Rincewind Posted 12 May 2015 Posted 12 May 2015 Yer, and then the dog gets put down. But the cause is still there and can happen again. Prevention is better than cure.
Benji Posted 12 May 2015 Posted 12 May 2015 Isn't that after the second bite? I have no idea, I was just being typically hilarious.
Rincewind Posted 12 May 2015 Posted 12 May 2015 http://www.channel4.com/news/up-to-20-000-police-expected-to-march-in-protest-over-cuts Hooligans and leftie nutters.
Guest MattP Posted 12 May 2015 Posted 12 May 2015 I've heard some absurd analogies to try and excuse throwing more money at people who don't want to do anything but a dog revenge biting it's abusive owner tops the lot.
Alf Bentley Posted 12 May 2015 Posted 12 May 2015 Amazing how all these lefties aren't interested in money but one mention of some benefits being cut and they go absolutely bat shit. Would it to be too much to ask the lefties to concede that sometimes just giving people money isn't actually helping them at all? Often people are actually much happier providing for themselves, and if benefit cuts are an effective way to push them into work then that's surely a good thing? I'll ask again, will any lefties concede that sometimes simply giving people more money isn't actually the best way to help them? I'd go further, Moose. I'd say that, if possible, helping, encouraging or pressuring people to provide for themselves is normally the best way of helping the unemployed. Depending on the individual, that might involve helping them to identify job opportunities or to apply for jobs successfully, advising them on retraining, encouraging them out of a rut - or, in the case of genuine shirkers, threatening and imposing sanctions, if met with a persistently unreasonable response. You're confusing the real opinions of lefties with the caricature of lefty opinions that exists in your head - a common error of right-wingers on here. You might find it tiresome if we presented similar "straw man" versions of your arguments: e.g. Why do you advocate the closure of the NHS and the privatisation of the police, Moose? However, some people do need to be given money or free services on a permanent basis: .e.g people with severe disabilities that prevent them providing for themselves. Other people need temporary support because they're between jobs. Other people again need partial support for short or long periods, perhaps because they've only been able to obtain part-time work or are incapable of working full-time for health reasons. Such people should be provided for properly in a civilised society. It will be interesting to see where the promised £12bn of welfare cuts fall, if the Tories proceed with them. What is clear from the budget figures is that it would have to extend well beyond the unemployed to encompass some combination of Housing Benefit for the low-paid, Child Benefit, Working Tax Credits / Child Tax Credits, disability/sickness benefits etc. That will cause real hardship, mostly to people on low incomes through no fault of their own....and if you believe that £12bn can be cut just by hitting benefits cheats, then why the hell didn't the Tories deal with them over the last 5 years?!? I suppose they could means-test Child Benefit, but that would hit an awful lot of Tory-voting households....
MooseBreath Posted 12 May 2015 Posted 12 May 2015 If an unemployed person spent every day in a pub I would wonder how they managed it on £71 PW for a single person. Work it out. Even at £3per pint that is a total of 24 over a week. Less than 2 pints a day. Plus they will need to pay for food, electric and other bills. If they are that dependant on alcohol then Finnegans suggestion would be better. Cutting benefits altogether would make a person more desperate. Maybe resorting to petty crime or drugs putting more strain on the health service, social services, police and even the courts and prisons. If you beat a dog then at some point it will bite you. You can substitute the pub for staying in with a few tins, a pack of fags and a bit of glue if you want. The point here is that gifting people money and free time when you know for a fact that they're using that money and time to do themselves harm is a long, long way from compassion. It might help you sleep easier at night, but it isn't compassionate.
MooseBreath Posted 12 May 2015 Posted 12 May 2015 However, some people do need to be given money or free services on a permanent basis: .e.g people with severe disabilities that prevent them providing for themselves. Other people need temporary support because they're between jobs. Other people again need partial support for short or long periods, perhaps because they've only been able to obtain part-time work or are incapable of working full-time for health reasons. Such people should be provided for properly in a civilised society.. What you've presented here really is a theory as to why a welfare system is required and I don't disagree. But we're not debating about whether or not a welfare system should exist, we're debating about the extent to which it should exist in light of the fact that we know a lot of people don't actually need benefits, that they could find work if adequately incentivised, and that they would most likely live much fuller, healthier lives if they did work than they do on benefits.
