View Full Version : ian duncan smith condems ruling
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2277426/Iain-Duncan-Smith-condemns-Poundland-benefits-ruling-opens-40m-floodgate.html
or
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/feb/12/poundland-ruling-government-work-schemes
interesting to see what will happen next, thoughts?
MerlinScot
13-Feb-13, 23:30
Stop reading the Daily Fail and life will smile at you... where is Flynn when you need him? :confused
teh guardian must be failing too also then?
billy5000
14-Feb-13, 04:15
I started working for a pound an hour when i left school,i worked my way up(afew years back now but not that long 20+yrs):)
sometimes you have to prove you can do what your asked! and if im right she was getting benefits anyway?, but i could be wrong, and even so you have to start somewhere, you dont expect to jump on the middle rung right off the bat.
id hazard a guess she still lives at home.
id say she did pick the best area for her field(in the back room of a museum)...
These people pandering to these students are only giving others false hope that they can walk out of college and land the STAR job in thier chosen field!
I know plenty of people that have qualifications up thier backside,but they are doing work that they didnt expect to get(lower than expected)
Theres plenty of people doing more than one job,but this girl complains about a shelf stacking toiletries and such!
I dont agree that she should have been working for free!, but if shes claiming then she should take any extra no matter how low , it COULD lead to a fixed permanent position,just not what/where she wanted!!
....and even so you have to start somewhere, you dont expect to jump on the middle rung right off the bat...!!
Fair enuff, you might have to start on the bottom rung, but this wasn't even the bottom rung, this was well below it....
She would have been getting £56.25 for at least 30 hours work (could have been more but I'll just assume that since 30 is the minimum on these schemes). That works out at £1.87 per hour. Minimum wage for her would be £4.98...
Why have an enforceable minimum wage if the government themselves are allowed to break it?
If their is work to do then employ somebody to do the work... isn't that a reasonable request?
Workfare didnt work, the governments 'work' program had some abysmal success rate like 6%. Workfare (unpaid labour dressed up as a good thing) meant that for every person stacking a shelf for free, a proper paid vacancy would have been lost. Basically a Government initiative to subsidise big business while appealing to the demonisation of people claiming benefits.
MerlinScot
14-Feb-13, 10:22
teh guardian must be failing too also then?
I think it is failing too of late. I read a few articles and they were not as good as they used to be.
Now there's the need to push the labourers to fight against the benefit-claimants and all of them are publishing the same sort of story over and over again...
To be honest, if someone would have told me when I was on JSA that I should work for free, I would have spat in their faces. Back then to the times I was living in Edinburgh and JSA only was enough to pay the rent (didn't get housing benefits until three months later, when I had already found a job), I couldn't afford to go and work for free.
The fact that jobcentres send you to work for free should be the main issue here. And if I'm allowed to conclude.... the job positions advertised at job centres were scum most of the time, including two hotels where migrants from the ex East block were exploited and not paid at all. So far for the minimum wage.
rob murray
14-Feb-13, 17:27
Workfare didnt work, the governments 'work' program had some abysmal success rate like 6%. Workfare (unpaid labour dressed up as a good thing) meant that for every person stacking a shelf for free, a proper paid vacancy would have been lost. Basically a Government initiative to subsidise big business while appealing to the demonisation of people claiming benefits.
Great posting, absolutely nails and exposes the big lying con / propaganda currently being rammed down the throats of those unfortunate enough not to be able to / or in work and those in work !!! It never amazes me though the people, and many are posters on this site, who fall for the scroungers crap line, hook line and sinker..or maybe its the ruling classes playing the divide and rule trick knowing that the working classes will turn in on themselves.
Solidarity !!!!
Great posting, absolutely nails and exposes the big lying con / propaganda currently being rammed down the throats of those unfortunate enough not to be able to / or in work and those in work !!! It never amazes me though the people, and many are posters on this site, who fall for the scroungers crap line, hook line and sinker..or maybe its the ruling classes playing the divide and rule trick knowing that the working classes will turn in on themselves.
Solidarity !!!!
Seriously .. stop. If Flynn if ever comes to a halt your head will break his back teeth.
As for the "scroungers" line, it was always a pleasure for me to see the non scroungers in Wick bragging they had got their crisis loan in time for a Friday night lash up in Camps. So they do exist.
The woman in this case did not want to work in Poundland, she saw it as below her. But she did think the working people of Britian should pay for her to work for nothing in a museum to gain a position as a curator. So she wanted us to pay for her to further her career. Then when she realised that she wasn't going to get her way she got legal aid and spent more of our money in protest at the fact she was expected to do something for what she got. And where is she working now ??, in a supermarket part time because apparently she cant find work that relates to her degree in Geology. But wait .. it took me ten seconds to find these well paid jobs requiring a Geology background, all seventy seven of them .. http://www.glassdoor.com/Job/offshore-geologist-jobs-SRCH_KO0,18.htm .. not the sharpest rock hammer in the geology field outfit is she.
I am all for the demonisation of those claiming benefits, it's paid for by the likes of me and those others who work and pay tax. Its about blinking time that being benefits was seen as something to be ashamed of instead of a lifestyle choice by the layer of people in this country who think they have a right to live off everyone else. No one is entitled to something for nothing, look what happened to the country when your socialist chums spent what we didn't have on those who thought they had a right to it.
Idiot.
Well it would appear the scroungers are the best off, 2 bedroom house with the complements of the housing department , now the bedroom tax so just go out and get pregnant to earn the job description of full time mummy which appears to be the thriving industry in Caithness. No shortage of public money thrown at them, new prams no second hand stuff, it is time these scroungers straight out of school and no intention of working was made to realise what it is all about. Lord help their bairns.
However one can find themselves without a job through no fault of their own and they do not seem to get the same perks as the permanently unemployed so they have to try and get job as quickly as possible.
Well it would appear the scroungers are the best off, 2 bedroom house with the complements of the housing department , now the bedroom tax so just go out and get pregnant to earn the job description of full time mummy which appears to be the thriving industry in Caithness. No shortage of public money thrown at them, new prams no second hand stuff, it is time these scroungers straight out of school and no intention of working was made to realise what it is all about. Lord help their bairns.
However one can find themselves without a job through no fault of their own and they do not seem to get the same perks as the permanently unemployed so they have to try and get job as quickly as possible.
so.... What you are saying is that all these (wildly exagerated) handouts should be stopped in order to discourage "scroungers"?
Is this bedroom tax not actually encouraging people to go out & get pregnant as a means of avoiding this unfair tax?
secrets in symmetry
14-Feb-13, 22:40
Workfare didnt work, the governments 'work' program had some abysmal success rate like 6%. Workfare (unpaid labour dressed up as a good thing) meant that for every person stacking a shelf for free, a proper paid vacancy would have been lost. Basically a Government initiative to subsidise big business while appealing to the demonisation of people claiming benefits.Yes, indeed.
In addition to the moral and economic issues, can you imagine how socially embarrassing it would be to be caught stacking shelves in Poundland? :cool:
secrets in symmetry
14-Feb-13, 23:08
Seriously .. stop. If Flynn if ever comes to a halt your head will break his back teeth.
As for the "scroungers" line, it was always a pleasure for me to see the non scroungers in Wick bragging they had got their crisis loan in time for a Friday night lash up in Camps. So they do exist.
The woman in this case did not want to work in Poundland, she saw it as below her. But she did think the working people of Britian should pay for her to work for nothing in a museum to gain a position as a curator. So she wanted us to pay for her to further her career. Then when she realised that she wasn't going to get her way she got legal aid and spent more of our money in protest at the fact she was expected to do something for what she got. And where is she working now ??, in a supermarket part time because apparently she cant find work that relates to her degree in Geology. But wait .. it took me ten seconds to find these well paid jobs requiring a Geology background, all seventy seven of them .. http://www.glassdoor.com/Job/offshore-geologist-jobs-SRCH_KO0,18.htm .. not the sharpest rock hammer in the geology field outfit is she.
I am all for the demonisation of those claiming benefits, it's paid for by the likes of me and those others who work and pay tax. Its about blinking time that being benefits was seen as something to be ashamed of instead of a lifestyle choice by the layer of people in this country who think they have a right to live off everyone else. No one is entitled to something for nothing, look what happened to the country when your socialist chums spent what we didn't have on those who thought they had a right to it.
Idiot.That's more like a traditional post from you.
It starts with violence.
There's lots of prejudice - and that chip on your shoulder is still there, and it's still shouting out that it's there.
Then there are too many words, which end in you being wrong.
The epilogue is a single abusive word.
When are you going to storm out on us yet again?
Seriously .. stop. If Flynn if ever comes to a halt your head will break his back teeth.
As for the "scroungers" line, it was always a pleasure for me to see the non scroungers in Wick bragging they had got their crisis loan in time for a Friday night lash up in Camps. So they do exist.
The woman in this case did not want to work in Poundland, she saw it as below her. But she did think the working people of Britian should pay for her to work for nothing in a museum to gain a position as a curator. So she wanted us to pay for her to further her career. Then when she realised that she wasn't going to get her way she got legal aid and spent more of our money in protest at the fact she was expected to do something for what she got. And where is she working now ??, in a supermarket part time because apparently she cant find work that relates to her degree in Geology. But wait .. it took me ten seconds to find these well paid jobs requiring a Geology background, all seventy seven of them .. http://www.glassdoor.com/Job/offshore-geologist-jobs-SRCH_KO0,18.htm .. not the sharpest rock hammer in the geology field outfit is she.
I am all for the demonisation of those claiming benefits, it's paid for by the likes of me and those others who work and pay tax. Its about blinking time that being benefits was seen as something to be ashamed of instead of a lifestyle choice by the layer of people in this country who think they have a right to live off everyone else. No one is entitled to something for nothing, look what happened to the country when your socialist chums spent what we didn't have on those who thought they had a right to it.
Idiot.
Quite. State pensions, winter fuel payments, tax credits for the low paid, child benefits, free nursery places for the under fives, the 85% of housing benefit claimants who are in work, disability claimants, the sick, JSA for all those ex-HMV/Jessops/Comet employees... Scroungers the lot of them. -end sarcasm-
If people are going to have to work for Jobseekers paid by the taxpayer, then they should have either to work in jobs useful to the taxpayer, as in community stuff that councils can o longer afford to fund...street cleaning etc.......or jobs remotely appropriate to their skills, qualifications, and if possible, their aspirations.....that is the sensible way to help them find jobs. But when did sensible equate, anywhere but in a society wedded to the profit motives of big business, to shoving everybody into Poundland, Tesco etc to save those companies employing people on permanent contracts....well, in America-lite UK, where else!
