baby for 'an easy life on benefits'. You cant beat the "Teachings of the Mother"
The Daily Mail, a disgusting newspaper, also an intergral part of the Tory Propaganda machine.
It must be one of three things you don’t like about this popular tabloid.

The Daily Mail does not reflect your own view, pamper to your ideology or exposes your weak left wing propaganda.
[quote][p][bold]Jonn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BMD[/bold] wrote: From one of the National papers:- Mother-of-two Sinead Clarkson, 36, from Rochdale, Greater Manchester, has been claiming benefits for the last 20 years. She has encouraged her daughter Melissa to also have a baby for 'an easy life on benefits'. You cant beat the "Teachings of the Mother"[/p][/quote]The Daily Mail, a disgusting newspaper, also an intergral part of the Tory Propaganda machine.[/p][/quote]It must be one of three things you don’t like about this popular tabloid. The Daily Mail does not reflect your own view, pamper to your ideology or exposes your weak left wing propaganda. BMD
  • Score: -4

9:35am Thu 17 Apr 14

RealLivin says...

Food banks belong in poor countries we as a wealthy, educated nation should be the ones setting these up not the ones using them. The reason we have them is decades of miss management for the business that is the UK by politicians and fat cats, when only five families in the whole country have more than 20% of the poorest it shows how much miss management is going on (perhaps the geordies should ask Mike Ashley about it as he was listed among those 5). A good start would be to invest in real public sector jobs with real wages that cover the cost of living and as with all government polices lets set it at the London rate and role this out to the whole country then we wont need food banks.
Food banks belong in poor countries we as a wealthy, educated nation should be the ones setting these up not the ones using them. The reason we have them is decades of miss management for the business that is the UK by politicians and fat cats, when only five families in the whole country have more than 20% of the poorest it shows how much miss management is going on (perhaps the geordies should ask Mike Ashley about it as he was listed among those 5). A good start would be to invest in real public sector jobs with real wages that cover the cost of living and as with all government polices lets set it at the London rate and role this out to the whole country then we wont need food banks. RealLivin
  • Score: 3

9:58am Thu 17 Apr 14

BMD says...

John, you may also not approve of this Daily Mail article:

An illegal immigrant who stabbed a 15-year-old schoolboy to death less than a year after arriving in Britain cannot be deported because he claims to be gay, judges ruled yesterday.
Lord Justice Kay said he believed his mother’s evidence that he was gay – even though the Home Office said he ‘had made no mention of it’ until his first appeal against deportation failed.

The murderer, referred to only as JR, arrived in the UK in December 2000 when he was 15 on a temporary visa to visit his mother.
An application for leave to stay longer was refused, but the yob remained in the country anyway.
John, you may also not approve of this Daily Mail article: An illegal immigrant who stabbed a 15-year-old schoolboy to death less than a year after arriving in Britain cannot be deported because he claims to be gay, judges ruled yesterday. Lord Justice Kay said he believed his mother’s evidence that he was gay – even though the Home Office said he ‘had made no mention of it’ until his first appeal against deportation failed. The murderer, referred to only as JR, arrived in the UK in December 2000 when he was 15 on a temporary visa to visit his mother. An application for leave to stay longer was refused, but the yob remained in the country anyway. BMD
  • Score: 3

10:54am Thu 17 Apr 14

tolpuddlemartyr1955 says...

Voice-of-reality wrote:
TP1955, Unpopular though the idea may at first appear, I cannot help but wonder whether, given limited financial resources and so on, the country would really miss a million of those who contribute effexctively nothing to the greater good. I would reject the contention that such an idea is inhumane - quite the opposite, it would 'replenish the stock' and strengthen the financial health for those who remained.
So now we get to the nub of your ideas, forced euthanasia, on people you consider a drain on resources but do not contribute. I withdraw my inference that you are inhumane, because to be that, one needs to be human, in the first place. There were 2 regimes in the 20th century that you would have fitted into, like a hand into a glove. One was Stalinist Russia, now what was that other one called!!!
As for limited financial resources, check your facts you mental defective. There is not a problem with resources, financial or otherwise in this, one of the richest countries in the world. But why do I expect rationality from someone who would quite happily see the deaths of 1 million human beings and talks about people as "stock", as if they were cattle.
Does nobody else on this site find these sentiments outrageous and totally offensive and repugnant?
[quote][p][bold]Voice-of-reality[/bold] wrote: TP1955, Unpopular though the idea may at first appear, I cannot help but wonder whether, given limited financial resources and so on, the country would really miss a million of those who contribute effexctively nothing to the greater good. I would reject the contention that such an idea is inhumane - quite the opposite, it would 'replenish the stock' and strengthen the financial health for those who remained.[/p][/quote]So now we get to the nub of your ideas, forced euthanasia, on people you consider a drain on resources but do not contribute. I withdraw my inference that you are inhumane, because to be that, one needs to be human, in the first place. There were 2 regimes in the 20th century that you would have fitted into, like a hand into a glove. One was Stalinist Russia, now what was that other one called!!! As for limited financial resources, check your facts you mental defective. There is not a problem with resources, financial or otherwise in this, one of the richest countries in the world. But why do I expect rationality from someone who would quite happily see the deaths of 1 million human beings and talks about people as "stock", as if they were cattle. Does nobody else on this site find these sentiments outrageous and totally offensive and repugnant? tolpuddlemartyr1955
  • Score: -13

10:58am Thu 17 Apr 14

tolpuddlemartyr1955 says...

What a find just as disturbing, is that VOR got 3 thumbs up for his barbaric post! Disgusting.
What a find just as disturbing, is that VOR got 3 thumbs up for his barbaric post! Disgusting. tolpuddlemartyr1955
  • Score: -20

12:45pm Thu 17 Apr 14

Red n' Black says...

The right wing prejudiced **** on here know **** all - those apparently safe do fall too remember. Its about solidarity and human behaviour, not anti social stupidity and ignorance. Helping people who are on no or next to no is a good thing, it is not rocket science. That the right wing have to attack this is a sign of their own lack of ideas and self worth, that is why ignorant **** like Edwina Currie go on about food banks, EVEN WHEN it doesn't cost the tax payer any money so they've got no right to stick their unwanted nose in really:)
The right wing prejudiced **** on here know **** all - those apparently safe do fall too remember. Its about solidarity and human behaviour, not anti social stupidity and ignorance. Helping people who are on no or next to no is a good thing, it is not rocket science. That the right wing have to attack this is a sign of their own lack of ideas and self worth, that is why ignorant **** like Edwina Currie go on about food banks, EVEN WHEN it doesn't cost the tax payer any money so they've got no right to stick their unwanted nose in really:) Red n' Black
  • Score: -1

1:33pm Thu 17 Apr 14

Voice-of-reality says...

The green agenda continually tells us that the planet cannot support the gorwing demands of the human race... so I am merely suggesting cutting some of the demand.
I am calling neither for forced euthanasia nor ethnic cleansing on the lines of either of the 20th century regimes you refer to. Rather, I celebrate social Darwinism and additionally question why, for instance, we should waste good money on treating drug addicts - when they would, in the main, seem happy to take more and more drugs - and I would be happy to let them do so - until they can take more more.
One could also apply the main thrust of the argument globally - there are too many people for the planet to support - I would therefore cut all third world aid to zero. Plague and famine are not entirely bad - they help to keep population numbers in check.
I would also suggest, with regard to the UK, that 3rd generation benefit claimants should be given contracts to sign after 1 child that would read along the lines 'if you wish to continue to be welfare dependent you will be sterilised'.
And finally, TP1955 - do try to keep up to date with rthe realities of political economics - we may be a first world nation but we are in effect bankrupt with debts substantially greater than our annual GDP - so yes, there are limited resources.
The green agenda continually tells us that the planet cannot support the gorwing demands of the human race... so I am merely suggesting cutting some of the demand. I am calling neither for forced euthanasia nor ethnic cleansing on the lines of either of the 20th century regimes you refer to. Rather, I celebrate social Darwinism and additionally question why, for instance, we should waste good money on treating drug addicts - when they would, in the main, seem happy to take more and more drugs - and I would be happy to let them do so - until they can take more more. One could also apply the main thrust of the argument globally - there are too many people for the planet to support - I would therefore cut all third world aid to zero. Plague and famine are not entirely bad - they help to keep population numbers in check. I would also suggest, with regard to the UK, that 3rd generation benefit claimants should be given contracts to sign after 1 child that would read along the lines 'if you wish to continue to be welfare dependent you will be sterilised'. And finally, TP1955 - do try to keep up to date with rthe realities of political economics - we may be a first world nation but we are in effect bankrupt with debts substantially greater than our annual GDP - so yes, there are limited resources. Voice-of-reality
  • Score: 20

5:11pm Thu 17 Apr 14

tolpuddlemartyr1955 says...

No, you are wrong. Take a waltz down to Kensington or Chelsea, Belgravia or Knightsbridge and look at all the poverty and destitution, all the austerity. It is you my twisted, warped little fellow, that has nary a clue about the realities of political economics. Moreover, your exposition of Social Darwinism, ala Herbert Spencer, is way off beam. His book on "The Survival of the fittest" one of the most misused books and terms in existence. Social Darwinism is no more credible than Friedmans Monetarist, or Keynes reflationary economic theory.
Your pass at eugenics, confirms my opinion of you, the six thumbs up for your latest hateful contribution, my opinion of other rabid demagogues on this site.
Human beings? I think not!!!
No, you are wrong. Take a waltz down to Kensington or Chelsea, Belgravia or Knightsbridge and look at all the poverty and destitution, all the austerity. It is you my twisted, warped little fellow, that has nary a clue about the realities of political economics. Moreover, your exposition of Social Darwinism, ala Herbert Spencer, is way off beam. His book on "The Survival of the fittest" one of the most misused books and terms in existence. Social Darwinism is no more credible than Friedmans Monetarist, or Keynes reflationary economic theory. Your pass at eugenics, confirms my opinion of you, the six thumbs up for your latest hateful contribution, my opinion of other rabid demagogues on this site. Human beings? I think not!!! tolpuddlemartyr1955
  • Score: -6

5:28pm Thu 17 Apr 14

Voice-of-reality says...

