I'm a bit conflicted - I know a few *****s who have never looked after their own housing needs, and there's a question mark over whether they have the ability to - the Tories think that all everyone needs is a bit of entrepreneurial spirit, and they can lift themselves out of poverty - when in truth there's a Jeremy Kyle class who have been dealt out wits from the bottom end of the bell curve, and may have no chance. On the other hand, if Aldo can manage to maintain his own house then maybe there's hope for us all.
My wife has worked a 'few' part time hours on three days a week - without any detriment to the care of our children. In my original post I wasn't suggesting full time employment - just enough hours to make up the difference between 90% and 100% of housing benefit - although I realise THAT is like asking the claimants to work for 'nothing' - but then they're quite happy to take 100%benefit for nothing. Tina - my wife's part time hours were very much with the interest of our children in mind - and it didn't stop her from earning a bit of cash - certainly more than the difference between 90% and 100% of what we might have claimed in benefit had we been in that position.
I'm guessing your wife is not a ***** though - which means she's actually employable. Won't anyone think of the *****s?
Thank you Michael - my wife is certainly not a ***** ( according to Toby, 'that' would be me ! ) She deliberately chose flexible (very low paid) retail employment - giving cover at optimum times for employers - allowing her to personally care for our children pre and post school hours. She didn't need the brain of Einstein for her tasks - which any ***** with half an ounce of common sense could manage.
I used to work with a guy called Marty Gluebag in KFC - we called him that after someone apparently caught him sniffing glue during his lunch break (someone also caught one of the girls giving him a tug once, or so it seemed - we called her the Ham Shank Redemption). Anyway he got the sack eventually, for being a complete mong. I reckon that ****er probably gets a paid up council house, because he has an IQ of about 70 and couldn't keep a job in KFC. So I'm not sure all the social engineering the in the world can fix people like that - we have to chuck them a minimum of lifestyle so we don't feel terrible stepping over them in the street, or so they don't break into your house and steal all your shiny Apple devices.
Mick For several years I have been giving between 15 & 20% of my disposable income to charity - so it's not that I'm a tightarse - and I am happy to give to those in genuine need ( even those in this country who are 'unable' to work )- but I object to those whose attitude is selfish and expect to have 100% for nothing - even if they could do something else other than just wipe their own backside - that attitude has nothing to do with a lack of intellect.
The worst kind of ****s. "Aye but I donate to charity so I can speak down to these plebs" Away and ****e. Go do some actual charity or **** off.
I had to give my boys the deposit ( and more ) for their houses otherwise they'd never have left 'home' <bankofmumanddad>
I actually spend some time doing 'physical' work for one charity (unpaid, of course). I also spend more time promoting a different charity ( unpaid, of course) - and in the last 12 months have managed to raise around £15,000 through sponsorship. Irrespective of the above facts, I am entitled to voice my opinion - (as you are entitled to yours). Any 'good works' doesn't stop me from being a **** when it's necessary -but I object to those who, by their selfish attitude, treat me like a stupid **** for paying my taxes just so that they can sit on their fat arse - and woe betide any of us who expect them to scratch their own arse.