I had a look at all those companies who do Work Progamme/Work Experience and they are all retail shops, as far as I can see. That might well be appropriate for 18 year olds who don't get up till mid-afternoon, to teach them to get out of their scratcher, take management orders and do something to earn their crust, but not for people who have held down responsible jobs, paid their taxes and NI, and could easily walk into a supermarket and cope without unpaid training because stacking shelves needs minimal brain-power.
Workfare, along with tax credits, is just another way for Governments to increase the profits of businesses so they can move them off shore to avoid tax/use creative accounting to avoid tax....at taxpayer cost.
Quite. State pensions, winter fuel payments, tax credits for the low paid, child benefits, free nursery places for the under fives, the 85% of housing benefit claimants who are in work, disability claimants, the sick, JSA for all those ex-HMV/Jessops/Comet employees... Scroungers the lot of them. -end sarcasm-
IMO, people who get tax credits, whether working tax credits or child tax credits, pension credits etc are just as much scroungers as those who claim JSA or disability benefits. Anyone who can't manage without taxpayer help is a scrounger. Discuss!...and no sarcasm meant....can't see the difference, myself...anyone care to explain the difference between some people getting taxpayer handouts and other people getting taxpayer handouts?
M Swanson
14-Feb-13, 23:57
Quite. State pensions, winter fuel payments, tax credits for the low paid, child benefits, free nursery places for the under fives, the 85% of housing benefit claimants who are in work, disability claimants, the sick, JSA for all those ex-HMV/Jessops/Comet employees... Scroungers the lot of them. -end sarcasm-
Quite. War, mountain of debts, drunkeness, welfare dependency, social division, illiteracy & innumeracy, generation of near-unemployable young people, families in which no one works, a culture of idleness, political correctness, elf 'n safety madness, punishments not fitting the crime, a broken nation ..... Labour achievements. -end truths- ;)
IMO, people who get tax credits, whether working tax credits or child tax credits, pension credits etc are just as much scroungers as those who claim JSA or disability benefits. Anyone who can't manage without taxpayer help is a scrounger. Discuss!...and no sarcasm meant....can't see the difference, myself...anyone care to explain the difference between some people getting taxpayer handouts and other people getting taxpayer handouts?
Explanation = Humanity, compassion, humility, "there but for the grace of God, go I".
baileys Bhoy
15-Feb-13, 00:22
my husband was in a 40 thousand pound a year construction job and as of xmas 2012 he was layed off due to lack of work, the only benefit we were in recipt of was child benefit. we dont want to be on benefits and my husband is looking everywhere for work but it looks like unless we move south it will remain slim pickings! altho my husband now gets jobseekers allowance we pay our rent ourselves. if i was payed £100 for every benefit cheat i could name i would be rich and therefore not need to recive benefits or work for that matter! it makes me so mad when everyone on benefits are tarnished with the same brush, granted some people do just want to sit back and lap it up but not everybody! the inflation in prices on everyday items affects us all, and with £222 a fortnight needing to streach for a family of 4 i would much rather my husband be working! also i thought i might make it clear that my husband is not only searching for jobs with a similar pay packet to his last.
Quite. War, mountain of debts, drunkeness, welfare dependency, social division, illiteracy & innumeracy, generation of near-unemployable young people, families in which no one works, a culture of idleness, political correctness, elf 'n safety madness, punishments not fitting the crime, a broken nation ..... Labour achievements. -end truths- ;)
You a paid up Tory Party member? Tory Party achievements from Thatcher until 1997.....High levels of homelessness, high levels of unemployment, vast reduction in manufacturing industry, selling off the family silver for sweeties to her friends so we have to pay through the nose for basic essentials like electricity etc, widened income and wealth inequality, a couple of boom and bust recessions, from which we hadn't recovered before the one everybody is now blaming NuLabour for (and I'm not a Nulabour supporter), financial deregulation, killing of the concept of social cohesion., the unpopularity of Tories in Scotland....in other words the beginnings of what we have now....in your own words...War, mountain of debts, drunkeness, welfare dependency, social division, illiteracy & innumeracy, generation of near-unemployable young people, families in which no one works, a culture of idleness, political correctness, elf 'n safety madness, punishments not fitting the crime, a broken nation.
You've been on this earth about as long as I have....and I see that Heath (as in joining the EU) and Thatcher started the slide into where we are now. Nulabour certainly didn't help...but then Blair just carried on where Thatcher left off....no change in much really, bar an increase in benefits, which the Coalition has not done anything about, bar hammer those least able to take the hammering.
All UK political parties bow down to the ideas of the great goddess Thatcher, to a greater or lesser extent....and our options on UK election days are Tory/US-Lite, Labour very lite/Tory mostly, and LibDem/Tory (or any other party that suits for the getting of some power.) The UK is certainly broken...and our brain-dead politicians broke it!
Explanation = Humanity, compassion, humility, "there but for the grace of God, go I".
Gone there in spades..but isn't it really darn irritating when people do blanket daemonisation? :roll:
roadbowler
15-Feb-13, 00:55
glad to see the divide and conquer method is working. Well done.
Aaldtimer
15-Feb-13, 03:54
You a paid up Tory Party member? Tory Party achievements from Thatcher until 1997.....High levels of homelessness, high levels of unemployment, vast reduction in manufacturing industry, selling off the family silver for sweeties to her friends so we have to pay through the nose for basic essentials like electricity etc, widened income and wealth inequality, a couple of boom and bust recessions, from which we hadn't recovered before the one everybody is now blaming NuLabour for (and I'm not a Nulabour supporter), financial deregulation, killing of the concept of social cohesion., the unpopularity of Tories in Scotland....in other words the beginnings of what we have now....in your own words...War, mountain of debts, drunkeness, welfare dependency, social division, illiteracy & innumeracy, generation of near-unemployable young people, families in which no one works, a culture of idleness, political correctness, elf 'n safety madness, punishments not fitting the crime, a broken nation.
You've been on this earth about as long as I have....and I see that Heath (as in joining the EU) and Thatcher started the slide into where we are now. Nulabour certainly didn't help...but then Blair just carried on where Thatcher left off....no change in much really, bar an increase in benefits, which the Coalition has not done anything about, bar hammer those least able to take the hammering.
All UK political parties bow down to the ideas of the great goddess Thatcher, to a greater or lesser extent....and our options on UK election days are Tory/US-Lite, Labour very lite/Tory mostly, and LibDem/Tory (or any other party that suits for the getting of some power.) The UK is certainly broken...and our brain-dead politicians broke it!
Spot on OQ! with just an addition of the removal of HOPE for school leavers.:(
M Swanson
15-Feb-13, 07:56
OQ said:- "Blair just carried on where Thatcher left off."
Oh! Well that's all right then! Let's just step over the fact that the socialist Labour Party had thirteen years to change everything you drone on about, but chose to drive Britain to the edge of bankruptcy, whilst destroying so much in the process. I'd say to the ultimate "extent." But let's not dwell on that. A cursory mention and then back to blaming Margaret Hilda. How was your life, prior to Margaret Hilda, OQ? And how popular have the Tories ever been throughout Scotland's history? Hmmmm! And btw, I'm not a card carrying member of the Conservative Party. Nor do I find the need to "daemonise" (sic) Margaret Hilda, whilst excusing, or just mildly rebuking the megga rich Blair for contributing so much to where we are now. You have your own Parliament and maybe Independence is looming. Think of all the wonderful changes you will be able to make when you're a socialist country in your own right. Good luck. :roll:
Aaldtimer said:- with just an addition of the removal of HOPE for school leavers.
And when did this happen? Not during Blair's governance, I suppose?
IMO, people who get tax credits, whether working tax credits or child tax credits, pension credits etc are just as much scroungers
Actually the scroungers are the employers whose low pay rates are subsidised by the government.
Clearly the meek will inherit the Earth, but only if they're, selfish, uncaring, uncharitable people like M Swanson.
M Swanson
15-Feb-13, 09:55
Clearly the meek will inherit the Earth, but only if they're, selfish, uncaring, uncharitable people like M Swanson.
:lol: I can't believe anyone, apart from a few shirt-tail swingers, could ever fall for this chuff, Flynn. You never answer any of the questions, or points raised, in my posts. Mind you, it is hard to defend the indefensible, I suppose. So, what do you do to help anyone, in your life? Apart from flogging your vile ideology to death, that is. It's what drives you and to hell with flesh and blood, huh? Typical of you and your ilk! Doh!
:lol: I can't believe anyone, apart from a few shirt-tail swingers, could ever fall for this chuff, Flynn. You never answer any of the questions, or points raised, in my posts. Mind you, it is hard to defend the indefensible, I suppose. So, what do you do to help anyone, in your life? Apart from flogging your vile ideology to death, that is. It's what drives you and to hell with flesh and blood, huh? Typical of you and your ilk! Doh!
I volunteer with the local homeless charity and give time to mentoring young offenders. What do you do?
Now we don't want this to descend into a 9issing competition, do we?
rob murray
15-Feb-13, 17:26
Seriously .. stop. If Flynn if ever comes to a halt your head will break his back teeth.
As for the "scroungers" line, it was always a pleasure for me to see the non scroungers in Wick bragging they had got their crisis loan in time for a Friday night lash up in Camps. So they do exist.
The woman in this case did not want to work in Poundland, she saw it as below her. But she did think the working people of Britian should pay for her to work for nothing in a museum to gain a position as a curator. So she wanted us to pay for her to further her career. Then when she realised that she wasn't going to get her way she got legal aid and spent more of our money in protest at the fact she was expected to do something for what she got. And where is she working now ??, in a supermarket part time because apparently she cant find work that relates to her degree in Geology. But wait .. it took me ten seconds to find these well paid jobs requiring a Geology background, all seventy seven of them .. http://www.glassdoor.com/Job/offshore-geologist-jobs-SRCH_KO0,18.htm .. not the sharpest rock hammer in the geology field outfit is she.