Chelsea, Belgravia, Knightsbridge, lovely areas where a majority work hard and enjoy the fruits of their labour. Further, and I would agree with you that tax dodgers are dreadful people, the majority of the hardworking in such splendid Boroughs pay more than their fair share of tax - yet they are always expected to pay more. They 'do their bit' by supporting the rest of the nation - alas those that they support expect to forever be given more and more and more and have none of their wasteful ways challenged. One notes that it is the overwhelming number of Tories in such Boroughs that actually fund the welfarte payments for the poor and yet I have no doubt that you castigate their politicis.Note, (and I accept that it is a generalisation) they pay more tax, they work harder, and they should be applauded for it.
In contrast, the third generation layabouts who are nothing but a drain on society should be allowed to wither. We cannot go on as a global society all living longer, all wanting more material goods and so on, something has to give. In olden times, plague, and famine helped to 'rebalance' society (and of course with regard to the Black Death improve the working lives and conditions of the greater peasantry), the sooner we embrace the need to let 'nature take its course' the better.
If you are debasing all of the theories of Darwinism, Monetarism, Keynesiansism and so on - what model do you advocate - and, as importantly, where has that model been shown to work?
Chelsea, Belgravia, Knightsbridge, lovely areas where a majority work hard and enjoy the fruits of their labour. Further, and I would agree with you that tax dodgers are dreadful people, the majority of the hardworking in such splendid Boroughs pay more than their fair share of tax - yet they are always expected to pay more. They 'do their bit' by supporting the rest of the nation - alas those that they support expect to forever be given more and more and more and have none of their wasteful ways challenged. One notes that it is the overwhelming number of Tories in such Boroughs that actually fund the welfarte payments for the poor and yet I have no doubt that you castigate their politicis.Note, (and I accept that it is a generalisation) they pay more tax, they work harder, and they should be applauded for it. In contrast, the third generation layabouts who are nothing but a drain on society should be allowed to wither. We cannot go on as a global society all living longer, all wanting more material goods and so on, something has to give. In olden times, plague, and famine helped to 'rebalance' society (and of course with regard to the Black Death improve the working lives and conditions of the greater peasantry), the sooner we embrace the need to let 'nature take its course' the better. If you are debasing all of the theories of Darwinism, Monetarism, Keynesiansism and so on - what model do you advocate - and, as importantly, where has that model been shown to work? Voice-of-reality
  • Score: 9

5:57pm Thu 17 Apr 14

BMD says...

tolpuddlemartyr1955 says... Take a waltz down to Kensington or Chelsea, Belgravia or Knightsbridge and look at all the poverty and destitution, all the austerity.

Then take a Samba down Brent, Tower Hamlets, Brixton, Lambeth, Southwark and look at the illegal immigrants, Drug addicts and alcoholics.

Then ask yourself, do I need to work harder and pay more taxes to keep up their standard of living!
tolpuddlemartyr1955 says... Take a waltz down to Kensington or Chelsea, Belgravia or Knightsbridge and look at all the poverty and destitution, all the austerity. Then take a Samba down Brent, Tower Hamlets, Brixton, Lambeth, Southwark and look at the illegal immigrants, Drug addicts and alcoholics. Then ask yourself, do I need to work harder and pay more taxes to keep up their standard of living! BMD
  • Score: 10

6:07pm Thu 17 Apr 14

Voice-of-reality says...

BMD - your sanity on this thread is to be welcomed by all sensible thinkers who care about themselves and the nation.
Alas TP1955 will probably tell you that you are part of a white reactionary set of elitists who is 'out of touch' and that the residence of Chelsea, Knightsbridge etc should be taxed out of existence and their residences given to the 'drug addled' because they had an upsetting childhood (or some other liberal wooly minded namby pamby nonsense).
BMD - your sanity on this thread is to be welcomed by all sensible thinkers who care about themselves and the nation. Alas TP1955 will probably tell you that you are part of a white reactionary set of elitists who is 'out of touch' and that the residence of Chelsea, Knightsbridge etc should be taxed out of existence and their residences given to the 'drug addled' because they had an upsetting childhood (or some other liberal wooly minded namby pamby nonsense). Voice-of-reality
  • Score: 9

6:10pm Thu 17 Apr 14

tolpuddlemartyr1955 says...

The theories of Friedman and Keynes, to name but two, debase themselves, as do others where they make claims of being able to control Capitalism, yet when Capitalism pitches into one of its frequent, cyclical slumps, are proved to be nothing more than useless words.
On the other theory, I never debased, nor disrespected Darwin's theory of evolution but Spencer's Social evolutionary theory I most assuredly do disagree with. It's not so much as "Survival of the fittest", as survival of the one with the strongest sword arm, the biggest army, today, the biggest bank balance.
As to where my sympathies and understanding lie, I agree with someone who used to post on this site, the world, is a totally Capitalist world. The society I envisage, has never been tried, yet many, bizarrely, claim it has failed!
The theories of Friedman and Keynes, to name but two, debase themselves, as do others where they make claims of being able to control Capitalism, yet when Capitalism pitches into one of its frequent, cyclical slumps, are proved to be nothing more than useless words. On the other theory, I never debased, nor disrespected Darwin's theory of evolution but Spencer's Social evolutionary theory I most assuredly do disagree with. It's not so much as "Survival of the fittest", as survival of the one with the strongest sword arm, the biggest army, today, the biggest bank balance. As to where my sympathies and understanding lie, I agree with someone who used to post on this site, the world, is a totally Capitalist world. The society I envisage, has never been tried, yet many, bizarrely, claim it has failed! tolpuddlemartyr1955
  • Score: -12

6:14pm Thu 17 Apr 14

Voice-of-reality says...

I thought that was the case - it explains a great deal.
I thought that was the case - it explains a great deal. Voice-of-reality
  • Score: -3

6:17pm Thu 17 Apr 14

tolpuddlemartyr1955 says...

Voice-of-reality wrote:
BMD - your sanity on this thread is to be welcomed by all sensible thinkers who care about themselves and the nation.
Alas TP1955 will probably tell you that you are part of a white reactionary set of elitists who is 'out of touch' and that the residence of Chelsea, Knightsbridge etc should be taxed out of existence and their residences given to the 'drug addled' because they had an upsetting childhood (or some other liberal wooly minded namby pamby nonsense).
VOR, it isn't very pleasing to have words put in my mouth, especially when it is done by something as objectionable as you! I can speak for myself and will continue to do so. You can continue to spout what I consider to be vile, foul, trash.
[quote][p][bold]Voice-of-reality[/bold] wrote: BMD - your sanity on this thread is to be welcomed by all sensible thinkers who care about themselves and the nation. Alas TP1955 will probably tell you that you are part of a white reactionary set of elitists who is 'out of touch' and that the residence of Chelsea, Knightsbridge etc should be taxed out of existence and their residences given to the 'drug addled' because they had an upsetting childhood (or some other liberal wooly minded namby pamby nonsense).[/p][/quote]VOR, it isn't very pleasing to have words put in my mouth, especially when it is done by something as objectionable as you! I can speak for myself and will continue to do so. You can continue to spout what I consider to be vile, foul, trash. tolpuddlemartyr1955
  • Score: -10

6:22pm Thu 17 Apr 14

Voice-of-reality says...

The word 'probably' was an important word in my post - perhaps you missed it. It is also alwasy fascinating as to how 'the left' personalise posts - your use of the word 'something' being quite deliberate. Odd how those of us who pay more tax and support those who don't still manage to be civil where those who support 'the non-controrsibut' seem not only to continually forget their own manners but also the fact that 'the poor' should be grateful for the benefits they receive.
The word 'probably' was an important word in my post - perhaps you missed it. It is also alwasy fascinating as to how 'the left' personalise posts - your use of the word 'something' being quite deliberate. Odd how those of us who pay more tax and support those who don't still manage to be civil where those who support 'the non-controrsibut' seem not only to continually forget their own manners but also the fact that 'the poor' should be grateful for the benefits they receive. Voice-of-reality
  • Score: 9

10:52pm Thu 17 Apr 14

tolpuddlemartyr1955 says...

"Probably"! so you reckoned I would "probably" say, " probably tell you that you are part of a white reactionary set of elitists who is 'out of touch'". You saying "probably", tells others, that you know my mind and how it works! Nothing could be further from the truth. I read what you posted, it was a fools drivelling. It made no sense and still doesn't, after 10 reading. It is you, you right wing bigot, who cannot be "civil" and who would gladly have hundreds of thousands of your fellow humans die, to ease the burden on whom? the likes of you? I think not.
You are a disgusting excuse for a human being. Your views make me feel physically sick and moreover, angry, that you even get away with posting your obnoxious rubbish on here, is beyond me. That more people don't confront this obscenity, alarms me! I will continue to confront your inhumane mouthings.
"Probably"! so you reckoned I would "probably" say, " probably tell you that you are part of a white reactionary set of elitists who is 'out of touch'". You saying "probably", tells others, that you know my mind and how it works! Nothing could be further from the truth. I read what you posted, it was a fools drivelling. It made no sense and still doesn't, after 10 reading. It is you, you right wing bigot, who cannot be "civil" and who would gladly have hundreds of thousands of your fellow humans die, to ease the burden on whom? the likes of you? I think not. You are a disgusting excuse for a human being. Your views make me feel physically sick and moreover, angry, that you even get away with posting your obnoxious rubbish on here, is beyond me. That more people don't confront this obscenity, alarms me! I will continue to confront your inhumane mouthings. tolpuddlemartyr1955
  • Score: -10

11:33pm Thu 17 Apr 14

behonest says...

Robert_ wrote:
My mum brought up 3 kids doing low paid menial jobs like cleaning or being a dinner lady. She now relies on food banks to eat. Disgraceful for a 'rich' 'developed' country.

The church is doing the organising. Great work lord.....

Do the clergy go to bed thanking it for the food we have?

Just as misguided and delusional as the politicians....
Nowhere near as disgraceful as a son who allows his mum to use a food bank, rather than repay his debt to her by making sure she is well fed.
[quote][p][bold]Robert_[/bold] wrote: My mum brought up 3 kids doing low paid menial jobs like cleaning or being a dinner lady. She now relies on food banks to eat. Disgraceful for a 'rich' 'developed' country. The church is doing the organising. Great work lord..... Do the clergy go to bed thanking it for the food we have? Just as misguided and delusional as the politicians....[/p][/quote]Nowhere near as disgraceful as a son who allows his mum to use a food bank, rather than repay his debt to her by making sure she is well fed. behonest
  • Score: 12

11:37pm Thu 17 Apr 14

Voice-of-reality says...

TP1955, Quite so, quite so. Based on your previous posts I predicted the type of response you were likely to give. Your post above has also conformed to that which I expected. Do calm down, dear, and consider a G&T (or a Dubonet) it cannot be good for your blood pressure to get this excitable about a single news item at this time of the evening .

That you could not understand the previous post would, many might posit, suggest more about your education than it does about myself. With regards to civility, one can still write and communicate in a civil way even if the message being conveyed does not chime with the individual views of all who read one’s opinions. The world is overpopulated – it is a simple truth and, at some stage, more radical solutions to that overpopulation crisis will have to be considered.

As for poverty (and of course it only exists in a relative manner in the UK rather than absolute), if it were not for the amount of tax that us 'disgusting excuse for human being' kept paying, (I did not feel that your phrase skipped as poetically as it might have done with a little further thought), there would be precious little money available to fund those who refuse to look after themselves. At some stage, I would suggest, those who are continually required to give more will get fed up with being 'cash cows'.

As for people dying, it's a fact of life and I am not suggesting killing people. I merely question whether we should artificially 'prop up' those who have no intention of even attempting to stand on their own two feet because the present political system of excessive welfareism enables them so to do. Removing that artificial prop is not 'making them die' - far from it, it is releasing them from the shackles and tyranny of state reliance and giving them the opportunity to 'man up' and support themselves (as the rest of us have to). If they choose not to do so, it is of course their choice.

