NACRO

quote: "What is an Anti Bush deomonstration anyway? What does it mean?"

It means a group of people want to let that murdering, lying, son of a bush that he isn't welcome in their country.

Scooby96

All 100 of them - the other 64.9 million arent saying hes not welcome.

And when I say a benefits freeloader perhaps I should clarify - she could be working as her kid is at school 9-3.30 but no she'd rather sit on her **** and let other hard working folk pay!

Ok she is entitled to the benefits she gets but I think its morally wrong if you can work but choose not to, why cant she get a job and put something back in rather than take, take, take?

Oh I forgot, shes a 'mature student' - anymore muture and she'll be too old to get a job anyhow :angry:

Scooby96

people who really go into one about benefit freeloaders and other such crap are the ones who's taxes are paying for it all

my fecking point exactly - genuine cases where they cant get a job or are unfit to work then fair enough but not fully functioning adults that have no other excuse than they're just plain fecking lazy

NACRO

Our society is rich enough that if someone decides they don't want to work and prefer to take a pittance to subsist on I'd say let them do it.
Personally if I had the choice between some menial, soul destroying job or the dole- I'd be down there cap in hand. **** the work ethic- it's for mugs.

catalunya199

look at it this way have the americans as an ally with all its might or go with the wimpy europeons who want to rule britain cause there countries have gone down the drain, i no who im behind.lets just see if they protest about us joining the euro if that happens i guess not cause most are unemployed or students so were paying for them

tiggers

So how does that piece of simplistic thinking fit with benefit fraud or is that all a figment of our imaginations anyway?

tiggers.

Scooby96

tiggers - not sure I follow???

NACRO

quote: "wimpy europeons who want to rule britain cause there countries have gone down the drain, i no who im behind."

An articulately expressed point . Just one major problem with it-the Europeans aren't interested in the UK it's a poxy overcrowded little place seemingly infested with dross, judging by some of the types I meet on this board anyway. I'm hard pushed to think of a country within Europe that doesn't offer its citizens a better quality of life.
The fact remains there are a lot of people who see the USA as a negative influence and would much rather get on with our close neighbours just a few miles away over the water.

tiggers

The statement says she's only getting what she's entitled to otherwise she wouldn't be getting it.

Well if she was one of the (apparently) many people defrauding the benefit scheme (and I'm not saying she is by the way) she would still be getting it, but wouldn't be entitled to it hence negating the original statement.

Simple really!

tiggers.

NACRO

quote "So how does that piece of simplistic thinking fit with benefit fraud or is that all a figment of our imaginations anyway?"

It doesn't, claiming benefit and benefit fraud are entirely different subjects. Actually while we are on the subject of benefit fraud I also think that while illegal it is pretty damn amusing that people like to focus on it as if stopping it will solve all the ills in the world. It's really pretty insignificant when you look at the bigger picture, but hey if you get all the idiots to focus on it they won't notice the 1001 other ways they are getting shafted.

tiggers

Sorry Nacro, but you're trying to wriggle out of what is basically a flawed statement.

is patently not true IF she is defrauding the benefit system as she is getting it, but is not entitled to it.

Anyway I'm not wanting to get into any long protracted argument here as I know at least half of what you are posting here is only bait, otherwise you'd be in London rather than posting

What about the core issue of these protestors. If they are anti war in Iraq does that mean they'd rather still see Saddam in charge over there. Just a question - no bias either way? I just don't understand them that's all.

tiggers.

[Edited by tiggers - 11/20/2003 2:40:46 PM]

Jye

--Our society is rich enough that if someone decides they don't want to work and prefer to take a pittance to subsist on I'd say let them do it.--

Ah but NACRO, the problem is many people do both, work (casual) and claim benefits.

Take it from someone who has worked with unemployed people for the past 13 years, very few people on benefits are just 'subsisting'.

You dont subsist on alcohol, cigarettes (not rollies), take-a-way food and Sky TV. You dont subsist when free health care, prescriptions, housing costs, council tax and other 'passport' benefits are factored into the equation. You dont subsist by having two council properties while using one as a giro drop then staying with your undeclared partner in the other property, both claiming the single persons allowance to get a bit more money.

I regularly visit the people I work with in their homes, and if I said most if not all of my 'clients' are living quite comfortably it would be the understatement of the century.

Your right about one thing though, working for a living is for mugs



[Edited by Jye - 11/20/2003 2:46:08 PM]

NACRO

quote: "Sorry Nacro, but you're trying to wriggle out of what is basically a flawed statement."

No, I just assume that most people are honestly claiming their benefit. You are just indulging in semantics. If she is claiming benefit then she is entitled to it- as simple as that. If it was found that she was commiting an offence then she wouldn't be- also very simple.

The stuff I've said isn't "bait" I truly believe it and like to exercise my right of free speech as a counterpoint to all the rabid jingoists that infest this forum.

There are a few reasons I wouldn't be there protesting, firstly I don't believe collective action will ever change anything because the system is self protecting. Secondly I'm over 1000 miles away and try to avoid spending time in that dirty, overcrowded and stinking sore that is London.

Scooby96

"but hey if you get all the idiots to focus on it they won't notice the 1001 other ways they are getting shafted"

so because there are other things going on we should forget benefit fraud?

as I said shes not committing fraud just that I think people who can work should - if they chose not to then why should those who do pay for them?

Jye

Oops. NACRO you should have read my post first

NACRO

Well Jye you have to ask yourself who are the stupid ones then.