I am all for the demonisation of those claiming benefits, it's paid for by the likes of me and those others who work and pay tax. Its about blinking time that being benefits was seen as something to be ashamed of instead of a lifestyle choice by the layer of people in this country who think they have a right to live off everyone else. No one is entitled to something for nothing, look what happened to the country when your socialist chums spent what we didn't have on those who thought they had a right to it.
Idiot.
I take it you are signing your self off as an idiot ? I am all for the demonisation of those who demonise those claiming benefits...ie people like you and with your attitude I hope yo never find yourself unemployed or unfit to work : actually how does anyone know if you work or indeed if you pay tax...what socialist chums do you refer to, there hasn't been a socialist government in power since 1945 ? And if being an employer makes me a capitalist then thats what I am...pal !!!!
rob murray
15-Feb-13, 17:33
When Dounreay hits the pan, large scale redundancies scheduled for 2017 ( 4 years away ) in the absence of any serious investment / diversification available to mop up the soon to be unemployed De Com workers...who will have to sign on...then I take it retread, given above comments will demonise people who through no fault of their own, find themselves on benefits.....that is after the government / JCP make the redundant Dounreay workers, live on redundancy payments until they meet benefits capital thresholds. But heh it will be there own fault....Retread will and the like will be mouthing off about getting on their bikes and looking for work....
rob murray
15-Feb-13, 17:35
Ach ye know what, the levels of absolute hate and spite mouthed off on this site makes me ill.....thats it for me, bye bye no more posts !!!!
secrets in symmetry
15-Feb-13, 22:57
Don't let them get to you Rob. They're kicking out at you because you're successful. It's the politics of envy.
secrets in symmetry
15-Feb-13, 23:18
Actually the scroungers are the employers whose low pay rates are subsidised by the government.Indeed.
In the case of workfare, the employers are getting the services of slaves for free.
billy5000
15-Feb-13, 23:19
Its going to be a dark day when dounreay shuts its doors and a big leap in signons!:(
heres hoping for another big opening to mop up the people from dounreay.
Actually the scroungers are the employers whose low pay rates are subsidised by the government.
You'd think the idiots who set the level of the minimum wage would have thought.....oh!
Its going to be a dark day when dounreay shuts its doors and a big leap in signons!:(
heres hoping for another big opening to mop up the people from dounreay.
I wouldn't worry too much. The skills from Dounreay are and will be in demand all over the world. Its the rest of Caithness that will struggle.
billy5000
15-Feb-13, 23:29
Its the rest of Caithness that will struggle
yep you have a point,but it will also mean many familys will either have great hardships through long distance working, or having to move thier entire familys to remain working.
plus there wont be an abundance of jobs going!,even with the skillset ,any that do become available will have a hugh amount of people going for it,maybe even work friends /family etc
a goldrush if you like.
secrets in symmetry
15-Feb-13, 23:36
ian duncan smith condems rulingWas that a deliberate mis-spelling?
Actually the scroungers are the employers whose low pay rates are subsidised by the government.
Clearly the meek will inherit the Earth, but only if they're, selfish, uncaring, uncharitable people like M Swanson.
Yep.....been saying that re subsidising employers' profits in post after post, though not necessarily always on this thread.
I said what I said on this thread, and you quoted, kinda tongue in cheek on the off-chance it might make some people on here think about what they say.....because, I'd guess a lot of those people who complain about the unemployed getting benefits could, unless they are earning over £50,000 annually, also be receiving benefits paid by the taxpayer......they may not consider them benefits, but rights...but they really are benefits no different to JSA or any other...so there is an element in UK (and Caithness) society today who appear to think that their child tax credits, their working tax credits, their child benefits, their income support are not welfare benefits, but an entitlement, because they are working.....while Jobseekers allowance or disability payments are a welfare benefit because the recipients are not working.
Well, shoot me, because I think that all NI should be paying for is what it was set up to pay for...the NHS,, as in access to medical services to maintain health and life and and unemployment benefit and pensions. It was never set up to pay for child-minding to let women "have it all", to ensure profits for the shareholders of privately owned companies; to pay for cosmetic surgery for those who can't be arsed to diet or exercise...or to provide IVF for people who can't have children naturally....or to give pensioners perks.
In the UK, we appear to do pot calling kettle black re benefits to the "undeserving poor", which appears to be the delineation applied, by those who do have jobs, or are retired and don't need a job, to those who can't find jobs because there are not any (in Caithness, at least). Some of us perceive we are pumping a lot of taxpayers' money into maintaining the lifestyle of those who work in public/private entities who won't pay a decent wage and see no great difference between that and JSA or disability benefits re sooking off the taxpayer tit.....bar the fact that those who work (and possibly claim benefits) ,or pensioners who once worked (and possibly claim benefits) appear to consider themselves superior to those who can't find a job in a UK in which jobs are as rare as hobby horses' droppings.
:lol: I can't believe anyone, apart from a few shirt-tail swingers, could ever fall for this chuff, Flynn. You never answer any of the questions, or points raised, in my posts. Mind you, it is hard to defend the indefensible, I suppose. So, what do you do to help anyone, in your life? Apart from flogging your vile ideology to death, that is. It's what drives you and to hell with flesh and blood, huh? Typical of you and your ilk! Doh!
What is a shirt-tail swinger? Sounds rather rude!
To be fair, you do try very hard to "defend the indefensible"...you do it in nearly every post.
Funny that....an ideology which gives a toss about people worse off than themselves, is, from your POV, vile. That tells us a lot more about you than it does about Flynn.
What is Flynn's ilk? Really, bar it obviously is not yours? I'd rather live in a country in which the inhabitants thought like Flynn than one which thought like you....but, in all honesty, I'd rather live in one which thought like me.
yep you have a point,but it will also mean many familys will either have great hardships through long distance working, or having to move thier entire familys to remain working.
plus there wont be an abundance of jobs going!,even with the skillset ,any that do become available will have a hugh amount of people going for it,maybe even work friends /family etc
a goldrush if you like.
More like the oil and gas industry I think. Not enough people to fill the jobs. Rich pickings for those prepared to be available.
I wonder how many keyboards have been replaced during this thread? Looks like Daily Mailitis has created a perpetual ranty tirade that is going to go up it's own arse, the end is nigh, we're doomed!!
You'd think the idiots who set the level of the minimum wage would have thought.....oh!
It's a minimum wage, there is nothing stopping employers paying more, but they won't, they'll pay as little as they can get away with. That's why in London they're now introducing the living wage. That looks set to spread as it is taken up across the country.
M Swanson
16-Feb-13, 18:33
Funny that....an ideology which gives a toss about people worse off than themselves, is, from your POV, vile. That tells us a lot more about you than it does about Flynn.
What is Flynn's ilk? Really, bar it obviously is not yours? I'd rather live in a country in which the inhabitants thought like Flynn than one which thought like you....but, in all honesty, I'd rather live in one which thought like me.
'S'ok, OQ. You and Flynn can live in your totalitarian state. Me? I'm a democracy groupie with a b-i-g heart. :lol:
cptdodger
16-Feb-13, 18:52
It's a minimum wage, there is nothing stopping employers paying more, but they won't, they'll pay as little as they can get away with. That's why in London they're now introducing the living wage. That looks set to spread as it is taken up across the country.
When I worked in Chatham Kent for a now defunct supermarket chain back in '96, I earned £30 per week less than the person doing exactly the same job as me in the Strood store which was approx 3 miles away. The reason being was they got London weighting and the border was, the bridge going over the Medway (river). I am not sure whether London weighting still exists though ?
'S'ok, OQ. You and Flynn can live in your totalitarian state. Me? I'm a democracy groupie with a b-i-g heart. :lol:
Nah.....a democracy groupie, maybe.if you can call the UK a democracy.....but I'm not convinced, on reading your posts about the b-i-g heart. It comes across more as a s-m-a-l-l mind.
'S'ok, OQ. You and Flynn can live in your totalitarian state. Me? I'm a democracy groupie with a b-i-g heart. :lol:
There's a big difference between my idea of democracy and yours though. In mine everyone has a say, whether I agree with them or not. In yours only you and your kind have a say.
It's a minimum wage, there is nothing stopping employers paying more, but they won't, they'll pay as little as they can get away with. That's why in London they're now introducing the living wage. That looks set to spread as it is taken up across the country.
You can't blame the employers for paying minimum wage. They are not charities and most are not coining it in.
M Swanson
17-Feb-13, 14:09
Don't let them get to you Rob. They're kicking out at you because you're successful. It's the politics of envy.
Ay? Who are 'they' SiS? I've just reread this thread and no one's been "getting" at Rob, that I can see. In fact, Retread's the only one who has responded to anything he had to say and even then not in personal, but general terms. I notice that our Flynn and OQ haven't commented on any of his input ..... but then again, do they ever? :lol: Who are these folks who are "envious," of Rob? Nobody that I've come across, thus far. Because you say something doesn't make it true, or proves the given situation even exists! Come on SiS, name names! :roll:
M Swanson
17-Feb-13, 14:17
There's a big difference between my idea of democracy and yours though. In mine everyone has a say, whether I agree with them or not. In yours only you and your kind have a say.
There most certainly is Flynn. Doh! So "everyone has a say," in your Utopia, whether you agree with them, or not?" That'll be a first. LOL No, I'm more than agreeable to hear anyone elses opinion on any subject. I even read your chuff .... I just don't subscribe to any of it. Most democrats don't! Still, we can agree to differ, can't we Flynn. After all, everyone has a right "to say", whether you "agree, or not," don't they? That certainly works for me. :cool:
M Swanson
17-Feb-13, 14:18
Nah.....a democracy groupie, maybe.if you can call the UK a democracy.....but I'm not convinced, on reading your posts about the b-i-g heart. It comes across more as a s-m-a-l-l mind.
I don't agree with that OQ, but hey, I can live with that. :D I'd rather live with a s-m-a-l-l mind, than a failing one, so it could be worse.
There most certainly is Flynn. Doh! So "everyone has a say," in your Utopia, whether you agree with them, or not?" That'll be a first. LOL No, I'm more than agreeable to hear anyone elses opinion on any subject. I even read your chuff .... I just don't subscribe to any of it. Most democrats don't! Still, we can agree to differ, can't we Flynn. After all, everyone has a right "to say", whether you "agree, or not," don't they? That certainly works for me. :cool:
I don't mind you having your say at all. It's when you make spurious claims and then refuse to back them up I have a problem. For example your claim that atheism is a 'religion' when it patently isn't, etc.