Finally, you express concern that your reaction to my views is in a minority - it does not surprise me at all and I do, of course, look forward to continuing to our ‘little jousts’. TTFN, VOR

I note, a very sensible post from 'behonest' - the role of family support should be far greater than the state - as ever a sensible comment from behonest.
TP1955, Quite so, quite so. Based on your previous posts I predicted the type of response you were likely to give. Your post above has also conformed to that which I expected. Do calm down, dear, and consider a G&T (or a Dubonet) it cannot be good for your blood pressure to get this excitable about a single news item at this time of the evening . That you could not understand the previous post would, many might posit, suggest more about your education than it does about myself. With regards to civility, one can still write and communicate in a civil way even if the message being conveyed does not chime with the individual views of all who read one’s opinions. The world is overpopulated – it is a simple truth and, at some stage, more radical solutions to that overpopulation crisis will have to be considered. As for poverty (and of course it only exists in a relative manner in the UK rather than absolute), if it were not for the amount of tax that us 'disgusting excuse[s] for human being[s]' kept paying, (I did not feel that your phrase skipped as poetically as it might have done with a little further thought), there would be precious little money available to fund those who refuse to look after themselves. At some stage, I would suggest, those who are continually required to give more will get fed up with being 'cash cows'. As for people dying, it's a fact of life and I am not suggesting killing people. I merely question whether we should artificially 'prop up' those who have no intention of even attempting to stand on their own two feet because the present political system of excessive welfareism enables them so to do. Removing that artificial prop is not 'making them die' - far from it, it is releasing them from the shackles and tyranny of state reliance and giving them the opportunity to 'man up' and support themselves (as the rest of us have to). If they choose not to do so, it is of course their choice. Finally, you express concern that your reaction to my views is in a minority - it does not surprise me at all and I do, of course, look forward to continuing to our ‘little jousts’. TTFN, VOR I note, a very sensible post from 'behonest' - the role of family support should be far greater than the state - as ever a sensible comment from behonest. Voice-of-reality
  • Score: 10

12:32am Fri 18 Apr 14

tolpuddlemartyr1955 says...

You say, "the world is overpopulated" what kind of neo Malthusian Shiite is this? It was incorrect when the Rev Thomas Malthus used it in the 18th/19th century and is as much bullshiite today. Once again you state as "facts", that which are not facts! My views moreover, are not in the minority, the silent majority, are just that, silent but they disagree with your disgraceful, inhumane, disgusting blatherings.
You say, "the world is overpopulated" what kind of neo Malthusian Shiite is this? It was incorrect when the Rev Thomas Malthus used it in the 18th/19th century and is as much bullshiite today. Once again you state as "facts", that which are not facts! My views moreover, are not in the minority, the silent majority, are just that, silent but they disagree with your disgraceful, inhumane, disgusting blatherings. tolpuddlemartyr1955
  • Score: -10

1:29am Fri 18 Apr 14

Voice-of-reality says...

Britain is overpopulated, and the world at large is overpopulated. There are too many people for the resources available. There are simply too many mouths to fed, and of those mouths to feed to many belong to the children of people who are not prepared to take repsonsibility for the children they have chosen to have.
You present no evidence that your views are those of a silent majority - in the same way that the political system that you desire is not the wish of the silent majority - it is a 'nevernever' land of political make believe, rejected by every power on earth - the evidence for my assertion being referenced through the total global rejection of the political model you advocate.
I note that you do not disagree that I predicted your responses correctly.
Have the good grace to accept that, even if you do not believe yourself to be wrong, you are 'out of kilter' with the majority of views expressed on this site - I think you'll feel better for it. Now, I must dash, there is still work to be done (of which a goodly proportion of the earnings will be given to those who cannot be bothered to work 9-5 let alone at this hour - and yet I am still mandatorily required to support them).
Britain is overpopulated, and the world at large is overpopulated. There are too many people for the resources available. There are simply too many mouths to fed, and of those mouths to feed to many belong to the children of people who are not prepared to take repsonsibility for the children they have chosen to have. You present no evidence that your views are those of a silent majority - in the same way that the political system that you desire is not the wish of the silent majority - it is a 'nevernever' land of political make believe, rejected by every power on earth - the evidence for my assertion being referenced through the total global rejection of the political model you advocate. I note that you do not disagree that I predicted your responses correctly. Have the good grace to accept that, even if you do not believe yourself to be wrong, you are 'out of kilter' with the majority of views expressed on this site - I think you'll feel better for it. Now, I must dash, there is still work to be done (of which a goodly proportion of the earnings will be given to those who cannot be bothered to work 9-5 let alone at this hour - and yet I am still mandatorily required to support them). Voice-of-reality
  • Score: 10

1:51am Fri 18 Apr 14

Voice-of-reality says...

For over 100 years the state has poured millions of pounds into deprived areas in an attempt to make such places better. It is surely now obvious that the majority of people who live in such areas do not wish either to be 'rescued' or to adopt middle class values. Indeed, it is always the middle class who state that such people must be improved where they themselves seem quite happy in their own environment – with few bills to pay and no responsibilities ignorance can be a form of bliss.

They are clearly happy in to live in the style to which they are accustomed. There is a sizeable minority within the country who do not wish to be educated, do not wish to work, do not wish to further themselves, and do not wish to take any responsibility for themselves. If the decent hard working people of the country continue to support this underclass of degenerates then it enables such people to continue to proposer whilst 'cocking a snoop' at those who actually work hard to fund not only their own lives but also those who cannot be bothered.

It is time to wake up and cut the 100 year old umbilical cord - let these people fend for themselves. They can either sink or swim - the choice is theirs and no amount of government interference will improve them. Better to spend resources on those who actually care about their situations in life and wish to prosper and improve.

Of course, TP1955, I do not object to the organising of 'paid outings' to view such people in their natural surroundings and would be quite happy for the revenue of such tourism to be invested into the areas that they inhabit.
For over 100 years the state has poured millions of pounds into deprived areas in an attempt to make such places better. It is surely now obvious that the majority of people who live in such areas do not wish either to be 'rescued' or to adopt middle class values. Indeed, it is always the middle class who state that such people must be improved where they themselves seem quite happy in their own environment – with few bills to pay and no responsibilities ignorance can be a form of bliss. They are clearly happy in to live in the style to which they are accustomed. There is a sizeable minority within the country who do not wish to be educated, do not wish to work, do not wish to further themselves, and do not wish to take any responsibility for themselves. If the decent hard working people of the country continue to support this underclass of degenerates then it enables such people to continue to proposer whilst 'cocking a snoop' at those who actually work hard to fund not only their own lives but also those who cannot be bothered. It is time to wake up and cut the 100 year old umbilical cord - let these people fend for themselves. They can either sink or swim - the choice is theirs and no amount of government interference will improve them. Better to spend resources on those who actually care about their situations in life and wish to prosper and improve. Of course, TP1955, I do not object to the organising of 'paid outings' to view such people in their natural surroundings and would be quite happy for the revenue of such tourism to be invested into the areas that they inhabit. Voice-of-reality
  • Score: 8

10:56am Fri 18 Apr 14

tolpuddlemartyr1955 says...

A total Global rejection of the political model I advocate! mmm. No. As the system I advocate, has never been placed before a Global audience, it is totally wrong to say it has been rejected. One cannot reject, what has never been offered. Not only did you attempt to predict my response, you also attempted to place the words in my mouth. As I said, I do not need you, nor indeed, anyone else to speak on my behalf!
As for being out of kilter with the majority of views expressed on this site, if that were true I would be more than happy to wear that badge, as the alternative would be, to be someone like you, who spouts vile, inhumane garbage and presumably still thinks of themselves as a decent human being. However, they split of views is not as clear cut as you suggest.
Now, why don't you get back to your eugenics driven, euthanasia fuelled, spiteful fantasy world, that bigots inhabit.
A total Global rejection of the political model I advocate! mmm. No. As the system I advocate, has never been placed before a Global audience, it is totally wrong to say it has been rejected. One cannot reject, what has never been offered. Not only did you attempt to predict my response, you also attempted to place the words in my mouth. As I said, I do not need you, nor indeed, anyone else to speak on my behalf! As for being out of kilter with the majority of views expressed on this site, if that were true I would be more than happy to wear that badge, as the alternative would be, to be someone like you, who spouts vile, inhumane garbage and presumably still thinks of themselves as a decent human being. However, they split of views is not as clear cut as you suggest. Now, why don't you get back to your eugenics driven, euthanasia fuelled, spiteful fantasy world, that bigots inhabit. tolpuddlemartyr1955
  • Score: -8

1:39pm Fri 18 Apr 14

LUSTARD says...

lovely day think ill walk the dog down the tees and pick some free garlick if its about
lovely day think ill walk the dog down the tees and pick some free garlick if its about LUSTARD
  • Score: 3

3:37pm Fri 18 Apr 14

Jackaranda says...

LUSTARD wrote:
lovely day think ill walk the dog down the tees and pick some free garlick if its about
It was there in abundance this very morn, lovely smell!!
[quote][p][bold]LUSTARD[/bold] wrote: lovely day think ill walk the dog down the tees and pick some free garlick if its about[/p][/quote]It was there in abundance this very morn, lovely smell!! Jackaranda
  • Score: 1

3:41pm Fri 18 Apr 14

BMD says...

tolpuddlemartyr1955 says... Now, why don't you get back to your eugenics driven, euthanasia fuelled, spiteful fantasy world, that bigots inhabit.

Lowering the tone of the debate only emphasizes how poor your point of view and opinion are. May I suggest you interact in a reasonable debate and listen to other people’s life experiences.
tolpuddlemartyr1955 says... Now, why don't you get back to your eugenics driven, euthanasia fuelled, spiteful fantasy world, that bigots inhabit. Lowering the tone of the debate only emphasizes how poor your point of view and opinion are. May I suggest you interact in a reasonable debate and listen to other people’s life experiences. BMD
  • Score: 2

7:26pm Fri 18 Apr 14

Jonn says...

Churchill was a Eugenics fan, he was also racist, and a sexist drunk.
Churchill was a Eugenics fan, he was also racist, and a sexist drunk. Jonn
  • Score: 8

7:43pm Fri 18 Apr 14

Voice-of-reality says...

At least two more reasons to admire one of the greatest Britons ever to have lived.
At least two more reasons to admire one of the greatest Britons ever to have lived. Voice-of-reality
  • Score: 6

8:19pm Fri 18 Apr 14

Jackaranda says...

Jonn wrote:
Churchill was a Eugenics fan, he was also racist, and a sexist drunk.
You are surely wrong there! Annie Lennox and Dave Stewart weren't even born, Vera Lynn fan most definitely.
[quote][p][bold]Jonn[/bold] wrote: Churchill was a Eugenics fan, he was also racist, and a sexist drunk.[/p][/quote]You are surely wrong there! Annie Lennox and Dave Stewart weren't even born, Vera Lynn fan most definitely. Jackaranda
  • Score: 4

8:22pm Fri 18 Apr 14

Jonn says...

The 'drunk' part explains the reasons you admire.
The 'drunk' part explains the reasons you admire. Jonn
  • Score: -1

8:27pm Fri 18 Apr 14

Voice-of-reality says...