MrSpaM Posted 12 May 2015 Posted 12 May 2015 You just have to laugh at anyone who votes Conservative and doesn't know why people might hate their party. If this is aimed at me, I didnt vote for anybody And you didnt answer the question
Alf Bentley Posted 12 May 2015 Posted 12 May 2015 What you've presented here really is a theory as to why a welfare system is required and I don't disagree. But we're not debating about whether or not a welfare system should exist, we're debating about the extent to which it should exist in light of the fact that we know a lot of people don't actually need benefits, that they could find work if adequately incentivised, and that they would most likely live much fuller, healthier lives if they did work than they do on benefits. No, we were debating your clear, but false implication that lefties believe that throwing money at the unemployed is the best solution. I was refuting that. Of course there are some idlers and cheats out there and they should be pressured and penalised. However, if "a lot of people don't actually need benefits" and are receiving them after 5 years of a Tory government, that just proves what a rubbish job the government must be doing at tackling the problem.
Benji Posted 12 May 2015 Posted 12 May 2015 http://www.channel4.com/news/up-to-20-000-police-expected-to-march-in-protest-over-cuts Hooligans and leftie nutters. In fairness, May 2012 was a tough time.
Jon the Hat Posted 12 May 2015 Posted 12 May 2015 You just have to laugh at anyone who votes Conservative and doesn't know why people might hate their party. Oh we know why you hate our party, we just also know that that makes your judgment pretty suspect, as you would apparently have preferred the guy who is now being dismissed as an unelectable idiot by even his own party.
Finnegan Posted 12 May 2015 Posted 12 May 2015 Oh we know why you hate our party, we just also know that that makes your judgment pretty suspect, as you would apparently have preferred the guy who is now being dismissed as an unelectable idiot by even his own party. Because Cameron would have kept his leadership if he lost? Behave.
Jon the Hat Posted 12 May 2015 Posted 12 May 2015 No, we were debating your clear, but false implication that lefties believe that throwing money at the unemployed is the best solution. I was refuting that. Of course there are some idlers and cheats out there and they should be pressured and penalised. However, if "a lot of people don't actually need benefits" and are receiving them after 5 years of a Tory government, that just proves what a rubbish job the government must be doing at tackling the problem. Firstly as you are well aware, we haven't had 5 years of a Tory government, we just started the first one since 1997. Secondly it takes time to make changes to sometime as vast and painfully complex as our welfare system, and you have to consider carefully the implications on those people who are reliant on them. Thirdly there are clearly lots of people receiving benefits who don't need them - we have fore example child benefit for families who earn up to £70k a year, winter fuel payments and free bus passes for wealthy retirees. These don't make any sense do they?
Jon the Hat Posted 12 May 2015 Posted 12 May 2015 Because Cameron would have kept his leadership if he lost? Behave. That is rather a moot point.
Parafox Posted 12 May 2015 Posted 12 May 2015 You just have to laugh at anyone who votes Conservative and doesn't know why people might hate their party. They can't see beyond their arrogant belief that theirs is always the right way. They attack the weaker in society, the genuine unemployed, the genuinely ill, those with mental health issues (by deliberate failure to address the mental health budget within the NHS). The genuinely vulnerable in society are genuinely scared of what's coming. The Tory image, which has been prevalent for decades, in fact prior to the vindictiveness of Thatcher, is that the Conservative party, is the nasty party. They are still viewed in the same way because they are unable to shed that image mo matter how they have tried, so something must be justifying that image. (Stands back and awaits the villification from Jon the Hat, Moosebreath, mattP etc.)