M Swanson
17-Feb-13, 17:26
I don't mind you having your say at all. It's when you make spurious claims and then refuse to back them up I have a problem. For example your claim that atheism is a 'religion' when it patently isn't, etc.
My impression is that you do "mind," what I say, Flynn. Otherwise you would accept, for instance, that in my opinion, (shared by some others too,) atheism is a religion. FGS, a group of non-believers even hold their meetings in a church. If I can accept your atheism and at times, the offensive language you have used to denounce those of us of faith, why can't you accept my belief that yours is a religion too? I thought you were content to agree to disagree? I am, which is why I've never said that atheism is wrong for you, or anyone else. Why should I? It doesn't affect my faith in the least. You see? Democracy in action. :cool:
M Swanson
17-Feb-13, 17:32
Another point of contention, on your part, is any reference I make to Margaret Hilda, Flynn. Whether you like it, or not, this lady still has many admirers, as evidenced in today's poll, commissioned by the Sunday Mirror and Independent on Sunday, in which MH came out top when voters were asked, "Who is the most popular PM since 1964?" Yet again, she triumphs, which is the norm, in my experience. So, another thing we should be able to agree to disagree on, without the nastiness. Sorted! :D
My impression is that you do "mind," what I say, Flynn. Otherwise you would accept, for instance, that in my opinion, (shared by some others too,) atheism is a religion. FGS, a group of non-believers even hold their meetings in a church. If I can accept your atheism and at times, the offensive language you have used to denounce those of us of faith, why can't you accept my belief that yours is a religion too? I thought you were content to agree to disagree? I am, which is why I've never said that atheism is wrong for you, or anyone else. Why should I? It doesn't affect my faith in the least. You see? Democracy in action. :cool:
Atheism is a religion in the same way that 'off' on a television is a channel.
M Swanson
17-Feb-13, 17:55
I don't agree with the analogy, but if that's the way you see it, then it's fine by me Flynn! Nae problem. :)
MerlinScot
17-Feb-13, 22:38
Atheism is a religion in the same way that 'off' on a television is a channel.
Haha I have to say I will write down your sentence in my notebook!
I agree with you too.
To M swanson:
1.a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
That is the definition of religion in a dictionary.
So atheism cannot be a religion because atheists are not believing in any supernatural power or creator.......
Ay? Who are 'they' SiS? I've just reread this thread and no one's been "getting" at Rob, that I can see. In fact, Retread's the only one who has responded to anything he had to say and even then not in personal, but general terms. I notice that our Flynn and OQ haven't commented on any of his input ..... but then again, do they ever? :lol: Who are these folks who are "envious," of Rob? Nobody that I've come across, thus far. Because you say something doesn't make it true, or proves the given situation even exists! Come on SiS, name names! :roll:
Why would I post in response to Rob's input? Why would you think I would? I agree with all he has said. This is by far and away the nastiest forum I frequent..or have ever frequented...and believe me, I frequent a lot of forums. You lot on here can beat Americans, re rank vituperation, into a cocked hat.....and they have the first Amendment which they feel entitles them to be arrogant arseholes......on this forum there seems to be a preponderance of people who are naturally arrogant arseholes, who wouldn't walk a mile in anybody else's shoes in case they got athlete's foot.
Can't understand why anyone reading this forum would be getting a good impression of the attitude of the Caithness population, even though those who post on here are a very small representation of the whole.....and I can't understand why anyone running a website promoting Caithness would be thinking this forum was a good idea.
Why would I post in response to Rob's input? Why would you think I would? I agree with all he has said. This is by far and away the nastiest forum I frequent..or have ever frequented...and believe me, I frequent a lot of forums. You lot on here can beat Americans, re rank vituperation, into a cocked hat.....and they have the first Amendment which they feel entitles them to be arrogant arseholes......on this forum there seems to be a preponderance of people who are naturally arrogant arseholes, who wouldn't walk a mile in anybody else's shoes in case they got athlete's foot.
Can't understand why anyone reading this forum would be getting a good impression of the attitude of the Caithness population, even though those who post on here are a very small representation of the whole.....and I can't understand why anyone running a website promoting Caithness would be thinking this forum was a good idea.
If all forum upset you maybe you need to consider what the common denominator is. You BTW are the only poster who swears on virtually every post. (read the rules) and are thoroughly obnoxious in my opinion.
Why would I post in response to Rob's input? Why would you think I would? I agree with all he has said. This is by far and away the nastiest forum I frequent..or have ever frequented...and believe me, I frequent a lot of forums. You lot on here can beat Americans, re rank vituperation, into a cocked hat.....and they have the first Amendment which they feel entitles them to be arrogant arseholes......on this forum there seems to be a preponderance of people who are naturally arrogant arseholes, who wouldn't walk a mile in anybody else's shoes in case they got athlete's foot.
Can't understand why anyone reading this forum would be getting a good impression of the attitude of the Caithness population, even though those who post on here are a very small representation of the whole.....and I can't understand why anyone running a website promoting Caithness would be thinking this forum was a good idea.
Oh dear who rattled your cage tonight? Anyone who reads your rants and long winded tirades must think what are the folk in Kaitness all about? I agree with ducati, you use of expletives is repugnant and unnecessary
You lot on here can beat Americans, re rank vituperation, into a cocked hat.....and they have the first Amendment which they feel entitles them to be arrogant arseholes......on this forum there seems to be a preponderance of people who are naturally arrogant arseholes, who wouldn't walk a mile in anybody else's shoes in case they got athlete's foot.:eek:
Hmmm, you don't pay attention to that many posts then.
cptdodger
18-Feb-13, 01:44
Why would I post in response to Rob's input? Why would you think I would? I agree with all he has said. This is by far and away the nastiest forum I frequent..or have ever frequented...and believe me, I frequent a lot of forums. You lot on here can beat Americans, re rank vituperation, into a cocked hat.....and they have the first Amendment which they feel entitles them to be arrogant arseholes......on this forum there seems to be a preponderance of people who are naturally arrogant arseholes, who wouldn't walk a mile in anybody else's shoes in case they got athlete's foot.
Can't understand why anyone reading this forum would be getting a good impression of the attitude of the Caithness population, even though those who post on here are a very small representation of the whole.....and I can't understand why anyone running a website promoting Caithness would be thinking this forum was a good idea.
I must disagree about us "beating" Americans when it comes to forums. In 2009 when Kenny MacAskill released Magrahi (Lockerbie Bomber) on compassionate grounds, there was a lot of "boycott Scotland" groups appeared on Facebook. Of course me being me, I went on there to defend Scotland (I must point out, not MacAskill's actions) because it was, Americans should boycott everything Scottish, and also coming to Scotland on holiday/business. I have to tell you some of these Americans were downright vile. Although not all of them, I met a lovely American lady on one of the groups who defended Scotland to the hilt, unfortunately threats were made against her and her business, and this by other Americans who saw her as a traitor. The FBI had to get involved, the situation was then resolved thankfully.
They make us on this forum look like kittens compared to them. And as for thinking this forum a good idea or not, you have not exactly been shy in contributing to it.
MerlinScot
18-Feb-13, 08:51
Why would I post in response to Rob's input? Why would you think I would? I agree with all he has said. This is by far and away the nastiest forum I frequent..or have ever frequented...and believe me, I frequent a lot of forums.
Well pls post the links of the forum you usually comment on... Because if that is the nastiest of yours, I think that you never really posted on a forum at all because that is the best forum I commented on in a long time.
I might be not a long-term poster and I can't post often either so I have no idea if it was this way even before... but the exchanges between Flynn and MSwanson, for example, are declarations of love in comparison to the stuff I read on other forums.
And tourists, or people relocating to Caithness, get firsthand knowledge of the Caithnesians, they don't come to a forum for sure. How stupid would be to judge a bunch of people from what some of them post online?
Well pls post the links of the forum you usually comment on...
I can't speak for Oddquine, but for myself I often refrain from posting links because of the rules of Caithness.org, which state linking to forums that others might find offensive or which might link to other forums people on Caithness.org might find offensive will result in 'infractions'.
rob murray
18-Feb-13, 12:12
Ay? Who are 'they' SiS? I've just reread this thread and no one's been "getting" at Rob, that I can see. In fact, Retread's the only one who has responded to anything he had to say and even then not in personal, but general terms. I notice that our Flynn and OQ haven't commented on any of his input ..... but then again, do they ever? :lol: Who are these folks who are "envious," of Rob? Nobody that I've come across, thus far. Because you say something doesn't make it true, or proves the given situation even exists! Come on SiS, name names! :roll:
Last post, if you think retreads posting on me was not personal then re read it...it is personal ie he called me an "idiot" thats personal or is it a compliment dependant on your percpetion , and makes specific points in his postings. BY the law of averages whenever benefits is mentioned on this site the majority seem to have it in for the poor and unfortunate and thats a fact, after about 4 years posting on this site I can safely state that. Ive come to accept that this is not a site for any serious debate ie Caithness post 2017, maybe another site tightly moderated is needed so as to attract and widen informed debate...stci to vampires in portgower eh
M Swanson
18-Feb-13, 17:42
Last post, if you think retreads posting on me was not personal then re read it...it is personal ie he called me an "idiot" thats personal or is it a compliment dependant on your percpetion , and makes specific points in his postings. BY the law of averages whenever benefits is mentioned on this site the majority seem to have it in for the poor and unfortunate and thats a fact, after about 4 years posting on this site I can safely state that. Ive come to accept that this is not a site for any serious debate ie Caithness post 2017, maybe another site tightly moderated is needed so as to attract and widen informed debate...stci to vampires in portgower eh
I really can't understand why you're getting in such a state over this Rob. Compared to me, I think you've had a smooth run on the Org. I'm an Anglo Scot, a Christian, perceived to be a Tory, even though I've declared that I am not a follower of any political party and I'm a "troll." There's a few other colourful adjectives I could repeat, but I won't because none of them break my stride. I wonder why you let anything get to you. Not sure who you consider the "poor," to be, but that could well be me. I'm on a basic pension and not in receipt of any benefits, but I have never considered myself to be in poverty, despite this. I'm fortunate to have a roof over my head, adequate food and medical care ...... I'm grateful. To pretend there aren't some people who exploit the benefits system, is foolish. I'm sure we all know those who are, for example, fit and able to work, but don't choose to. We know for a fact, that there are plentiful jobs, in Britain. After all, 4 million migrant workers from abroad have been drafted in to fill the vacancies. Maybe you should stick around and tell us what you think about that? Your call. :)
M Swanson
18-Feb-13, 17:59
If all forum upset you maybe you need to consider what the common denominator is. You BTW are the only poster who swears on virtually every post. (read the rules) and are thoroughly obnoxious in my opinion.