I have always admired Churchill for sanctioning the raid on Dresden, as I do Thatcher for the sinking of the Belgrano, Pinochet for his loyalty to Britain, Regan for Starwars, and Bhota for his steadfast approach to leadership.
I have always admired Churchill for sanctioning the raid on Dresden, as I do Thatcher for the sinking of the Belgrano, Pinochet for his loyalty to Britain, Regan for Starwars, and Bhota for his steadfast approach to leadership. Voice-of-reality
  • Score: 9

11:52pm Fri 18 Apr 14

tolpuddlemartyr1955 says...

BMD wrote:
tolpuddlemartyr1955 says... Now, why don't you get back to your eugenics driven, euthanasia fuelled, spiteful fantasy world, that bigots inhabit.

Lowering the tone of the debate only emphasizes how poor your point of view and opinion are. May I suggest you interact in a reasonable debate and listen to other people’s life experiences.
Lowering the tone, BMD? I think it was and has been lowered quite sufficiently by VOR. "May 'I' suggest" BMD, that having a "reasonable debate" with eugenics driven, euthanasia fuelled bigots is, by definition, impossible! How can you debate rationally, with someone who would not bat an eyelid, if millions of our fellow humans, died tomorrow!
Which camp should I place you in BMD?
[quote][p][bold]BMD[/bold] wrote: tolpuddlemartyr1955 says... Now, why don't you get back to your eugenics driven, euthanasia fuelled, spiteful fantasy world, that bigots inhabit. Lowering the tone of the debate only emphasizes how poor your point of view and opinion are. May I suggest you interact in a reasonable debate and listen to other people’s life experiences.[/p][/quote]Lowering the tone, BMD? I think it was and has been lowered quite sufficiently by VOR. "May 'I' suggest" BMD, that having a "reasonable debate" with eugenics driven, euthanasia fuelled bigots is, by definition, impossible! How can you debate rationally, with someone who would not bat an eyelid, if millions of our fellow humans, died tomorrow! Which camp should I place you in BMD? tolpuddlemartyr1955
  • Score: -10

11:55pm Fri 18 Apr 14

behonest says...

Voice-of-reality wrote:
At least two more reasons to admire one of the greatest Britons ever to have lived.
Ha! I'm just not sure which two reasons you chose! The 'drunk' I can agree with (and relate to) so that just leaves one more...
[quote][p][bold]Voice-of-reality[/bold] wrote: At least two more reasons to admire one of the greatest Britons ever to have lived.[/p][/quote]Ha! I'm just not sure which two reasons you chose! The 'drunk' I can agree with (and relate to) so that just leaves one more... behonest
  • Score: 6

12:29am Sat 19 Apr 14

Voice-of-reality says...

Behonest - you are most kind, I thought I would leave it vague. Two of my favourite tales of Churchill are his quip regarding 'instruments of beauty' and the question of drunkness versus beauty - I am sure you know them both.

TP - do try to understand the point that I in no way support euthanasia. I do support Eugenics, after all society always strives to improve itself.

Please also be aware that I would do substantially more than 'bat an eyelid' if a million or so of those who presently ow their entire existence to being propped up by the rest of society had that support removed. Your suggestion that I would not flinch at such a rationalisation of resources is nowhere no close - and you didn't even have the decency to use the word 'probably' - you really must stop trying to guess the reaction of people.
Globally, of course, 1 million is but a 'drop in the ocean'.

Given your rantings of yesterday I today decided to offer a Fray Bentos pie (and had to alter my usual shopping trip to aquire it) to a local poor person to ascertain their reaction (after all I infer from your comments that we should all do more to help those less fortunate and that without such acts of kindness such people will starve)- they were confused and noted a preference for alcohol. Needless to say, I did not indulge them and gave the pie to a most appreciative seagull. It would seem that from an evolutionary point of view, the seagull may have been more advanced than the fellow I encountered.
Behonest - you are most kind, I thought I would leave it vague. Two of my favourite tales of Churchill are his quip regarding 'instruments of beauty' and the question of drunkness versus beauty - I am sure you know them both. TP - do try to understand the point that I in no way support euthanasia. I do support Eugenics, after all society always strives to improve itself. Please also be aware that I would do substantially more than 'bat an eyelid' if a million or so of those who presently ow their entire existence to being propped up by the rest of society had that support removed. Your suggestion that I would not flinch at such a rationalisation of resources is nowhere no close - and you didn't even have the decency to use the word 'probably' - you really must stop trying to guess the reaction of people. Globally, of course, 1 million is but a 'drop in the ocean'. Given your rantings of yesterday I today decided to offer a Fray Bentos pie (and had to alter my usual shopping trip to aquire it) to a local poor person to ascertain their reaction (after all I infer from your comments that we should all do more to help those less fortunate and that without such acts of kindness such people will starve)- they were confused and noted a preference for alcohol. Needless to say, I did not indulge them and gave the pie to a most appreciative seagull. It would seem that from an evolutionary point of view, the seagull may have been more advanced than the fellow I encountered. Voice-of-reality
  • Score: 13

12:40am Sat 19 Apr 14

Voice-of-reality says...

Do excuse the typos - it is not the quality of the wine that is at fault, merely the quantity. A pleasant Easter to you all.
Do excuse the typos - it is not the quality of the wine that is at fault, merely the quantity. A pleasant Easter to you all. Voice-of-reality
  • Score: 12

6:30am Sat 19 Apr 14

Jonn says...

Voice-of-reality wrote:
I have always admired Churchill for sanctioning the raid on Dresden, as I do Thatcher for the sinking of the Belgrano, Pinochet for his loyalty to Britain, Regan for Starwars, and Bhota for his steadfast approach to leadership.
Indiscriminantly bombing and killing tens of thousands of civilians is nothing to be admired.
[quote][p][bold]Voice-of-reality[/bold] wrote: I have always admired Churchill for sanctioning the raid on Dresden, as I do Thatcher for the sinking of the Belgrano, Pinochet for his loyalty to Britain, Regan for Starwars, and Bhota for his steadfast approach to leadership.[/p][/quote]Indiscriminantly bombing and killing tens of thousands of civilians is nothing to be admired. Jonn
  • Score: -4

6:49am Sat 19 Apr 14

BMD says...

tolpuddlemartyr1955 wrote:
BMD wrote: tolpuddlemartyr1955 says... Now, why don't you get back to your eugenics driven, euthanasia fuelled, spiteful fantasy world, that bigots inhabit. Lowering the tone of the debate only emphasizes how poor your point of view and opinion are. May I suggest you interact in a reasonable debate and listen to other people’s life experiences.
Lowering the tone, BMD? I think it was and has been lowered quite sufficiently by VOR. "May 'I' suggest" BMD, that having a "reasonable debate" with eugenics driven, euthanasia fuelled bigots is, by definition, impossible! How can you debate rationally, with someone who would not bat an eyelid, if millions of our fellow humans, died tomorrow! Which camp should I place you in BMD?
tolpuddlemartyr1955 let’s try to be rational,

First - Eugenics has been practiced throughout history and is still practiced today in many third world countries. Therefore I would suggest you spent more of your time addressing these rogue countries.

Second - Euthanasia is also law and practiced in Switzerland - is this an undemocratic country or giving its citizens the freedom of choice?

Finally - "Bigot" a famous phrase used by Gordon brown to describe Gillian Duffy, a pensioner whom raised concerns regarding Labours immigration policy. Brown's "bigot" jibe indicated the distain Labour's political class has for the free thinking electorate.

"My Camp" - is firmly placed in England, I don’t like the erosion of UK law to the EU, the abuse by immigrants of the law under the EU human rights act, the influx of unskilled and semi-skilled immigrants whilst British people are left unemployed or untrained, the abuse by drug addicts and alcoholics of benefit system, the Asian sexual child abuse gangs whom have sort refuge in the UK, honour killings and acid attacks, the sham marriages, the mothers whom advise their daughters to have children in order to gain a “Easy-Life’ on benefits, the local council whom constantly waste my tax on projects that inevitable end up over budget - poor quality and don’t actually work, the local council whom pay armies of interpreters to claim benefits – knowing the immigrant will never gain employment, teacher training days whilst they only work two thirds of the year, GP’s whom are handsomely paid but refuse to work any extra hours, legal aid to parasite lawyers and ambulance chasers, etc…

Labours 13 years of Government certainly changed the demographics of the UK and not all for the better.
[quote][p][bold]tolpuddlemartyr1955[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BMD[/bold] wrote: tolpuddlemartyr1955 says... Now, why don't you get back to your eugenics driven, euthanasia fuelled, spiteful fantasy world, that bigots inhabit. Lowering the tone of the debate only emphasizes how poor your point of view and opinion are. May I suggest you interact in a reasonable debate and listen to other people’s life experiences.[/p][/quote]Lowering the tone, BMD? I think it was and has been lowered quite sufficiently by VOR. "May 'I' suggest" BMD, that having a "reasonable debate" with eugenics driven, euthanasia fuelled bigots is, by definition, impossible! How can you debate rationally, with someone who would not bat an eyelid, if millions of our fellow humans, died tomorrow! Which camp should I place you in BMD?[/p][/quote]tolpuddlemartyr1955 let’s try to be rational, First - Eugenics has been practiced throughout history and is still practiced today in many third world countries. Therefore I would suggest you spent more of your time addressing these rogue countries. Second - Euthanasia is also law and practiced in Switzerland - is this an undemocratic country or giving its citizens the freedom of choice? Finally - "Bigot" a famous phrase used by Gordon brown to describe Gillian Duffy, a pensioner whom raised concerns regarding Labours immigration policy. Brown's "bigot" jibe indicated the distain Labour's political class has for the free thinking electorate. "My Camp" - is firmly placed in England, I don’t like the erosion of UK law to the EU, the abuse by immigrants of the law under the EU human rights act, the influx of unskilled and semi-skilled immigrants whilst British people are left unemployed or untrained, the abuse by drug addicts and alcoholics of benefit system, the Asian sexual child abuse gangs whom have sort refuge in the UK, honour killings and acid attacks, the sham marriages, the mothers whom advise their daughters to have children in order to gain a “Easy-Life’ on benefits, the local council whom constantly waste my tax on projects that inevitable end up over budget - poor quality and don’t actually work, the local council whom pay armies of interpreters to claim benefits – knowing the immigrant will never gain employment, teacher training days whilst they only work two thirds of the year, GP’s whom are handsomely paid but refuse to work any extra hours, legal aid to parasite lawyers and ambulance chasers, etc… Labours 13 years of Government certainly changed the demographics of the UK and not all for the better. BMD
  • Score: 8

8:47am Sat 19 Apr 14

David Lacey says...

Wonderful stuff VOR. And Jonn really ought to read about the raid on Dresden before he comments.
Wonderful stuff VOR. And Jonn really ought to read about the raid on Dresden before he comments. David Lacey
  • Score: 3

10:47am Sat 19 Apr 14

Voice-of-reality says...