Good luck to them, if they think they've found their Nirvana by subsisting (and I do believe the lifestyle you mention sounds like subsistence) then they are welcome to it.

NACRO

quote: "so because there are other things going on we should forget benefit fraud?"

Not at all if it please you to focus on it to the detriment of other more important issues then feel free. My point is that the "system" for want of a better word likes to have its "hate week" where everyone can focus on one group or issue while ignoring everything else. Feel free to be deluded- it's part of our democratic society, in fact democracy relies on it.

Jye

subsistence - minimal (or marginal) resources for subsisting; "social security provided only a bare subsistence"

I dont work to pay for someone elses booze, **** and cable TV m8. You have a strange definition of subsistance me thinks

NACRO, perhaps you should visit some disabled or very elderly pensioners in their homes, honest working class people who have toiled all thier life and didnt milk the system, then you would know the true meaning of subsistance.

I pay tax to provide benefits only for those who NEED it. The health service and social security were set up for the needy, not the greedy. If those who dont NEED this service continue to take without giving back then the system will eventually collapse leaving those who really NEED help wihtout it.

tiggers

As are you my friend by trying to turn the debate to benefit fraud - it was just a simple statement of fact - that fact being that you're statement was flawed.

So leaving the semantics behind let's get back to the core issue. - these protestors. I ask again what are they actually protetsing about?

I for one think Iraq is a better country for being without Saddam (an opinion backed up by the average Iraqi on the rare occasions the media move away from their preferred sensationalist reporting methods).

The war has happened and can not be reversed. I can understand them protesting before the war about using more diplomacy etc. , but what is it they want now - US/UK troops out and Saddam back? I can't imagine that's the case so anyone care to enlighten me.

The way I see it they just want to go and yell at the president and the prime minster which of course they're perfectly entitled to do so, but I don't have to like it do I?

Finally I dearly wish our beloved media would just try and present the whole situation with more balance, but that really will never happen.

tiggers.

Jye

Oh and NACRO, I know at least half a dozen people claiming benefits while earning over £300 a week casual. Most have good cars and go abroad on holiday, all the things I work for.

scunnered

iTrader: (1)

I want to organise a protest against.....



PROTESTERS

Scooby96

Shop 'em

As I said earlier - what about the other 64.9 million???

NACRO

quote: "NACRO, perhaps you should visit some disabled or very elderly pensioners in their homes, honest working class people who have toiled all thier life and didnt milk the system, then you would know the true meaning of subsistance"

I have met them- you are describing my grandparents.

By subsistence I dont't think some luxuries or a poxy holiday in benidorm in any way mean you aren't subsisiting. Perhaps a better word would be "existing" because that's all they are doing, living a very sad life. You pay tax not because of the reasons you outlined, you pay tax because you are forced to and once it has been taken from you it is no longer your money. It belongs to the system and the system will do with it what it sees fit.


regarding the protesters you don't have to like them or even agree with them, you do however have to support their right to be there doing it. I'd prefer it if society were more honest and just shot them so we could see where we all really stand. Don't kid yourself you are free while working 40 odd hours a week to pay for your poky house while being bent over and buttfcuked by your government.

Repeat after me, it's the pikeys, the paedos and the scroungers that make our society so bad not the fact that the whole thing is a stinking corrupt mess that's destroying the world.

Jye

--As I said earlier - what about the other 64.9 million??? --

You need about 65 million folk to pay for all the fraud IMO.

NACRO

scooby what 64.9 million? what are you talking about? you say there are only 100 people there? and 65 million others against them- you really are a fool.

As for the anti-protesters protest it would be as pointless as their protest.

Jye

--Perhaps a better word would be "existing" because that's all they are doing, living a very sad life.--

But if we all accepted your view and joined the ranks of the unemployed then the system would collapse leaving the vulnerable and marginalised without support.

--you pay tax because you are forced to and once it has been taken from you it is no longer your money. It belongs to the system and the system will do with it what it sees fit--

I pay tax as I believe I need to, not have to.

unclebuck

The problem with Nacro is he seems to think that lack of principles is some kind of virtue. It's a fundemental flaw in most of his arguments.

UB

JR55

Nacro said
Was this before or after you made your money property developing and left for sunnier climes????

Scooby96

scooby what 64.9 million? what are you talking about? you say there are only 100 people there? and 65 million others against them- you really are a fool.

As for the anti-protesters protest it would be as pointless as their protest.

I'm talking about the millions of people who arent in London protesting - I accept it doesnt mean there aren't more people who were / still are against the war / bush / blair but when people say "the majority were against it" where the **** is their proof of that statement????

A straw pole in my office found about 10% against the war



[Edited by Scooby96 - 11/20/2003 3:51:44 PM]

NACRO

Lots of points to answer-
Jye, you are a rare person if you believe in paying taxes to help others, I have a lot of respect for that.


numbers guy : So 10% out of 64 million makes 100 does it?


Advertiser man: As for my views on capitalism I believe to beat the system you have to play it at it's own game and make yourself independant of it- which I am well on the way to doing. One in the eye for all those who are going to be spending the rest of their lives working to make others richer, the sickness of the system is exactly what is going to set me free from it.

quote:"The problem with Nacro is he seems to think that lack of principles is some kind of virtue"

I don't know where you get that idea- I have principles allright they just don't concur with a lot of other peoples. I believe in me as someone once said.