Yes, you've nailed this one Ducati. I couldn't agree more.
MerlinScot
18-Feb-13, 19:37
I can't speak for Oddquine, but for myself I often refrain from posting links because of the rules of Caithness.org, which state linking to forums that others might find offensive or which might link to other forums people on Caithness.org might find offensive will result in 'infractions'.Mine was a sarcastic comment Flynn, given that I am quite skeptical about what he said...I wasn't looking for more polite forums ;)
wow....amazing another thread bites the dust...claps hands....way to go
wow....amazing another thread bites the dust...claps hands....way to go
Probably the best place for it.
Way back, we had a forum section which was not specifically Caithness oriented, unlike most of the rest of the forum...and it produced a lot of crap not dissimilar to what we still get from time to time on threads here.......but there was a perception then, rightly or wrongly, that the moderators were moderating from personal bias, and there was an uprising by posters who felt they were being unfairly treated...so the forum set-up changed.
So we are where we are now.......no moderators (unless they are now moderating undercover), no separate forum for Scottish/UK wide subjects to divide them from the purely Caithness subjects.....and no way for folk who come here from an interest in life in Caithness to differentiate a general opinion re the thousands of UK chancers (in their opinion) from the relatively few, in the scheme of the Caithness population, Caithness chancers...and it isn't helped by folk with a Caithness connection who have long lived furth of Caithness and know sod all about life here sticking their oar in from the reference point of life in England as they see it.
Maybe time for a rethink.....again......because if you have a site which was set up to promote Caithness...and it generally, bar this forum, currently does it very well.....and it is a good resource....so.why wouldn't you separate out opinions of general UK/Scottish policy from how it works from personal knowledge of punters in our limited population in Caithness so that people arriving here from whatever google search could differentiate between those with past (and in some cases long past) Caithness connections, posting from their perception of life, from wherever they live now, that what they suffer is what everybody else in the UK suffers. That ain't necessarily so in Caithness.......we have a much smaller population......and what irritates those furth of Scotland (or even n the Central belt in Scotland) is not necessarily what irritates those everywhere in Scotland anyway.
Mine was a sarcastic comment Flynn, given that I am quite skeptical about what he said...I wasn't looking for more polite forums ;)
I'm not a he.....do you not understand the Doric?
If all forum upset you maybe you need to consider what the common denominator is. You BTW are the only poster who swears on virtually every post. (read the rules) and are thoroughly obnoxious in my opinion.
So why have I not been banned...lots of people on here have been banned for much less utter crap than you and I manage to regurgitate between us....want a list?........so why are we both still here? Could add a few others to the thoroughly obnoxious in my opinion delineation....like those who are little more than one-liner trolls who post nothing of use or benefit to discussion and are still posting here....but I'd think you know those I am thinking about! I don't much care if I get banned, tbh...no access to here will free me to pontificate elsewhere. I know there is no forum which will make any difference to Governments giving a sh1t about the opinions of punters than it does on here, tbh....and in the great scheme of things, forums are not a lot more than us looking for pats on the head to confirm that somebody, somewhere, thinks the same as we do. You feeling well schmoozed, ducati?
Probably the best place for it.
Way back, we had a forum section which was not specifically Caithness oriented, unlike most of the rest of the forum...and it produced a lot of crap not dissimilar to what we still get from time to time on threads here.......but there was a perception then, rightly or wrongly, that the moderators were moderating from personal bias, and there was an uprising by posters who felt they were being unfairly treated...so the forum set-up changed.
So we are where we are now.......no moderators (unless they are now moderating undercover), no separate forum for Scottish/UK wide subjects to divide them from the purely Caithness subjects.....and no way for folk who come here from an interest in life in Caithness to differentiate a general opinion re the thousands of UK chancers (in their opinion) from the relatively few, in the scheme of the Caithness population, Caithness chancers...and it isn't helped by folk with a Caithness connection who have long lived furth of Caithness and know sod all about life here sticking their oar in from the reference point of life in England as they see it.
Maybe time for a rethink.....again......because if you have a site which was set up to promote Caithness...and it generally, bar this forum, currently does it very well.....and it is a good resource....so.why wouldn't you separate out opinions of general UK/Scottish policy from how it works from personal knowledge of punters in our limited population in Caithness so that people arriving here from whatever google search could differentiate between those with past (and in some cases long past) Caithness connections, posting from their perception of life, from wherever they live now, that what they suffer is what everybody else in the UK suffers. That ain't necessarily so in Caithness.......we have a much smaller population......and what irritates those furth of Scotland (or even n the Central belt in Scotland) is not necessarily what irritates those everywhere in Scotland anyway.
agreed, i just think people are not going to want to come to caithness if they read half the hatred spewed on here, those who do not live in caithness really have no say. in my eyes....they have a opinion that only matters to themselves ...
MerlinScot
19-Feb-13, 09:15
I'm not a he.....do you not understand the Doric?No, among my 6 languages, Doric isn't one of them, sorry!
MerlinScot
19-Feb-13, 09:20
So why have I not been banned...lots of people on here have been banned for much less utter crap than you and I manage to regurgitate between us....want a list?........so why are we both still here? Could add a few others to the thoroughly obnoxious in my opinion delineation....like those who are little more than one-liner trolls who post nothing of use or benefit to discussion and are still posting here....but I'd think you know those I am thinking about! I don't much care if I get banned, tbh...no access to here will free me to pontificate elsewhere. I know there is no forum which will make any difference to Governments giving a sh1t about the opinions of punters than it does on here, tbh....and in the great scheme of things, forums are not a lot more than us looking for pats on the head to confirm that somebody, somewhere, thinks the same as we do. You feeling well schmoozed, ducati?
You said in a previous post that there are no moderators anymore, therefore you can't be banned. And to be honest, people whining all time about a forum they dislike are not to be banned, they are just boring.
If I don't like a forum, I don't go online to whine and pretend the forum changes because it doesn't fit my needs anymore, I only delete the account.
Expecting the forum to change because it is not as you like..well that sounds very dictatorial.
And in the great scheme of things, INDIVIDUALS don't count anything, let alone forums.
rob murray
19-Feb-13, 10:49
I really can't understand why you're getting in such a state over this Rob. Compared to me, I think you've had a smooth run on the Org. I'm an Anglo Scot, a Christian, perceived to be a Tory, even though I've declared that I am not a follower of any political party and I'm a "troll." There's a few other colourful adjectives I could repeat, but I won't because none of them break my stride. I wonder why you let anything get to you. Not sure who you consider the "poor," to be, but that could well be me. I'm on a basic pension and not in receipt of any benefits, but I have never considered myself to be in poverty, despite this. I'm fortunate to have a roof over my head, adequate food and medical care ...... I'm grateful. To pretend there aren't some people who exploit the benefits system, is foolish. I'm sure we all know those who are, for example, fit and able to work, but don't choose to. We know for a fact, that there are plentiful jobs, in Britain. After all, 4 million migrant workers from abroad have been drafted in to fill the vacancies. Maybe you should stick around and tell us what you think about that? Your call. :)
Ok, how many jobs are now available in Caithness..and how many post 2017 ? ALso, throw Sutherland in and not many. Ross shire a lot, largely Fab / Engineering. There are areas in the UK where migrants have taken work available for local people who cant hack working, what gets me is the amount of people who fall for the demonisation agenda, Im not pretending that people dont exploit the system, in my view they are the ungrateful work shy minority, pulling genuine people in need down and need dealt with. I worked in the DHSS for 7 years and believe me know every scam going so I am not naive, but I personally cannot tolerate generic statements ie "they are all scroungers". My father worked all his life in fact was still doing the odd job prior to his death, factor in 7 years war service and he ended in up in miserable circumstances, ie a basic state pension augmented by a poor work pension : people who never worked and who were retired got more in benefits than he did...and that was 20 years ago under the Tories. So why, as you put it, I am getting in a state is the spite / and yes hatred towards a section of society who yes have malingerers but are largely dominated by genuine hard ship cases. End off.
You said in a previous post that there are no moderators anymore, therefore you can't be banned.
If we can't be banned what happened to that fred bloke?
MerlinScot
19-Feb-13, 14:25
If we can't be banned what happened to that fred bloke?You can have your IP address blocked if someone bothered enough to report him/her to the admin/s. This only happens in serious cases though, i.e when an admin receive the news a member is abusive to everyone.
It is not the typical ban you receive from moderators and it is not, usually, due to the spur of the moment or a moderator who is in a bad mood.
I am the admin of two forums, both very quiet, so I never needed any mods patrolling the board ;)
I need to add, in some forums you can't automatically delete your account, so you need to contact the admin/s to have your account deleted.
You can have your IP address blocked if someone bothered enough to report him/her to the admin/s. This only happens in serious cases though, i.e when an admin receive the news a member is abusive to everyone.
It is not the typical ban you receive from moderators and it is not, usually, due to the spur of the moment or a moderator who is in a bad mood.
I am the admin of two forums, both very quiet, so I never needed any mods patrolling the board ;)
I need to add, in some forums you can't automatically delete your account, so you need to contact the admin/s to have your account deleted.