Jonn,
If the Germans did not wish to be bombed they should not have invaded their neighbours. It was also correct to sink the Belgrano - I care not which direction it was travelling in - it should not have been there and those that invade the territories of Britain should expect to be 'put to the sword'. I often think that the same approach should be taken to those illegal immigrants who mount personal invasions.
Jonn, If the Germans did not wish to be bombed they should not have invaded their neighbours. It was also correct to sink the Belgrano - I care not which direction it was travelling in - it should not have been there and those that invade the territories of Britain should expect to be 'put to the sword'. I often think that the same approach should be taken to those illegal immigrants who mount personal invasions. Voice-of-reality
  • Score: 3

12:39pm Sat 19 Apr 14

Jonn says...

Voice-of-reality wrote:
Jonn,
If the Germans did not wish to be bombed they should not have invaded their neighbours. It was also correct to sink the Belgrano - I care not which direction it was travelling in - it should not have been there and those that invade the territories of Britain should expect to be 'put to the sword'. I often think that the same approach should be taken to those illegal immigrants who mount personal invasions.
Did German civilians invade their neighbours?
[quote][p][bold]Voice-of-reality[/bold] wrote: Jonn, If the Germans did not wish to be bombed they should not have invaded their neighbours. It was also correct to sink the Belgrano - I care not which direction it was travelling in - it should not have been there and those that invade the territories of Britain should expect to be 'put to the sword'. I often think that the same approach should be taken to those illegal immigrants who mount personal invasions.[/p][/quote]Did German civilians invade their neighbours? Jonn
  • Score: -4

12:58pm Sat 19 Apr 14

Voice-of-reality says...

Jonn,
Where do you think the soldiers came from? (Hint - the civilian population).
Who do you think democratically elected Mr. Hitler? (Hint - the civilian population).
Members of the British Armed Forces are also drawn from the civilian population - in case you are also confused as to that.
Jonn, Where do you think the soldiers came from? (Hint - the civilian population). Who do you think democratically elected Mr. Hitler? (Hint - the civilian population). Members of the British Armed Forces are also drawn from the civilian population - in case you are also confused as to that. Voice-of-reality
  • Score: 3

8:45pm Sat 19 Apr 14

bambara says...

Lets throw a few examples of people who may be forced to use foodbanks out into the question here.

We had the one with a youngster just leaving care,
Lets add to that list:
A disabled person wrongly signed off benefits.
A self employed person who finds the employer he was working for suddenly goes into administration leaving him with large outstanding invoices and no income.
An unemployed person signed off benefits by the DHS for failure to attend an interview or meeting (even if that is due to circumstances they have no control over, car breakdown, family illness, etc... )
A person unfairly dismissed by an employer (and now with no way of disputing that if they don't have the money to pay to fight the case.) who has to wait to get benefits.
A victim of crime or simple bad luck (fire / flood) who has lost everything and has no money to fall back on.

Then of course we have all those poor sod's who have had their benefits cut, and are faced with additional cuts as a result of the bedroom tax, people who can either eat or pay the electric bill, or the council tax, or any of the other bills they are faced with.

Ordinary people, in some cases people who had a good job, and were doing fine until something went wrong. People who have been hit by accident or illness, women who have been left to bring up kids after the man walks out.

The Tory propoganda merchants on here would have you believe these ordinary decent people don't exist, or are a minority amongst an overwhelming majority of scroungers. That is not true, the ordinary decent people are the majority, the scroungers are the minority.

The Tory propoganda merchants would have you concentrate on the pensioners, the unemployed, the disabled, the immigrants. They would have you believe these people are the cause of the problems.
UNTRUE, the cause of the problem is rich.
Inequality in this country is increasing, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.
For every £1 of assets the people in the lower 50% (that is everyone from Mr Average down to the very poorest) has the people in the top 10% have £170. (So there are only a fifth as many in the top 10% but even so they have 170 times as much money as the entire bottom half of society.)
Yet if you meassure the tax paid in terms of the assets of the person paying then the bottom half of society pay 34 times as much tax per £1 of assets that they own.
In this country we pay tax on income not on assets of course, but then the people who make the rules on how we pay tax are the ones who own all the assets.

The rich are getting richer, and they are desperately trying to foster division in society so that everyone else does not see that it is the parasites at the top who are bleeding society dry.
Lets throw a few examples of people who may be forced to use foodbanks out into the question here. We had the one with a youngster just leaving care, Lets add to that list: A disabled person wrongly signed off benefits. A self employed person who finds the employer he was working for suddenly goes into administration leaving him with large outstanding invoices and no income. An unemployed person signed off benefits by the DHS for failure to attend an interview or meeting (even if that is due to circumstances they have no control over, car breakdown, family illness, etc... ) A person unfairly dismissed by an employer (and now with no way of disputing that if they don't have the money to pay to fight the case.) who has to wait to get benefits. A victim of crime or simple bad luck (fire / flood) who has lost everything and has no money to fall back on. Then of course we have all those poor sod's who have had their benefits cut, and are faced with additional cuts as a result of the bedroom tax, people who can either eat or pay the electric bill, or the council tax, or any of the other bills they are faced with. Ordinary people, in some cases people who had a good job, and were doing fine until something went wrong. People who have been hit by accident or illness, women who have been left to bring up kids after the man walks out. The Tory propoganda merchants on here would have you believe these ordinary decent people don't exist, or are a minority amongst an overwhelming majority of scroungers. That is not true, the ordinary decent people are the majority, the scroungers are the minority. The Tory propoganda merchants would have you concentrate on the pensioners, the unemployed, the disabled, the immigrants. They would have you believe these people are the cause of the problems. UNTRUE, the cause of the problem is rich. Inequality in this country is increasing, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. For every £1 of assets the people in the lower 50% (that is everyone from Mr Average down to the very poorest) has the people in the top 10% have £170. (So there are only a fifth as many in the top 10% but even so they have 170 times as much money as the entire bottom half of society.) Yet if you meassure the tax paid in terms of the assets of the person paying then the bottom half of society pay 34 times as much tax per £1 of assets that they own. In this country we pay tax on income not on assets of course, but then the people who make the rules on how we pay tax are the ones who own all the assets. The rich are getting richer, and they are desperately trying to foster division in society so that everyone else does not see that it is the parasites at the top who are bleeding society dry. bambara
  • Score: -2

8:59pm Sat 19 Apr 14

bambara says...

As a side note, to the Tory mouthpieces. If you think we could use a few million less people in this country, then lets look at removing the fat, the scum that is floating on the top of society, the idle rich who believe they are entitled to everything. Those who own wealth that the majority could only dream of. The tax dodgers and the fat cats.
If we "removed" a few of these and redistributed the assets we could pay off the national debt, and everyone in the bottom half of society would suddenly have many times as much and no need of benefits.

It may be 200 years since Madamme Guillotine had a run out, but try to remember making suggestions that the starving poor are actually living on cake, booze and fags, may not be a wise choice.
As a side note, to the Tory mouthpieces. If you think we could use a few million less people in this country, then lets look at removing the fat, the scum that is floating on the top of society, the idle rich who believe they are entitled to everything. Those who own wealth that the majority could only dream of. The tax dodgers and the fat cats. If we "removed" a few of these and redistributed the assets we could pay off the national debt, and everyone in the bottom half of society would suddenly have many times as much and no need of benefits. It may be 200 years since Madamme Guillotine had a run out, but try to remember making suggestions that the starving poor are actually living on cake, booze and fags, may not be a wise choice. bambara
  • Score: 0

9:28pm Sat 19 Apr 14

behonest says...

bambara says...
"A self employed person who finds the employer he was working for"

Eh?
bambara says... "A self employed person who finds the employer he was working for" Eh? behonest
  • Score: 0

5:54am Sun 20 Apr 14

BMD says...

bambara says... If you think we could use a few million less people in this country, then lets look at removing the fat, the scum that is floating on the top of society, the idle rich who believe they are entitled to everything. Those who own wealth that the majority could only dream of. The tax dodgers and the fat cats.
If we "removed" a few of these and redistributed the assets we could pay off the national debt, and everyone in the bottom half of society would suddenly have many times as much and no need of benefits.

Are you really sure or have you been sniffing the turpentine? - You want to remove people whom create jobs and replace them with people whom would spend all the redistributed assets on drugs, holidays and alcohol.
Regarding Madame Guillotine, the current French socialist government has received a drubbing at the recent local elections and all the French idle rich are heading across the channel to avoid 75% French tax. When these French idle rich arrive in the UK, they will spend some of their wealth, which filters down to create jobs.
bambara says... If you think we could use a few million less people in this country, then lets look at removing the fat, the scum that is floating on the top of society, the idle rich who believe they are entitled to everything. Those who own wealth that the majority could only dream of. The tax dodgers and the fat cats. If we "removed" a few of these and redistributed the assets we could pay off the national debt, and everyone in the bottom half of society would suddenly have many times as much and no need of benefits. Are you really sure or have you been sniffing the turpentine? - You want to remove people whom create jobs and replace them with people whom would spend all the redistributed assets on drugs, holidays and alcohol. Regarding Madame Guillotine, the current French socialist government has received a drubbing at the recent local elections and all the French idle rich are heading across the channel to avoid 75% French tax. When these French idle rich arrive in the UK, they will spend some of their wealth, which filters down to create jobs. BMD
  • Score: -1

9:05am Sun 20 Apr 14

David Lacey says...

London is now the sixth largest "French" city. Large numbers of entrepreneurs and businessmen have relocated there and to Belgium. Please remember the Laffer curve. It has been proven to be correct time after time.
London is now the sixth largest "French" city. Large numbers of entrepreneurs and businessmen have relocated there and to Belgium. Please remember the Laffer curve. It has been proven to be correct time after time. David Lacey
  • Score: 0

9:23am Sun 20 Apr 14

laboursfoe says...

bambara wrote:
As a side note, to the Tory mouthpieces. If you think we could use a few million less people in this country, then lets look at removing the fat, the scum that is floating on the top of society, the idle rich who believe they are entitled to everything. Those who own wealth that the majority could only dream of. The tax dodgers and the fat cats.
If we "removed" a few of these and redistributed the assets we could pay off the national debt, and everyone in the bottom half of society would suddenly have many times as much and no need of benefits.

It may be 200 years since Madamme Guillotine had a run out, but try to remember making suggestions that the starving poor are actually living on cake, booze and fags, may not be a wise choice.
So you do want asset stripping....

Some of that wealth has been passed down through generations and some has been built up. At each transaction tax is paid, when it has been passed on through death in most parts inheritance Tax has been paid, when companies and assets are sold tax becomes payable at the required rate.

You are assuming that these people just sit around counting their gold thinking up ways to screw over the poor.....
Some people have more important things to deal with on a day to day basis!!
[quote][p][bold]bambara[/bold] wrote: As a side note, to the Tory mouthpieces. If you think we could use a few million less people in this country, then lets look at removing the fat, the scum that is floating on the top of society, the idle rich who believe they are entitled to everything. Those who own wealth that the majority could only dream of. The tax dodgers and the fat cats. If we "removed" a few of these and redistributed the assets we could pay off the national debt, and everyone in the bottom half of society would suddenly have many times as much and no need of benefits. It may be 200 years since Madamme Guillotine had a run out, but try to remember making suggestions that the starving poor are actually living on cake, booze and fags, may not be a wise choice.[/p][/quote]So you do want asset stripping.... Some of that wealth has been passed down through generations and some has been built up. At each transaction tax is paid, when it has been passed on through death in most parts inheritance Tax has been paid, when companies and assets are sold tax becomes payable at the required rate. You are assuming that these people just sit around counting their gold thinking up ways to screw over the poor..... Some people have more important things to deal with on a day to day basis!! laboursfoe
  • Score: 1

3:26pm Sun 20 Apr 14

John Durham says...

