I think there is a certain amount of morality issues here though. Claiming for the cost of petrol to go to Remembrance Day memorials but reducing the only sources of income that some people have during the same period shows a good deal of insensitivity to some.
But do you not realise that anyone claiming benefits is a scrounger, why even these people that have paid into the system for years then are made unemployed they are still scroungers as are the disabled the sick etc - scroungers and bounders to a man.
I don't see any problem with reclaiming expenses, no matter how small, it may be petty but just because somebody has no shoes on their feet it doesn't mean I can't enjoy my new Nike's, he hasn't rubbed it in their faces, his expenses have been exposed for the purpose of whipping up a storm. I've got some very right wing views on this sort of thing, I'm inclined at this point to keep most of it to myself, as I see it goes against the consensus on here.
I don't think it was intended to whip up a storm but to possibly show two levels of living and thinking. I have seen both sides of the coin, as I suspect you have, but arbitrary decisions taken about benefits can wreck a lot of good peoples lives. There is more than one way of making these cuts but in most cases I believe it was taken away and people for people to re-apply in order to re-qualify. Casting a wide net to catch the cheats penalises many other worthy people.
why do we let illegal migrants who have never put in to the system and never will, they let them stay and give them a gravy train for life, but they **** over our own especially ex forces.
I agree mate but there will always be vulnerable folk. If everybody had a job the economy would boom and the people on the lowest wages would be still in a huge hole. People in this country love to balance a misery and strife story with a greed story, the point doesn't need hammered home, there doesn't need to be a scale to appreciate the gravity of people in need. Personally It drives my sympathy away and turns it to apathy.
IDS made a statement that a family with 2 children can easily live on £50/week and the very next day said he deserves the £11,000 pay rise........Why are people so stupid to vote for these Tory cretins who ruin peoples lives but wont travel 10 yards without putting in an expensive claim......I have no sympathy for those who earn an average or lower salary who votes this scum party in..
Which pretty much sums up people's attitude nowadays. The haves will hang on too it, the have-not's could be forced to do what they have to just to survive.
Some public sector workers work all there lives on a poor wages. Because there were told take out this pension and you will get the benifits when you retire. Of course when you retire there were not told they will have a reduced pension because You never paid enough national insurance. However the private sector earned big wages for all there lives When they retire they get maximum pension.
A bedsit, luxury ! we lived in a hole in the road, had to get up before we went to bed work 24 hours a day, lick the road clean and pay father when we finished the job. Try telling that to the young ones of today !.
Until a few years ago Civil Service pensions were based on earnings over the last three years so those years were spent putting in overtime on whatever projects could be drummed up so that the final pensions were pretty golden. Even the mandarins of Whitehall were not beyond milking the system. My 80yo's sister's family in the UK are having to deal with the local authority who want her invalid bungalow back since her wheelchair husband died. She has lived there twenty years, has two dodgy knees, a replaced hip and is about as immobile as they come but can walk more than 100 yards so does not qualify for the house. I know rules dictate, but an element of compassion and common sense goes a long way.
Not you Tel I am referring to the attitude of people like the c*nt in the op's picture i.e Mr Blobby the fat c*nt even has more chin's than a chinese phone book
Thing is Nostalgic, and I'm not talking you or anyone on here particularly but, what you are describing is old hanging onto wealth and teenagers-mid twenties doing what they have to do increasingly. I personally believe in the law of the land and property etc but think that through no fault of their own older people on average are more wealthy than the young will ever be. Equally some people are grafters born into circumstances that allow them to do well. The fortunate old are not vilified so much and I don't know why. For clarity I think neither is at any fault but can understand why people would prefer a redistribution of wealth regardless of anything. The whole things a shame to be fair IMO but if you want more wealth I reckon you have to find a way to earn it if you weren't fortunate enough to be born into it or come by it somehow. No point carping about how life's not fair without doing something about best you can. I'm pretty average looking but don't expect folk to get Brad Pitts face and pay for it to be grafted on for me. Difficult topic this and no real right answer to be fair!
I fully understand the workings of society and how it has evolved but the overall factor here is modern finance as driven by one political party. The established wealth you quote was gained in historic or possibly industrial times so no qualms there except to say it could have been honestly gained, or not, as the case may be. Right now the banking and house purchasing system is against young ones getting onto the housing market but look at how their parents did it. So at the risk of boring everybody there is an explanation that is closer to home. In the early 70s there was a huge change in mortgage rules. Wife's earnings could be added and the 25% deposit rule was scrapped leading to a huge building programme where couples camped out to get the plot and house design they wanted. The friendly banks and societies could not lend money fast enough. Enter Thatchernomics and destruction of industry, banking mismanagement after the removal of regulations by her, and the market deflated but there was at least one earner to pay the reasonable mortgage. Those people now are at home but there is no one who can afford to buy their house. Or they are looking to downsize so that they can assist their hard up kids to get a foothold on the current market as the current stringent requirements hit them most. Not saying it was a deliberately manufactured situation that only concerned the working class, but they are the ones most affected by the political and economic decisions more a case of them being the least protected.
Yeh same thing with my sister Her husband died and the tried to get her out the bungalow She was only 54 But she has a son with difficulties and they let her keep the bungalow
For those who claim they are all the same read this http://www.londonlovesbusiness.com/...-is-labour-leader-jeremy-corbyn/11776.article
That's a lot of money spent on a man who has absolutely no chance of being elected, if he really cared, he'd step down and give Labour a fighting chance.