Actually, if you stay on here as long as I have, you will find that someone bothering enough to report him/her to the admin/s only happens in serious cases (as you appear to think), is just not how posters on Caithness.org work. Fred has quite a long history of banning/resurrection, as have a few others, which is partly why there were the complaints about the moderators on here, because they were perceived, rightly or wrongly, as clique driven and not even-handed arbiters. We no longer have the moderators..but I suspect we still have the cliques with influence..unfortunately. I can think of a few who are as bad, if not worse than Fred ever was...but are still posting here.....but then they are not as left wing as Fred is in some of his opinions, so maybe that is the difference. Can't say I have been able to find any reason that a normal person could come up with for his latest banning......and I have checked out his posts.....but I'm sure all those who reported him will tell me what he said to offend this time, :roll:
I would hazard a guess that it came from this thread http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?192619-Britain-Betrays-Palestine-Yet-Again. if only because that was the last thread on which he posted. I've just read over it again...and see no reason for his banning! :confused
Actually, if you stay on here as long as I have, you will find that someone bothering enough to report him/her to the admin/s only happens in serious cases (as you appear to think), is just not how posters on Caithness.org work. Fred has quite a long history of banning/resurrection, as have a few others, which is partly why there were the complaints about the moderators on here, because they were perceived, rightly or wrongly, as clique driven and not even-handed arbiters. We no longer have the moderators..but I suspect we still have the cliques with influence..unfortunately. I can think of a few who are as bad, if not worse than Fred ever was...but are still posting here.....but then they are not as left wing as Fred is in some of his opinions, so maybe that is the difference. Can't say I have been able to find any reason that a normal person could come up with for his latest banning......and I have checked out his posts.....but I'm sure all those who reported him will tell me what he said to offend this time, :roll:
I would hazard a guess that it came from this thread http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?192619-Britain-Betrays-Palestine-Yet-Again. if only because that was the last thread on which he posted. I've just read over it again...and see no reason for his banning! :confused
From what I saw he was banned simply for having a view that the majority didn't like.
M Swanson
20-Feb-13, 12:06
Ok, how many jobs are now available in Caithness..and how many post 2017 ? ALso, throw Sutherland in and not many. Ross shire a lot, largely Fab / Engineering. There are areas in the UK where migrants have taken work available for local people who cant hack working, what gets me is the amount of people who fall for the demonisation agenda, Im not pretending that people dont exploit the system, in my view they are the ungrateful work shy minority, pulling genuine people in need down and need dealt with. I worked in the DHSS for 7 years and believe me know every scam going so I am not naive, but I personally cannot tolerate generic statements ie "they are all scroungers". My father worked all his life in fact was still doing the odd job prior to his death, factor in 7 years war service and he ended in up in miserable circumstances, ie a basic state pension augmented by a poor work pension : people who never worked and who were retired got more in benefits than he did...and that was 20 years ago under the Tories. So why, as you put it, I am getting in a state is the spite / and yes hatred towards a section of society who yes have malingerers but are largely dominated by genuine hard ship cases. End off.
Sorry Rob ... I've only just read you post. I have no idea of the employment situation in Caithness, which is why I didn't specify it in my post. I have asked for this information, but none has been forthcoming. If you reread my posts, you'll notice that I never demonise anyone, but I do discuss those who scrounge off hardworking taxpayers. At least we both agree on this, although I think an estimated £10 billion in tax credit fraud, is a significant sum and this shouldn't be tolerated.
My father too, experienced similar circumstances to yours, despite working all his life. The thing is, I don't think we can compare living conditions then, with the much better quality of life we benefit from today. Times were soooooo much harder! Yes, there's always room for improvements, but I think we should stop looking back; be grateful we know better times and work on addressing changes that need to happen now.
I notice, you barely mention immigration, but doesn't 4 million migrants impact on all spheres of our lives? It must affect the availability of decent accommodation; job vacancies and a drain on our infrastructure, surely. I've seen estimates, that up to a million new arrivals are expected this year, from Bulgaria and Romania. With 2.5 million of our own people unemployed, isn't this madness? I'd also mention the imminent EU membership of Turkey, even though only about 5% of that country is in Europe, 100% of them will have the right to migrate here. Where will it all end? I dread to think. Isn't this what we should be railing against, for the sake of our children and future generations?
those who scrounge off hardworking taxpayers.
There's the demonisation, right there.
MerlinScot
20-Feb-13, 12:44
Actually, if you stay on here as long as I have, you will find that someone bothering enough to report him/her to the admin/s only happens in serious cases (as you appear to think), is just not how posters on Caithness.org work. Fred has quite a long history of banning/resurrection, as have a few others, which is partly why there were the complaints about the moderators on here, because they were perceived, rightly or wrongly, as clique driven and not even-handed arbiters. We no longer have the moderators..but I suspect we still have the cliques with influence..unfortunately. I can think of a few who are as bad, if not worse than Fred ever was...but are still posting here.....but then they are not as left wing as Fred is in some of his opinions, so maybe that is the difference. Can't say I have been able to find any reason that a normal person could come up with for his latest banning......and I have checked out his posts.....but I'm sure all those who reported him will tell me what he said to offend this time,
I would hazard a guess that it came from this thread http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?192619-Britain-Betrays-Palestine-Yet-Again. if only because that was the last thread on which he posted. I've just read over it again...and see no reason for his banning!
Oddequine, with all due respect I hope NOT to stay on this forum as long as you have, because that would mean to invest my time and energy in something that is not worth it. But not because of the forum, but because at the end of the day... does this affect your or my life?
Forums are for discussions and sometimes for banter, sometimes for something important and..most of the time NOT important.......
I think that in your previous posts you stated your uneasiness in posting here in the future... My reply was that nobody will ban you only for complaining about the 'changes' that happened in the forum.
I browsed the thread you mentioned in your post and yes I can see a reason why he had been banned. Not as Flynn commented because he had views the majority didn't like but because he had posted the same controversial topic more than once. People who have strong views they are not usually very appreciated on forums, because they are only looking for people who can validate their own views, they are or were never open for discussion. Generally they are considered as pot-stirrers, bombs ready to explode and sooner or later someone get pi**ed and report the poster.
We assume the internet is free, but that is until a certain degree. On forums dedicated to general discussions, opinionated attitudes just get you into trouble. I speak out of experience here :roll:
Concerning the 'cliques' (using your own term although it is a negative one), I still have to see a forum without them. People group together because they share the same ideas.
Believe me, in one situation or another, I was in many forums in the past and cliques always existed everywhere. It is your ability to co-exist with the pre-existing cliques that makes you enjoy forums... for what they are, forums.
Remember that at the end of the day they don't affect your life, oddequine ;)
M Swanson
20-Feb-13, 12:46
Don't be silly, Flynn. It's a fact. Not a blanket statement of ALL welfare claimants, but aimed at those who do scrounge. There's a difference. As well you know. Doh!
Don't be silly, Flynn. It's a fact. Not a blanket statement of ALL welfare claimants, but aimed at those who do scrounge. There's a difference. As well you know. Doh!
That's the first time I've seen you make any kind of distinction. Now, perhaps you could enlighten us as to your views on the much bigger problem of tax fraud and tax avoidance.
although I think an estimated £10 billion in tax credit fraud, is a significant sum and this shouldn't be tolerated.
Quite an estimation, just how much finger waving / Daily Wail reading did we do to get that one?
rob murray
20-Feb-13, 14:24
Sorry Rob ... I've only just read you post. I have no idea of the employment situation in Caithness, which is why I didn't specify it in my post. I have asked for this information, but none has been forthcoming. If you reread my posts, you'll notice that I never demonise anyone, but I do discuss those who scrounge off hardworking taxpayers. At least we both agree on this, although I think an estimated £10 billion in tax credit fraud, is a significant sum and this shouldn't be tolerated.
My father too, experienced similar circumstances to yours, despite working all his life. The thing is, I don't think we can compare living conditions then, with the much better quality of life we benefit from today. Times were soooooo much harder! Yes, there's always room for improvements, but I think we should stop looking back; be grateful we know better times and work on addressing changes that need to happen now.
I notice, you barely mention immigration, but doesn't 4 million migrants impact on all spheres of our lives? It must affect the availability of decent accommodation; job vacancies and a drain on our infrastructure, surely. I've seen estimates, that up to a million new arrivals are expected this year, from Bulgaria and Romania. With 2.5 million of our own people unemployed, isn't this madness? I'd also mention the imminent EU membership of Turkey, even though only about 5% of that country is in Europe, 100% of them will have the right to migrate here. Where will it all end? I dread to think. Isn't this what we should be railing against, for the sake of our children and future generations?
Immigrants : free labour movement laws for all Eu member states, but how many Brits move to say Germany / France etc ?? slightly complicates matters ! Also why do they come here...largely to work, eg there is a huge skills shortage in fab / Engineering and across a lot of trades,( keep your eye on Nigg and composition of work force ) immigrants are here to fill these posts that locals either haven't the skills and yes in certain activities dont want the jobs and good for them in doing the work. In many parts of the UK work is very scarce making it harder for the genuine to get work. There always is a degree of work shy...but not 2.5 million are work shy. It seems that EU membership / free labour movement has given the work shy an excuse....foreigners can do the dirty work...mind you the history of the UJ c 20 century is marked my mass inflows of immigrants, pre 1914 germans, post 1920 italians, pos 1945 empire citizens all worked providing special skills and progressed our society so hats off to them. c21 is a different game that I will agree with you.
Quite an estimation, just how much finger waving / Daily Wail reading did we do to get that one?
Estimates are between £5.2billion and £70billion lost from the economy through tax avoidance/fraud each year.
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/11/tax-avoidance-justice-network
I must have misread the post, I thought it was referring to tax credits as in benefit fraud rather than tax avoidance.
M Swanson
20-Feb-13, 20:01
Quite an estimation, just how much finger waving / Daily Wail reading did we do to get that one?
Absolutely none, Phill. One is spoilt for choice in finding the info for this £10 billion worth of frauds. Go walkabout ...... it's all there and it'll certainly be time better spent than obsessing about the Mail, which I guarantee you read much more often than I do. :Razz
I must have misread the post, I thought it was referring to tax credits as in benefit fraud rather than tax avoidance.
Nope. You didn't misread the post. It's just ole Flynn again, who, being unable to contest my findings, resorts to shifting the conversation elsewhere. Tiresome, but true, I'm afraid.
One is spoilt for choice in finding the info for this £10 billion worth of frauds. Go walkabout ......Which frauds? And what real info'? Seeing as we appear not to read the DM, I'm stuck with David Icke unless you would be kind enough to throw some links forward.
I get £1.1 to £1.6bn for 'benefit' fraud. And similar figures to Flynn for the generic tax 'evasion'. However it would be interesting to see what the perceptions are for avoidance, evasion & fraud (the latter being quite clear cut I would assume).