BMD wrote:
bambara says... If you think we could use a few million less people in this country, then lets look at removing the fat, the scum that is floating on the top of society, the idle rich who believe they are entitled to everything. Those who own wealth that the majority could only dream of. The tax dodgers and the fat cats.
If we "removed" a few of these and redistributed the assets we could pay off the national debt, and everyone in the bottom half of society would suddenly have many times as much and no need of benefits.

Are you really sure or have you been sniffing the turpentine? - You want to remove people whom create jobs and replace them with people whom would spend all the redistributed assets on drugs, holidays and alcohol.
Regarding Madame Guillotine, the current French socialist government has received a drubbing at the recent local elections and all the French idle rich are heading across the channel to avoid 75% French tax. When these French idle rich arrive in the UK, they will spend some of their wealth, which filters down to create jobs.
Finally someone with something good to say about the benefits of the EU ;)
[quote][p][bold]BMD[/bold] wrote: bambara says... If you think we could use a few million less people in this country, then lets look at removing the fat, the scum that is floating on the top of society, the idle rich who believe they are entitled to everything. Those who own wealth that the majority could only dream of. The tax dodgers and the fat cats. If we "removed" a few of these and redistributed the assets we could pay off the national debt, and everyone in the bottom half of society would suddenly have many times as much and no need of benefits. Are you really sure or have you been sniffing the turpentine? - You want to remove people whom create jobs and replace them with people whom would spend all the redistributed assets on drugs, holidays and alcohol. Regarding Madame Guillotine, the current French socialist government has received a drubbing at the recent local elections and all the French idle rich are heading across the channel to avoid 75% French tax. When these French idle rich arrive in the UK, they will spend some of their wealth, which filters down to create jobs.[/p][/quote]Finally someone with something good to say about the benefits of the EU ;) John Durham
  • Score: 2

7:16pm Sun 20 Apr 14

Darloresident says...

Thank you to all the contributors on this thread.I have thoroughly enjoyed reading the thoughts and views on what is after all a very emotive subject.
Thank you to all the contributors on this thread.I have thoroughly enjoyed reading the thoughts and views on what is after all a very emotive subject. Darloresident
  • Score: 0

8:01pm Sun 20 Apr 14

bambara says...

"You want to remove people whom create jobs and replace them with people whom would spend all the redistributed assets on drugs, holidays and alcohol."

The old myth again about rich people creating jobs and poor people all being wasters.
For every pot head, drunk in the bottom 10% scraping the money together for a week in Magaluf how many coke head, alcoholics are there in the top 10%, want to bet that a far higher £ value goes up the noses of over priviliged posh boys, along with the chateaux le pretenscious that goes down their gullets, and the skiing trips and holidays in exotic locations.
Trickle down economics does not work, and the proof is the ever increasing gap between rich and poor. Money isn't trickling down to the hard working majority, it is being sucked upwards to the idle minority. Inequality is increasing, ordinary people are working harder and going backwards as the rich pay themselves an ever increasing share. That is the reality, that is the proof that the rich sit on their assets while the ordinary people work for every penny they get.

I've said before, and I'll repeat:
For every £1 of assets a person in the bottom half of society owns a person in the top 10% owns £850.
Given the amount of Tax the lower half pays compared to the top 10% that means the rich pay roughly tax at approximately 1/34th the rate the ordinary people do.
So yeah I'd prefer to have people who pay 34 times as much tax on their assets than a bunch of parasites who expect to get away with paying next to nothing on theirs.
"You want to remove people whom create jobs and replace them with people whom would spend all the redistributed assets on drugs, holidays and alcohol." The old myth again about rich people creating jobs and poor people all being wasters. For every pot head, drunk in the bottom 10% scraping the money together for a week in Magaluf how many coke head, alcoholics are there in the top 10%, want to bet that a far higher £ value goes up the noses of over priviliged posh boys, along with the chateaux le pretenscious that goes down their gullets, and the skiing trips and holidays in exotic locations. Trickle down economics does not work, and the proof is the ever increasing gap between rich and poor. Money isn't trickling down to the hard working majority, it is being sucked upwards to the idle minority. Inequality is increasing, ordinary people are working harder and going backwards as the rich pay themselves an ever increasing share. That is the reality, that is the proof that the rich sit on their assets while the ordinary people work for every penny they get. I've said before, and I'll repeat: For every £1 of assets a person in the bottom half of society owns a person in the top 10% owns £850. Given the amount of Tax the lower half pays compared to the top 10% that means the rich pay roughly tax at approximately 1/34th the rate the ordinary people do. So yeah I'd prefer to have people who pay 34 times as much tax on their assets than a bunch of parasites who expect to get away with paying next to nothing on theirs. bambara
  • Score: -1

8:13pm Sun 20 Apr 14

spragger says...

stevegg wrote:
A good % of this increase is because some people abuse the genorosity of free food (because its their nature) and will take it even though they dont need to as its free, I know of 2 people who have done this. Also people who have the money to buy food instead prioritise other items as being essential eg cigarettes, alcohol, mobile phones etc knowing they can get free food from these food banks. The truth always hurts!
Spot on. Be careful of anything the head man of the Trussel Trust says he is the Common Purpose wing of the Labour Party
[quote][p][bold]stevegg[/bold] wrote: A good % of this increase is because some people abuse the genorosity of free food (because its their nature) and will take it even though they dont need to as its free, I know of 2 people who have done this. Also people who have the money to buy food instead prioritise other items as being essential eg cigarettes, alcohol, mobile phones etc knowing they can get free food from these food banks. The truth always hurts![/p][/quote]Spot on. Be careful of anything the head man of the Trussel Trust says he is the Common Purpose wing of the Labour Party spragger
  • Score: 0

8:13pm Sun 20 Apr 14

spragger says...

stevegg wrote:
A good % of this increase is because some people abuse the genorosity of free food (because its their nature) and will take it even though they dont need to as its free, I know of 2 people who have done this. Also people who have the money to buy food instead prioritise other items as being essential eg cigarettes, alcohol, mobile phones etc knowing they can get free food from these food banks. The truth always hurts!
Spot on. Be careful of anything the head man of the Trussel Trust says he is the Common Purpose wing of the Labour Party
[quote][p][bold]stevegg[/bold] wrote: A good % of this increase is because some people abuse the genorosity of free food (because its their nature) and will take it even though they dont need to as its free, I know of 2 people who have done this. Also people who have the money to buy food instead prioritise other items as being essential eg cigarettes, alcohol, mobile phones etc knowing they can get free food from these food banks. The truth always hurts![/p][/quote]Spot on. Be careful of anything the head man of the Trussel Trust says he is the Common Purpose wing of the Labour Party spragger
  • Score: -2

9:57pm Sun 20 Apr 14

laboursfoe says...

bambara wrote:
"You want to remove people whom create jobs and replace them with people whom would spend all the redistributed assets on drugs, holidays and alcohol."

The old myth again about rich people creating jobs and poor people all being wasters.
For every pot head, drunk in the bottom 10% scraping the money together for a week in Magaluf how many coke head, alcoholics are there in the top 10%, want to bet that a far higher £ value goes up the noses of over priviliged posh boys, along with the chateaux le pretenscious that goes down their gullets, and the skiing trips and holidays in exotic locations.
Trickle down economics does not work, and the proof is the ever increasing gap between rich and poor. Money isn't trickling down to the hard working majority, it is being sucked upwards to the idle minority. Inequality is increasing, ordinary people are working harder and going backwards as the rich pay themselves an ever increasing share. That is the reality, that is the proof that the rich sit on their assets while the ordinary people work for every penny they get.

I've said before, and I'll repeat:
For every £1 of assets a person in the bottom half of society owns a person in the top 10% owns £850.
Given the amount of Tax the lower half pays compared to the top 10% that means the rich pay roughly tax at approximately 1/34th the rate the ordinary people do.
So yeah I'd prefer to have people who pay 34 times as much tax on their assets than a bunch of parasites who expect to get away with paying next to nothing on theirs.
Parasites?? Some might say self sufficient!!
[quote][p][bold]bambara[/bold] wrote: "You want to remove people whom create jobs and replace them with people whom would spend all the redistributed assets on drugs, holidays and alcohol." The old myth again about rich people creating jobs and poor people all being wasters. For every pot head, drunk in the bottom 10% scraping the money together for a week in Magaluf how many coke head, alcoholics are there in the top 10%, want to bet that a far higher £ value goes up the noses of over priviliged posh boys, along with the chateaux le pretenscious that goes down their gullets, and the skiing trips and holidays in exotic locations. Trickle down economics does not work, and the proof is the ever increasing gap between rich and poor. Money isn't trickling down to the hard working majority, it is being sucked upwards to the idle minority. Inequality is increasing, ordinary people are working harder and going backwards as the rich pay themselves an ever increasing share. That is the reality, that is the proof that the rich sit on their assets while the ordinary people work for every penny they get. I've said before, and I'll repeat: For every £1 of assets a person in the bottom half of society owns a person in the top 10% owns £850. Given the amount of Tax the lower half pays compared to the top 10% that means the rich pay roughly tax at approximately 1/34th the rate the ordinary people do. So yeah I'd prefer to have people who pay 34 times as much tax on their assets than a bunch of parasites who expect to get away with paying next to nothing on theirs.[/p][/quote]Parasites?? Some might say self sufficient!! laboursfoe
  • Score: -1

11:36pm Sun 20 Apr 14

Voice-of-reality says...

Churchill, of course, did not go to Eton, he went to Harrow. I must admit, however, that I have always preferred Winchester - and of course Roedean for gals.

In many ways it was the First World War rather than the second that sealed Britains fate - that, however, is another debate.
Churchill, of course, did not go to Eton, he went to Harrow. I must admit, however, that I have always preferred Winchester - and of course Roedean for gals. In many ways it was the First World War rather than the second that sealed Britains fate - that, however, is another debate. Voice-of-reality
  • Score: -1

11:02am Mon 21 Apr 14

tolpuddlemartyr1955 says...

Well said Bambara, in your posts above. If I may add, if a miner, for instance, worked "hard" for the weekly wage he was paid for working down a dirty, dangerous, stinking hole and I can assure you, that wage was not excessive, how much 'harder' can one of our "betters" have 'worked' to accrue the fortunes they have amassed? In point of fact, one doesn't get fabulously wealthy by working hard but by getting others to work hard at ones behest and on ones behalf!!!
Well said Bambara, in your posts above. If I may add, if a miner, for instance, worked "hard" for the weekly wage he was paid for working down a dirty, dangerous, stinking hole and I can assure you, that wage was not excessive, how much 'harder' can one of our "betters" have 'worked' to accrue the fortunes they have amassed? In point of fact, one doesn't get fabulously wealthy by working hard but by getting others to work hard at ones behest and on ones behalf!!! tolpuddlemartyr1955
  • Score: 2

11:07am Mon 21 Apr 14

bambara says...