Rincewind Posted 12 May 2015 Posted 12 May 2015 Another loony leftie with ridiculous ideas about caring for others.Why can't they have a normal agenda like killing foxes for pleasure? Tuesday 12 May 2015 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-challenged-to-live-on-minimum-wage-and-volunteer-at-food-bank-to-understand-impact-of-tory-welfare-cuts-10241556.html
Alf Bentley Posted 12 May 2015 Posted 12 May 2015 Firstly as you are well aware, we haven't had 5 years of a Tory government, we just started the first one since 1997. Secondly it takes time to make changes to sometime as vast and painfully complex as our welfare system, and you have to consider carefully the implications on those people who are reliant on them. Thirdly there are clearly lots of people receiving benefits who don't need them - we have fore example child benefit for families who earn up to £70k a year, winter fuel payments and free bus passes for wealthy retirees. These don't make any sense do they? Firstly, we have had 5 years of a Tory-led government. Are you claiming that the Lib Dems allowed the Tories to proceed with the Bedroom Tax, benefits sanctions etc.....but prevented them going after benefits cheats? Secondly.... Ah! It was just those caring, sharing Tories thinking about people reliant on benefits, was it? Shame they didn't take the time to think through the Bedroom Tax and the lack of single-bedroom housing, then. Yes, complex changes to the welfare system do take time. So far, it has taken IDS 5 years of scratching his head over Universal Credit, hasn't it? I wonder how much longer? Like Lansley, IDS always reminds me of that dozy bloke in the ads for memory improvement tapes. Thirdly, a fair issue to raise, the potential means-testing of Child Benefit and the pensioner benefits you mention. That brings us into the whole pro and anti means-testing argument, though. Because poor parents certainly do need Child Benefit and poor pensioners do need winter fuel payments....there's a financial argument for the point you make, but there's also the risk that means-testing will create loads more bureaucracy and will discourage claimants who genuinely need that money, possibly leading to excess pensioner deaths in winter, malnourished children etc.
Guest MattP Posted 12 May 2015 Posted 12 May 2015 They can't see beyond their arrogant belief that theirs is always the right way. They attack the weaker in society, the genuine unemployed, the genuinely ill, those with mental health issues (by deliberate failure to address the mental health budget within the NHS). The genuinely vulnerable in society are genuinely scared of what's coming. The Tory image, which has been prevalent for decades, in fact prior to the vindictiveness of Thatcher, is that the Conservative party, is the nasty party. They are still viewed in the same way because they are unable to shed that image mo matter how they have tried, so something must be justifying that image. The irony in the first line is off the scale. (If it's serious, I presume it is) I'd say they are doing quite well to shed this image now, they have just won a majority in case you didn't notice when given no chance of doing so, the whole 'nasty party' image quite simply isn't being spouted by anyone apart from those who harbour a hatred of the party and would never vote Tory anyway. The good news is despite this heavy defeat you lot still clearly won't learn from mistakes, some of you have managed to get so far up your own arse you seem to genuinely believe the left represents this sort of moral superiority and self-righteousness now that is spouted by the likes of Steve Coogan and Russell Brand. Most people have stopped believing this, it's far more likely they actually believe the morally correct thing to do might be to realise loading billions of debt onto future generations so we can continue to engorge in living beyonds our means is actually a horrific and selfish thing to do.
Jon the Hat Posted 12 May 2015 Posted 12 May 2015 Firstly, we have had 5 years of a Tory-led government. Are you claiming that the Lib Dems allowed the Tories to proceed with the Bedroom Tax, benefits sanctions etc.....but prevented them going after benefits cheats? Secondly.... Ah! It was just those caring, sharing Tories thinking about people reliant on benefits, was it? Shame they didn't take the time to think through the Bedroom Tax and the lack of single-bedroom housing, then. Yes, complex changes to the welfare system do take time. So far, it has taken IDS 5 years of scratching his head over Universal Credit, hasn't it? I wonder how much longer? Like Lansley, IDS always reminds me of that dozy bloke in the ads for memory improvement tapes. Thirdly, a fair issue to raise, the potential means-testing of Child Benefit and the pensioner benefits you mention. That brings us into the whole pro and anti means-testing argument, though. Because poor parents certainly do need Child Benefit and poor pensioners do need winter fuel payments....there's a financial argument for the point you make, but there's also the risk that means-testing will create loads more bureaucracy and will discourage claimants who genuinely need that money, possibly leading to excess pensioner deaths in winter, malnourished children etc. The Liberal Democrats have of course influenced coalition policy, that is the point of coalition. Who said anything about benefit cheats?