Absolutely none, Phill. One is spoilt for choice in finding the info for this £10 billion worth of frauds. Go walkabout ...... it's all there and it'll certainly be time better spent than obsessing about the Mail, which I guarantee you read much more often than I do. :Razz
Nope. You didn't misread the post. It's just ole Flynn again, who, being unable to contest my findings, resorts to shifting the conversation elsewhere. Tiresome, but true, I'm afraid.
Total benefit fraud in the UK is estimated at a maximum of about £1 billion. And that figure includes mistakes by the DWP. So I too would like to know your source for this £10billion figure.
M Swanson
21-Feb-13, 00:03
There we go Flynn. I hope the Guardian will be acceptable as a source? Such incompetence and massive fraud, isn't it? No wonder you thought it difficult to comprehend.
Iain Duncan Smith: £10bn lost in tax credit fraud and error | Politics | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/dec/31/iain-duncan-smith-tax-credits)
So no real figure, just a random unsubstantiated soundbite from a politico.
BTW, why direct your linky at Flynn when it was I that requested them?
There we go Flynn. I hope the Guardian will be acceptable as a source? Such incompetence and massive fraud, isn't it? No wonder you thought it difficult to comprehend.
Iain Duncan Smith: £10bn lost in tax credit fraud and error | Politics | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/dec/31/iain-duncan-smith-tax-credits)
Perhaps you missed the part that explains that '£10billion error and fraud' is over an eight year period. Of that £10 billion only £1.27 billion was down to fraud - that's 0.7% of the total spent on Tax Credits - the rest was down to DWP and HM Revenue error. So, yet again you have been suckered by tory rhetoric designed to paint anyone claiming Tax Credits as a 'fraudster'.
When a Tory minister makes wild claims about 'enormous fraud', it always pays to check the facts:
The claimhttp://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/files/2012/12/factFiction4.jpg (http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/files/2012/12/factFiction4.jpg)
“Between 2003 and 2010, Labour spent a staggering £171 billion on tax credits, contributing to a 60 per cent rise in the welfare bill. Far too much of that money was wasted, with fraud and error under Labour costing over £10 billion.”
The verdict
Mr Duncan Smith’s got his sums wrong on this one.
The total amount spent on tax credits, from 2003-04 to 2010-11, was £175.636bn, according to HMRC.
But because that includes the first year of the coalition government, we took the last year – 2010-11 – off, during which £28.542bn was spent.
That meant that under Labour, from when the scheme started to their last year in government, £147bn was spent, not £171bn.
We also asked HMRC how much had been lost through fraud and error in the tax credits system under Labour. It was actually £11.16bn, not £10bn, so Mr Duncan Smith’s only £1.16bn out there – which is better than his previous effort.
It’s also worth pointing out that of the £11.16bn lost to fraud and error under Labour, just £1.27bn of that was actually down to fraud. Or 0.7 per cent of the total amount spent on tax credits.
http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-ids-tax-credit-claims-discredited/12160
http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b248/freedomsmilies/tumbleweed-1.gif
Oh dear. IDS's flagship Work Programme is today exposed as a huge failure with only a 3.5% success rate:
http://www.channel4.com/news/work-programme-public-accounts-committee-damning-report
Also quietly in the background the 'bedroom' tax is getting 'reviewed' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21541400
Maybe Cameron doesn't really want to be remembered like Thatcher, bedroom tax riots sounds just so limp.
I think there will be food riots first.
In one report it said that only 20 people off incapacity benefit had been placed in employment. In a previous life I worked as a Disablement Resettlement Officer in a Jobcentre in Manchester. This was in the 80s with 3 million out of work! I moved more than 20 people into work BY MYSELF in one year even given the economic environment as it was. I wouldnt pay these companies today in washers.
Oddequine, with all due respect I hope NOT to stay on this forum as long as you have, because that would mean to invest my time and energy in something that is not worth it. But not because of the forum, but because at the end of the day... does this affect your or my life?
Forums are for discussions and sometimes for banter, sometimes for something important and..most of the time NOT important.......
I think that in your previous posts you stated your uneasiness in posting here in the future... My reply was that nobody will ban you only for complaining about the 'changes' that happened in the forum.
I browsed the thread you mentioned in your post and yes I can see a reason why he had been banned. Not as Flynn commented because he had views the majority didn't like but because he had posted the same controversial topic more than once. People who have strong views they are not usually very appreciated on forums, because they are only looking for people who can validate their own views, they are or were never open for discussion. Generally they are considered as pot-stirrers, bombs ready to explode and sooner or later someone get pi**ed and report the poster.
We assume the internet is free, but that is until a certain degree. On forums dedicated to general discussions, opinionated attitudes just get you into trouble. I speak out of experience here :roll:
Concerning the 'cliques' (using your own term although it is a negative one), I still have to see a forum without them. People group together because they share the same ideas.
Believe me, in one situation or another, I was in many forums in the past and cliques always existed everywhere. It is your ability to co-exist with the pre-existing cliques that makes you enjoy forums... for what they are, forums.
Remember that at the end of the day they don't affect your life, oddequine ;)
There are many on here who produce, or have produced, a number of posts about contentious issues....think global warming, windmills, political opinion etc....heck, on here, even threads about speeding in Lybster turns into a contentious issue with snipes against "incomers".
Fred has posted on that particular subject, under some guise or another, more than once certainly, but in 4000+ posts over a number of years, relatively little...about 0.5% of the whole of his posts mention Jews, America, Zionists, Israel, Muslims or Palestine/Palestinians going by the archives.....and not all of those were about those subjects specifically, in fact some started quite innocuously...and often it was a responder to a post of his who introduced the terms. Over the piece, fred has produced the same percentage of threads to total posts regarding his special interests (barring the inclusion of his posts in the Genealogy Forum), as another individual has done, in the same time, regarding his special interest subject. So not likely that he was banned because he had posted the same controversial topic more than once.....is it?
I agree People who have strong views they are not usually very appreciated on forums, because they are only looking for people who can validate their own views, they are or were never open for discussion....but I have my difficulty with the idea that fred is any more dogmatic regarding his views, and any more contemptuous of the views of others, than any right winger posting on here is of the views of any left winger who disagrees with them, any Global Warming aficionado on here is of the anti-climate change (or simply anti-windmill) crowd etc..or vice-versa.
Seems to me, if there is no direct personal attack or other rule breaking to warrant being reported....why are people who get pi**ed and report the poster not just ignoring the poster? That seems the grown-up thing to do....seems rather childish to be picking and choosing which numpty you personally think is boring, you are going to try and get banned next, because you think they are boring....when you could just stop reading them, and let those who do want to read/respond to them, and don't find the subjects boring, get on with it.
Seems to me, if there is no direct personal attack or other rule breaking to warrant being reported....why are people who get pi**ed and report the poster not just ignoring the poster? That seems the grown-up thing to do....seems rather childish to be picking and choosing which numpty you personally think is boring, you are going to try and get banned next, because you think they are boring....when you could just stop reading them, and let those who do want to read/respond to them, and don't find the subjects boring, get on with it.
May I respectfully suggest you read and obey the forum rules
Swearing & Sexual Content
We do not tolerate swearing or sexual content (or innuendo) of any kind. This includes using ***'s or any other form of word ma5k1ng. You must understand that these forums are read by people of all ages and we must moderate accordingly.
The Infraction points will vary from 1 point for Innuendo to >10 points for intentional strong swearing, duration of the points will vary but will generally be 3 months.
May I respectfully suggest you read and obey the forum rules
Swearing & Sexual Content
We do not tolerate swearing or sexual content (or innuendo) of any kind. This includes using ***'s or any other form of word ma5k1ng. You must understand that these forums are read by people of all ages and we must moderate accordingly.
The Infraction points will vary from 1 point for Innuendo to >10 points for intentional strong swearing, duration of the points will vary but will generally be 3 months.
I've seen numerous orgers break this rule since 'fred' was banned. Why the special rule for 'fred' and not for anyone else?
I've seen numerous orgers break this rule since 'fred' was banned. Why the special rule for 'fred' and not for anyone else?
I have no idea why fred was banned, I am not a moderator, and I dont care either.
MerlinScot
22-Feb-13, 20:15
I have no idea why fred was banned, I am not a moderator, and I dont care either.Me neither, didn't knew who Fred was and I couldn't care less. Honestly, oddequine, you're the only one (and I've been here only..what 3 weeks?) who makes a mole out of a molehill in some posts. I mean if for you it is so unbearable to stay here, I don't get why you just don't leave. Not to make a favour to others ( who cares!) but to yourself. Internet is what it is, everywhere, and you're not going to change that, whether you like the spammers and the haters or not.And if you feel the need to pontificate elsewhere (using your own words here), you don't need permission or a ban to do that, that is a freedom you have and anyone else have in this forum and everywhere.
secrets in symmetry
23-Feb-13, 01:40
Me neither, didn't knew who Fred was and I couldn't care less. Honestly, oddequine, you're the only one (and I've been here only..what 3 weeks?) who makes a mole out of a molehill in some posts. I mean if for you it is so unbearable to stay here, I don't get why you just don't leave. Not to make a favour to others ( who cares!) but to yourself. Internet is what it is, everywhere, and you're not going to change that, whether you like the spammers and the haters or not.And if you feel the need to pontificate elsewhere (using your own words here), you don't need permission or a ban to do that, that is a freedom you have and anyone else have in this forum and everywhere.I don't know why fred was banned. Many of his posts on Israel/Palestine made sense to me - then he turned the conversation onto himself, and I got bored....
Forum admins often remove the posts that lead to bans, so we may never know.
Fred posted and told us why (in his opinion) he was banned, but he's changed his "post" to something else - which in my opinion actually undermines his case. You can't win political arguments by demonising extremists (on either side).
May I respectfully suggest you read and obey the forum rules
Swearing & Sexual Content
We do not tolerate swearing or sexual content (or innuendo) of any kind. This includes using ***'s or any other form of word ma5k1ng. You must understand that these forums are read by people of all ages and we must moderate accordingly.
The Infraction points will vary from 1 point for Innuendo to >10 points for intentional strong swearing, duration of the points will vary but will generally be 3 months.
Okesy Doksey.....so link me to the posts in which fred has produced swearing or sexual content (or innuendo) of any kind.