Laboursfoe, for them to be "self sufficient" they would have to be providing for themselves and not simply taking income from assets.
The ordinary person in an ordinary job, who is trading the hours of their life, and their sweat and effort for the money they earn is "self sufficient".
The person who is taking income generated by the labour of others and skimming off an ever increasing percentage of that income is no more "self sufficient" than an unemployed person is.
They both live as a result of other peoples hard work.
Of course the unemployed person could get a job (if one could be found) while the rich person would only be likely to actually work for a living if they lost everything.
Overly generalising I know as there are rich people who work very hard and are EXTREMELY well rewarded for that, just as there are poor people who play the system and are vilified and used to paint all the rest as parasites. That is Tory propoganda, "the rich are wonderful, the poor are parasites". Not the only viewpoint though, and not an accurate one.
Laboursfoe, for them to be "self sufficient" they would have to be providing for themselves and not simply taking income from assets. The ordinary person in an ordinary job, who is trading the hours of their life, and their sweat and effort for the money they earn is "self sufficient". The person who is taking income generated by the labour of others and skimming off an ever increasing percentage of that income is no more "self sufficient" than an unemployed person is. They both live as a result of other peoples hard work. Of course the unemployed person could get a job (if one could be found) while the rich person would only be likely to actually work for a living if they lost everything. Overly generalising I know as there are rich people who work very hard and are EXTREMELY well rewarded for that, just as there are poor people who play the system and are vilified and used to paint all the rest as parasites. That is Tory propoganda, "the rich are wonderful, the poor are parasites". Not the only viewpoint though, and not an accurate one. bambara
  • Score: 3

2:37pm Mon 21 Apr 14

BMD says...

tolpuddlemartyr1955 wrote:
Well said Bambara, in your posts above. If I may add, if a miner, for instance, worked "hard" for the weekly wage he was paid for working down a dirty, dangerous, stinking hole and I can assure you, that wage was not excessive, how much 'harder' can one of our "betters" have 'worked' to accrue the fortunes they have amassed? In point of fact, one doesn't get fabulously wealthy by working hard but by getting others to work hard at ones behest and on ones behalf!!!
The Miner has a choice if he wants to work down a dirty, dangerous, stinking hole.

The Miner also has a choice to attend college and educate himself to raise him out of the dirty, dangerous, stinking hole.

The now educated Miner finds another job which match his new qualifications achieved at college and does not work down a dirty, dangerous, stinking hole.
[quote][p][bold]tolpuddlemartyr1955[/bold] wrote: Well said Bambara, in your posts above. If I may add, if a miner, for instance, worked "hard" for the weekly wage he was paid for working down a dirty, dangerous, stinking hole and I can assure you, that wage was not excessive, how much 'harder' can one of our "betters" have 'worked' to accrue the fortunes they have amassed? In point of fact, one doesn't get fabulously wealthy by working hard but by getting others to work hard at ones behest and on ones behalf!!![/p][/quote]The Miner has a choice if he wants to work down a dirty, dangerous, stinking hole. The Miner also has a choice to attend college and educate himself to raise him out of the dirty, dangerous, stinking hole. The now educated Miner finds another job which match his new qualifications achieved at college and does not work down a dirty, dangerous, stinking hole. BMD
  • Score: -2

3:56pm Mon 21 Apr 14

The Fuhrer says...

Voice-of-reality wrote:
Churchill, of course, did not go to Eton, he went to Harrow. I must admit, however, that I have always preferred Winchester - and of course Roedean for gals.

In many ways it was the First World War rather than the second that sealed Britains fate - that, however, is another debate.
Yes, may be true. My point was keeping Britain under the control of the public school elite was vital for Churchill, and if subservience to the USA achieved this, then so be it. And it is not much better now, also.

Perhaps I was too truthful after celebrating His birthday with too much wine yesterday. The truth can hurt, and it vill be deleted!!
[quote][p][bold]Voice-of-reality[/bold] wrote: Churchill, of course, did not go to Eton, he went to Harrow. I must admit, however, that I have always preferred Winchester - and of course Roedean for gals. In many ways it was the First World War rather than the second that sealed Britains fate - that, however, is another debate.[/p][/quote]Yes, may be true. My point was keeping Britain under the control of the public school elite was vital for Churchill, and if subservience to the USA achieved this, then so be it. And it is not much better now, also. Perhaps I was too truthful after celebrating His birthday with too much wine yesterday. The truth can hurt, and it vill be deleted!! The Fuhrer
  • Score: 0

5:49pm Mon 21 Apr 14

tolpuddlemartyr1955 says...

BMD wrote:
tolpuddlemartyr1955 wrote:
Well said Bambara, in your posts above. If I may add, if a miner, for instance, worked "hard" for the weekly wage he was paid for working down a dirty, dangerous, stinking hole and I can assure you, that wage was not excessive, how much 'harder' can one of our "betters" have 'worked' to accrue the fortunes they have amassed? In point of fact, one doesn't get fabulously wealthy by working hard but by getting others to work hard at ones behest and on ones behalf!!!
The Miner has a choice if he wants to work down a dirty, dangerous, stinking hole.

The Miner also has a choice to attend college and educate himself to raise him out of the dirty, dangerous, stinking hole.

The now educated Miner finds another job which match his new qualifications achieved at college and does not work down a dirty, dangerous, stinking hole.
No BMD, I'm not letting you off with that twaddle! For decades, workers in areas such as the N.E.. Scotland, Wales, Yorkshire, had no "choice", at all. Heavy industry was the mainstay for these areas. Mining, Shipbuilding, Steel making. If men didn't work in these places, they had nothing. A fact, no doubt, that would have delighted the narrow minded, right wing forebears, of those who post on here. No chance at college, or much of an education at all. Hard, grinding employment, that left men, "old before their time" and so physically debilitated, as to make their retirement, if that's what one chooses to call it, a living hell! Why do you suppose there is such a legacy of disability and sickness in these communities, years after the causal effect of them has disappeared? Oh, that's right, the likes of you think it is bone idleness!
Lung disease, emphysema, asbestosis, deafness, joint disease, vibration white finger.
As for "finding another job", oh that's right, you and others think jobs fall from trees, as readily as politicians fall from their 'high standards'. Even though the former is not reality, as much as the latter is all to prevalent.
It all sounds so reasonable, as it trips from the lips and keyboards of such as you, like honey. Pity the actuality isn't the same.
[quote][p][bold]BMD[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tolpuddlemartyr1955[/bold] wrote: Well said Bambara, in your posts above. If I may add, if a miner, for instance, worked "hard" for the weekly wage he was paid for working down a dirty, dangerous, stinking hole and I can assure you, that wage was not excessive, how much 'harder' can one of our "betters" have 'worked' to accrue the fortunes they have amassed? In point of fact, one doesn't get fabulously wealthy by working hard but by getting others to work hard at ones behest and on ones behalf!!![/p][/quote]The Miner has a choice if he wants to work down a dirty, dangerous, stinking hole. The Miner also has a choice to attend college and educate himself to raise him out of the dirty, dangerous, stinking hole. The now educated Miner finds another job which match his new qualifications achieved at college and does not work down a dirty, dangerous, stinking hole.[/p][/quote]No BMD, I'm not letting you off with that twaddle! For decades, workers in areas such as the N.E.. Scotland, Wales, Yorkshire, had no "choice", at all. Heavy industry was the mainstay for these areas. Mining, Shipbuilding, Steel making. If men didn't work in these places, they had nothing. A fact, no doubt, that would have delighted the narrow minded, right wing forebears, of those who post on here. No chance at college, or much of an education at all. Hard, grinding employment, that left men, "old before their time" and so physically debilitated, as to make their retirement, if that's what one chooses to call it, a living hell! Why do you suppose there is such a legacy of disability and sickness in these communities, years after the causal effect of them has disappeared? Oh, that's right, the likes of you think it is bone idleness! Lung disease, emphysema, asbestosis, deafness, joint disease, vibration white finger. As for "finding another job", oh that's right, you and others think jobs fall from trees, as readily as politicians fall from their 'high standards'. Even though the former is not reality, as much as the latter is all to prevalent. It all sounds so reasonable, as it trips from the lips and keyboards of such as you, like honey. Pity the actuality isn't the same. tolpuddlemartyr1955
  • Score: 2

6:18pm Mon 21 Apr 14

BMD says...

tolpuddlemartyr1955 wrote:
BMD wrote:
tolpuddlemartyr1955 wrote: Well said Bambara, in your posts above. If I may add, if a miner, for instance, worked "hard" for the weekly wage he was paid for working down a dirty, dangerous, stinking hole and I can assure you, that wage was not excessive, how much 'harder' can one of our "betters" have 'worked' to accrue the fortunes they have amassed? In point of fact, one doesn't get fabulously wealthy by working hard but by getting others to work hard at ones behest and on ones behalf!!!
The Miner has a choice if he wants to work down a dirty, dangerous, stinking hole. The Miner also has a choice to attend college and educate himself to raise him out of the dirty, dangerous, stinking hole. The now educated Miner finds another job which match his new qualifications achieved at college and does not work down a dirty, dangerous, stinking hole.
No BMD, I'm not letting you off with that twaddle! For decades, workers in areas such as the N.E.. Scotland, Wales, Yorkshire, had no "choice", at all. Heavy industry was the mainstay for these areas. Mining, Shipbuilding, Steel making. If men didn't work in these places, they had nothing. A fact, no doubt, that would have delighted the narrow minded, right wing forebears, of those who post on here. No chance at college, or much of an education at all. Hard, grinding employment, that left men, "old before their time" and so physically debilitated, as to make their retirement, if that's what one chooses to call it, a living hell! Why do you suppose there is such a legacy of disability and sickness in these communities, years after the causal effect of them has disappeared? Oh, that's right, the likes of you think it is bone idleness! Lung disease, emphysema, asbestosis, deafness, joint disease, vibration white finger. As for "finding another job", oh that's right, you and others think jobs fall from trees, as readily as politicians fall from their 'high standards'. Even though the former is not reality, as much as the latter is all to prevalent. It all sounds so reasonable, as it trips from the lips and keyboards of such as you, like honey. Pity the actuality isn't the same.
You are only painting half a picture, when they closed the loss making pits.

All former mining employees were offered a chance to re-train and were given preference over other potential employees. - I was working in the Off-shore oil business and many pit villagers arrived into the industry with little knowledge. They were given preference because they came with a government grant (Instigated by Mrs Thatcher)

I personally started at 16 in Heavy engineering; I decided to go to college at my own expense and achieved a higher qualification, at the time I was on apprentice wages, not a full miner’s salary.