The Blur Posted 12 May 2015 Posted 12 May 2015 Not usually one for getting into political arguments, but i'm a little bit baffled by the amount of hate and propagander the torie government are now being subjected too after winning the election. I've just read through the key points of the labour manifesto, and i'm struggling to see a single thing in it that would have benefitted anybody I know? Can somebody explain to me exactly what it was the labour party were going to do that was going to turn the country into a kingdom of rainbows and joy? because i'm just not seeing it Because within a week of being in power, they already have 1) Started the process into dropping Human Rights Act and to replace it with British Bill of Rights 2) Commissioned inquires into reducing Access to Work cap thus punishing disabled people in work despite the scheme returning £1.48 for every £1 spent 3) Appointed Caroline Dinenage as equalities minster despite the fact she voted against same sex marriage 4) Putting repeal the ban on fox hunting up for open vote To be honest, none of governments are really capable of turning UK in the kingdom of rainbow and joy because any policy is bound to piss someone off but surely Labour won't have made these barmy measures above.
Jon the Hat Posted 12 May 2015 Posted 12 May 2015 They can't see beyond their arrogant belief that theirs is always the right way. They attack the weaker in society, the genuine unemployed, the genuinely ill, those with mental health issues (by deliberate failure to address the mental health budget within the NHS). The genuinely vulnerable in society are genuinely scared of what's coming. The Tory image, which has been prevalent for decades, in fact prior to the vindictiveness of Thatcher, is that the Conservative party, is the nasty party. They are still viewed in the same way because they are unable to shed that image mo matter how they have tried, so something must be justifying that image. (Stands back and awaits the villification from Jon the Hat, Moosebreath, mattP etc.) Such delusion is unbecoming in a relatively intelligent bloke like yourself.
Jon the Hat Posted 12 May 2015 Posted 12 May 2015 Because within a week of being in power, they already have 1) Started the process into dropping Human Rights Act and to replace it with British Bill of Rights 2) Commissioned inquires into reducing Access to Work cap thus punishing disabled people in work despite the scheme returning £1.48 for every £1 spent 3) Appointed Caroline Dinenage as equalities minster despite the fact she voted against same sex marriage 4) Putting repeal the ban on fox hunting up for open vote To be honest, none of governments are really capable of turning UK in the kingdom of rainbow and joy but surely Labour won't have made these barmy measures above. Honestly, most people have Zero awareness about any of that, they are just spouting the usual shite about nasty Tories.
The Blur Posted 12 May 2015 Posted 12 May 2015 Honestly, most people have Zero awareness about any of that, they are just spouting the usual shite about nasty Tories. I have made it clear that I do not really rate any governments in my kingdom into rainbow comment but I do believe mistakes of many people on here and indeed the public no matter their position on left or right wing scale is to defend their party of choice blindly despite their faults. I voted Labour but I am more than willing to slate them for any dodgy policies. How is it shite when all of above have already happened?
Guest MattP Posted 12 May 2015 Posted 12 May 2015 I have made it clear that I do not really rate any governments in my kingdom into rainbow comment but I do believe mistakes of many people on here and indeed the public no matter their position on left or right wing scale is to defend their party of choice blindly despite their faults. I voted Labour but I am more than willing to slate them for any dodgy policies. It's interesting your are happy to criticise the Tories for stamping on people 'rights' yet are happy to admit you voted for a party whose leader said that it was going to make criticising a certain religion a hate crime and criminal offence.
Jon the Hat Posted 12 May 2015 Posted 12 May 2015 I have made it clear that I do not really rate any governments in my kingdom into rainbow comment but I do believe mistakes of many people on here and indeed the public no matter their position on left or right wing scale is to defend their party of choice blindly despite their faults. I voted Labour but I am more than willing to slate them for any dodgy policies. How is it shite when all of above have already happened? There is plenty of time for criticising the Tories, and I will be doing plenty of that. For now, I am pleased we are not in hung parliament hell, and that we can continue growing the economy and cutting the deficit in a sensible manner.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.