Me neither, didn't knew who Fred was and I couldn't care less. Honestly, oddequine, you're the only one (and I've been here only..what 3 weeks?) who makes a mole out of a molehill in some posts. I mean if for you it is so unbearable to stay here, I don't get why you just don't leave. Not to make a favour to others ( who cares!) but to yourself. Internet is what it is, everywhere, and you're not going to change that, whether you like the spammers and the haters or not.And if you feel the need to pontificate elsewhere (using your own words here), you don't need permission or a ban to do that, that is a freedom you have and anyone else have in this forum and everywhere.
And to an extent, that is the point...you have only been on here three weeks. If you hadn't stuck your oar, from the level of no knowledge at all bar the last very few weeks..I'd not have posted on this subject at such length at all! So why do you have an opinion on a subject which has been hovering here for years before you ever turned up? Just because you can? Some of us have been on here for years, (fred has been on here longer than I have)...and know how the forum has worked in the past.....and, frankly, despite all the "changes" as a result of the members' past insurrection, nothing much has actually changed in the running of the forum, bar there are no "official" moderators any more, but there does appear to be "unofficial" ones.
I really like the Org as a resource, and tbh, I am mostly here because of the Genealogy Forum, which I recommend every chance I get, (and I get a lot of chances) and think this General Forum currently detracts from that useful resource if it is the first thing the googling punter sees. If the Org is going to allow non-Caithness subjects to be inserted, then they shouldn't be moderating them according to the mindset of those Caithness punters who march to the acceptance of everything the media spews...which is how it appears from a look at those who have been banned over the years, and about whom you know nothing .....and those who haven't...so maybe the Org should be setting up (again) a separate forum to differentiate life in Caithness from the influence of UK and Scottish Government on life in Caithness. That way people who just want to read about Vampires in Portgower, the cost of getting internet deliveries to Caithness or just a general idea of the life they might have in Caithness if they want to move here etc can be spared (or encouraged) to bypass the likes of threads regarding Scottish Independence, the current UK Government, the current Scottish Government, the EU influence on the UK, the US influence on the UK etc...which is not specifically Caithness oriented.
Molehills are just as much an impediment as mountains, if you trip on them....so I have always thought that the "making a mountain out of a molehill" was a pointless epithet.....it may illustrate the height of an impediment, but not the fact of one....and an impediment can be as small as the step into a bungalow.
I will duck out of this forum when either I decide I will, or Niall bans me....but I do appreciate your input....even though I intend to ignore it.
Any chance a moderator could split this thread? An interesting political discussion has been buried in a dull discussion about banning.
Thanks.
I may be wrong but IIRC I think previously fred has been embroiled with PM's that may have gotten a little personal by both parties and bans / infarctions were dished out.
That aside, I think we are still waiting on some accurate figures on benefit fraud aren't we?
It does seem a bit of smoke & mirrors at least if they want to worry about a billion here or there when the loss of the AAA rating will cost far more than that over the next couple of years.
The grubbyment is failing, DC & co have got to pull some pretty good magic out of the bag in the next 18 months otherwise he'll go down in history as the PM that lost the UK, EU and turned the rUK into a third world nation.
That aside, I think we are still waiting on some accurate figures on benefit fraud aren't we?
It does seem a bit of smoke & mirrors at least if they want to worry about a billion here or there when the loss of the AAA rating will cost far more than that over the next couple of years.
The grubbyment is failing, DC & co have got to pull some pretty good magic out of the bag in the next 18 months otherwise he'll go down in history as the PM that lost the UK, EU and turned the rUK into a third world nation.
I provided figures and reference a page back in post #95, but it disappeared in all the off topic stuff about banning.
I may be wrong but IIRC I think previously fred has been embroiled with PM's that may have gotten a little personal by both parties and bans / infarctions were dished out.
That aside, I think we are still waiting on some accurate figures on benefit fraud aren't we?
It does seem a bit of smoke & mirrors at least if they want to worry about a billion here or there when the loss of the AAA rating will cost far more than that over the next couple of years.
The grubbyment is failing, DC & co have got to pull some pretty good magic out of the bag in the next 18 months otherwise he'll go down in history as the PM that lost the UK, EU and turned the rUK into a third world nation.
I disagree. I don't think any grubbiment could do any better just now and the alternative will do a lot worse. Being the last of the bunch more or less to be downgraded isn't too much of a problem. (Except to the rep. of the chanceller).
I have yet to hear any alternative plans that make any sense, just a lot of moaning. One thing that is very positive is the employment figures that bizzarely seem to be going the right way despite the apparent lack of growth. I think something has happened to the world economy that is irreversable and is not yet fully understood.
I quite agree that if Labour (new or otherwise) were in the driving seat it would be no better. The downgrade will have an effect on bringing down the deficit and may well cost us a fair bitty but currently it is more of a political issue.
The jobs figures may be going in the right direction but how much manipulation is there in the figures and how good are these jobs?
Ok, a job is a job, but how many are permanent full time positions with a longterm sustainable future?
I'm seeing many temp' vacancies and loads of part time and minimal hours positions. Some of these loop back into the benefits issue especially the tax credits etc. more people may be off the 'dole' but are topping up their low hours with other 'benefits' and thus still being tarred with the workshy lazy feckless stick.
With grand ideas such as minimum wage being put in place this has removed full time positions and replaced them with part time ones so the employers still keep their wage bill the same but the end result is a reduced pay packet by dividing up the jobs.
We are just becoming a nation of part time workers many of which are getting subsidised by the benefits system, dare I say it, for some this is a better option than full time work.
So not really all that good when you look beyond the figures.
One thing that is very positive is the employment figures that bizzarely seem to be going the right way despite the apparent lack of growth
People on 'work experience' - IDS's Workfare - are not counted in the unemployed figure, even though they are still drawing JSA.
MerlinScot
23-Feb-13, 15:48
Oddequine, given that you went on a rant off topic for two pages, I guess it was a good idea not to quote you this time.
And to be honest, I usually ignore whiners, because they are self-centered and boring.
Therefore this will be the last reply you get here because it seems you only want to stir the pot. You're barking up the wrong tree, darling. Never fell for that and never will. Good luck.
People on 'work experience' - IDS's Workfare - are not counted in the unemployed figure, even though they are still drawing JSA.
Are you saying the job totals are wrong? More people employed than there has ever been? 2.5 million unemployed?
Are you saying the job totals are wrong? More people employed than there has ever been? 2.5 million unemployed?
I'm saying the 2.5million unemployed is not an accurate figure, because the unemployed currently in unpaid 'work experience' are not counted in the total unemployed figure, even though they are still unemployed and still drawing JSA.
secrets in symmetry
24-Feb-13, 01:13
Oddequine, given that you went on a rant off topic for two pages, I guess it was a good idea not to quote you this time.
And to be honest, I usually ignore whiners, because they are self-centered and boring.
Therefore this will be the last reply you get here because it seems you only want to stir the pot. You're barking up the wrong tree, darling. Never fell for that and never will. Good luck.You got there - eventually! :cool:
secrets in symmetry
24-Feb-13, 01:55
Atheism is a religion in the same way that 'off' on a television is a channel.Excellent! I hadn't seen that one before. :cool:
So, so true - as the sheep baaaaaaa....
rob murray
24-Feb-13, 18:45
Looks like there going to be lot more so called scroungers now the UK is being down graded from triple AAA...first time this has ever happened...and on the prudence party watch..even the so called socialists, you know the ones who according to most posters wrecked the economy didnt achieve such an accolade...tuff eh !!!
Looks like there going to be lot more so called scroungers now the UK is being down graded from triple AAA...first time this has ever happened...and on the prudence party watch..even the so called socialists, you know the ones who according to most posters wrecked the economy didnt achieve such an accolade...tuff eh !!!
Actually, it is not. Don't worry it's no biggy.
Actually, it is not. Don't worry it's no biggy.
Even though it has been one of the reasons trumpeted all over the Unionist media as a reason for Scotland to stay in the UK....because less than the triple A rating would mean higher borrowing costs than a country, such as the UK, which has the treasured triple-A........and if the Scottish government has to spend more to service debts, that's a higher share of government expenditure. :confused The No-campaign certainly made it sound like a biggy!
Even though it has been one of the reasons trumpeted all over the Unionist media as a reason for Scotland to stay in the UK....because less than the triple A rating would mean higher borrowing costs than a country, such as the UK, which has the treasured triple-A........and if the Scottish government has to spend more to service debts, that's a higher share of government expenditure. :confused The No-campaign certainly made it sound like a biggy!
It's no biggy for a known quantity like the UK (Never defaulted). A big risk for lenders to a new unknown.
Actually, it is not. Don't worry it's no biggy.
No biggy? It was the golden test of Osborne and Cameron's economic policies. They have failed. Utterly. Failed so badly they are on course to borrow more in 5 years than Labour borrowed in 13 years!
Ah well the world has changed (it does that) but those of a particular political dogma just shout at er... everything.
Ah well the world has changed (it does that) but those of a particular political dogma just shout at er... everything.
You're really going to say that? If this had been a Labour government that performed so badly our country's credit rating was downgraded you would have been shouting to the clouds!
You're really going to say that? If this had been a Labour government that performed so badly our country's credit rating was downgraded you would have been shouting to the clouds!
Almost everybodys has, so what? Move to Germany or Canada if it is so important to you.
M Swanson
01-Mar-13, 10:34
You're really going to say that? If this had been a Labour government that performed so badly our country's credit rating was downgraded you would have been shouting to the clouds!
How odd, Flynn. Hasn't Britain lost its' Triple A, rating, because the Tory austerity measures haven't been enough? Perhaps, we ought to make even more stringent cuts to satisfy the rating agencies? S'pect you'd like that! :D Anyway, who rates the rating agencies? After all, it's supposed to mean whether, or not, the government can pay its' debts. Can you think of a single incident when Britain has defaulted? I haven't heard of the Americans, or French, doing so either, but they've also been downgraded. I won't dwell on the legacy left by Labour, but you might like to check-out the facts. Try looking at 2008 and 2009 .... the madness years. The Guardian has run a pretty revealing graph. Get on to it, Flynn. ;)
Almost everybodys has, so what? Move to Germany or Canada if it is so important to you.
Or Russia, China, or Cuba? Not a snowballs chance in hell!
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.