You have to be flexible at work to be employable, some miners harp on about the past - but that was 30 years ago and those mining days will not come back.
I employ skilled technicians for a large oil producer; people are employed on a trial period, if they are inflexible or distraction to the rest of the team, they just won’t be invited to come back. As a manager you install a trusted, reliable and experienced team. This benefits all members financially and mentally.
[quote][p][bold]tolpuddlemartyr1955[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BMD[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tolpuddlemartyr1955[/bold] wrote: Well said Bambara, in your posts above. If I may add, if a miner, for instance, worked "hard" for the weekly wage he was paid for working down a dirty, dangerous, stinking hole and I can assure you, that wage was not excessive, how much 'harder' can one of our "betters" have 'worked' to accrue the fortunes they have amassed? In point of fact, one doesn't get fabulously wealthy by working hard but by getting others to work hard at ones behest and on ones behalf!!![/p][/quote]The Miner has a choice if he wants to work down a dirty, dangerous, stinking hole. The Miner also has a choice to attend college and educate himself to raise him out of the dirty, dangerous, stinking hole. The now educated Miner finds another job which match his new qualifications achieved at college and does not work down a dirty, dangerous, stinking hole.[/p][/quote]No BMD, I'm not letting you off with that twaddle! For decades, workers in areas such as the N.E.. Scotland, Wales, Yorkshire, had no "choice", at all. Heavy industry was the mainstay for these areas. Mining, Shipbuilding, Steel making. If men didn't work in these places, they had nothing. A fact, no doubt, that would have delighted the narrow minded, right wing forebears, of those who post on here. No chance at college, or much of an education at all. Hard, grinding employment, that left men, "old before their time" and so physically debilitated, as to make their retirement, if that's what one chooses to call it, a living hell! Why do you suppose there is such a legacy of disability and sickness in these communities, years after the causal effect of them has disappeared? Oh, that's right, the likes of you think it is bone idleness! Lung disease, emphysema, asbestosis, deafness, joint disease, vibration white finger. As for "finding another job", oh that's right, you and others think jobs fall from trees, as readily as politicians fall from their 'high standards'. Even though the former is not reality, as much as the latter is all to prevalent. It all sounds so reasonable, as it trips from the lips and keyboards of such as you, like honey. Pity the actuality isn't the same.[/p][/quote]You are only painting half a picture, when they closed the loss making pits. All former mining employees were offered a chance to re-train and were given preference over other potential employees. - I was working in the Off-shore oil business and many pit villagers arrived into the industry with little knowledge. They were given preference because they came with a government grant (Instigated by Mrs Thatcher) I personally started at 16 in Heavy engineering; I decided to go to college at my own expense and achieved a higher qualification, at the time I was on apprentice wages, not a full miner’s salary. You have to be flexible at work to be employable, some miners harp on about the past - but that was 30 years ago and those mining days will not come back. I employ skilled technicians for a large oil producer; people are employed on a trial period, if they are inflexible or distraction to the rest of the team, they just won’t be invited to come back. As a manager you install a trusted, reliable and experienced team. This benefits all members financially and mentally. BMD
  • Score: -1

6:40pm Mon 21 Apr 14

laboursfoe says...

BMD wrote:
tolpuddlemartyr1955 wrote:
BMD wrote:
tolpuddlemartyr1955 wrote: Well said Bambara, in your posts above. If I may add, if a miner, for instance, worked "hard" for the weekly wage he was paid for working down a dirty, dangerous, stinking hole and I can assure you, that wage was not excessive, how much 'harder' can one of our "betters" have 'worked' to accrue the fortunes they have amassed? In point of fact, one doesn't get fabulously wealthy by working hard but by getting others to work hard at ones behest and on ones behalf!!!
The Miner has a choice if he wants to work down a dirty, dangerous, stinking hole. The Miner also has a choice to attend college and educate himself to raise him out of the dirty, dangerous, stinking hole. The now educated Miner finds another job which match his new qualifications achieved at college and does not work down a dirty, dangerous, stinking hole.
No BMD, I'm not letting you off with that twaddle! For decades, workers in areas such as the N.E.. Scotland, Wales, Yorkshire, had no "choice", at all. Heavy industry was the mainstay for these areas. Mining, Shipbuilding, Steel making. If men didn't work in these places, they had nothing. A fact, no doubt, that would have delighted the narrow minded, right wing forebears, of those who post on here. No chance at college, or much of an education at all. Hard, grinding employment, that left men, "old before their time" and so physically debilitated, as to make their retirement, if that's what one chooses to call it, a living hell! Why do you suppose there is such a legacy of disability and sickness in these communities, years after the causal effect of them has disappeared? Oh, that's right, the likes of you think it is bone idleness! Lung disease, emphysema, asbestosis, deafness, joint disease, vibration white finger. As for "finding another job", oh that's right, you and others think jobs fall from trees, as readily as politicians fall from their 'high standards'. Even though the former is not reality, as much as the latter is all to prevalent. It all sounds so reasonable, as it trips from the lips and keyboards of such as you, like honey. Pity the actuality isn't the same.
You are only painting half a picture, when they closed the loss making pits.

All former mining employees were offered a chance to re-train and were given preference over other potential employees. - I was working in the Off-shore oil business and many pit villagers arrived into the industry with little knowledge. They were given preference because they came with a government grant (Instigated by Mrs Thatcher)

I personally started at 16 in Heavy engineering; I decided to go to college at my own expense and achieved a higher qualification, at the time I was on apprentice wages, not a full miner’s salary.

You have to be flexible at work to be employable, some miners harp on about the past - but that was 30 years ago and those mining days will not come back.
I employ skilled technicians for a large oil producer; people are employed on a trial period, if they are inflexible or distraction to the rest of the team, they just won’t be invited to come back. As a manager you install a trusted, reliable and experienced team. This benefits all members financially and mentally.
Couldn't agree more with your last paragraph. I also work in Oil & Gas, albeit only for the last couple of years. I have also worked in finance and FMCG.

The most important thing that employees want is flexibility and reliability. If you have the right attitude jobs really are on trees.
[quote][p][bold]BMD[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tolpuddlemartyr1955[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BMD[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tolpuddlemartyr1955[/bold] wrote: Well said Bambara, in your posts above. If I may add, if a miner, for instance, worked "hard" for the weekly wage he was paid for working down a dirty, dangerous, stinking hole and I can assure you, that wage was not excessive, how much 'harder' can one of our "betters" have 'worked' to accrue the fortunes they have amassed? In point of fact, one doesn't get fabulously wealthy by working hard but by getting others to work hard at ones behest and on ones behalf!!![/p][/quote]The Miner has a choice if he wants to work down a dirty, dangerous, stinking hole. The Miner also has a choice to attend college and educate himself to raise him out of the dirty, dangerous, stinking hole. The now educated Miner finds another job which match his new qualifications achieved at college and does not work down a dirty, dangerous, stinking hole.[/p][/quote]No BMD, I'm not letting you off with that twaddle! For decades, workers in areas such as the N.E.. Scotland, Wales, Yorkshire, had no "choice", at all. Heavy industry was the mainstay for these areas. Mining, Shipbuilding, Steel making. If men didn't work in these places, they had nothing. A fact, no doubt, that would have delighted the narrow minded, right wing forebears, of those who post on here. No chance at college, or much of an education at all. Hard, grinding employment, that left men, "old before their time" and so physically debilitated, as to make their retirement, if that's what one chooses to call it, a living hell! Why do you suppose there is such a legacy of disability and sickness in these communities, years after the causal effect of them has disappeared? Oh, that's right, the likes of you think it is bone idleness! Lung disease, emphysema, asbestosis, deafness, joint disease, vibration white finger. As for "finding another job", oh that's right, you and others think jobs fall from trees, as readily as politicians fall from their 'high standards'. Even though the former is not reality, as much as the latter is all to prevalent. It all sounds so reasonable, as it trips from the lips and keyboards of such as you, like honey. Pity the actuality isn't the same.[/p][/quote]You are only painting half a picture, when they closed the loss making pits. All former mining employees were offered a chance to re-train and were given preference over other potential employees. - I was working in the Off-shore oil business and many pit villagers arrived into the industry with little knowledge. They were given preference because they came with a government grant (Instigated by Mrs Thatcher) I personally started at 16 in Heavy engineering; I decided to go to college at my own expense and achieved a higher qualification, at the time I was on apprentice wages, not a full miner’s salary. You have to be flexible at work to be employable, some miners harp on about the past - but that was 30 years ago and those mining days will not come back. I employ skilled technicians for a large oil producer; people are employed on a trial period, if they are inflexible or distraction to the rest of the team, they just won’t be invited to come back. As a manager you install a trusted, reliable and experienced team. This benefits all members financially and mentally.[/p][/quote]Couldn't agree more with your last paragraph. I also work in Oil & Gas, albeit only for the last couple of years. I have also worked in finance and FMCG. The most important thing that employees want is flexibility and reliability. If you have the right attitude jobs really are on trees. laboursfoe
  • Score: 0

7:54pm Mon 21 Apr 14

Jonn says...

I see the Daily Mails latest propaganda article against food banks fell flat on it's ar$e.
It's leading headline stated 'no questions asked' when an undercover reporter went to claim 'free food'. It turned out he was actually asked lots of questions, but being a reporter, lied his ar$e off.
I see the Daily Mails latest propaganda article against food banks fell flat on it's ar$e. It's leading headline stated 'no questions asked' when an undercover reporter went to claim 'free food'. It turned out he was actually asked lots of questions, but being a reporter, lied his ar$e off. Jonn
  • Score: 5

9:10pm Mon 21 Apr 14

Voice-of-reality says...

For once, Jonn, I agree with you - the Daily Mail is a disreputable rag and such lies do neither side of argument any good.
For once, Jonn, I agree with you - the Daily Mail is a disreputable rag and such lies do neither side of argument any good. Voice-of-reality
  • Score: 2

11:18am Tue 22 Apr 14

LUSTARD says...

brainwave,, dogs trust celebrating 20 years in biz today, quick look at finances ,,2008 income51million outgoing 42million, ,09 in 60m out49m,, 10, in 61m out 54m, 11, in 65m out 59m, 12, thats 2012, in 73million ,,out 65 million, assets, long term investments, 66million, further assets 43 million. year after year of growth and profits and everything hunky dory, central haeting top grub, new shelters etc no expence spared. they should be running the country me thinks. regitered charity no 227523.
brainwave,, dogs trust celebrating 20 years in biz today, quick look at finances ,,2008 income51million outgoing 42million, ,09 in 60m out49m,, 10, in 61m out 54m, 11, in 65m out 59m, 12, thats 2012, in 73million ,,out 65 million, assets, long term investments, 66million, further assets 43 million. year after year of growth and profits and everything hunky dory, central haeting top grub, new shelters etc no expence spared. they should be running the country me thinks. regitered charity no 227523. LUSTARD
  • Score: 1

12:46pm Tue 22 Apr 14

boysibandit says...

My neighbour uses a food bank twice a week her and her partner are out of work and have 4 kiddies she was telling me it's hard to make ends meet ,I was looking at some photo's someone had posted on Facebook of their bank holiday weekend and the very two people were both in the pub drinking pints Saturday and Sunday Now that's what I would say is abusing the privilege for free food. .
My neighbour uses a food bank twice a week her and her partner are out of work and have 4 kiddies she was telling me it's hard to make ends meet ,I was looking at some photo's someone had posted on Facebook of their bank holiday weekend and the very two people were both in the pub drinking pints Saturday and Sunday Now that's what I would say is abusing the privilege for free food. . boysibandit
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree