Strapped For Cash

[The_Lhc]

if I thought mine was a minority viewpoint, I'd probably leave too.

Do you mean that you would exclude yourself from ever making a contribution on the whole forum because other people didn't agree with you on one thing in the miriad of things we [try to] discuss on WHF?

If you felt that that topic in particular was more important than the others (and lets face it hi-fi doesn't really fall under the banner of "important") and that your viewpoint was not only not being listened to but was being actively disparaged in a less than polite manner then I can see why someone might feel that this wasn't somewhere they wanted to hangout anymore.

I mean, this is supposed to be "fun" right?

 

[eggontoast]

That was also the only side that provided any solid facts (that benefit fraud accounts for less than 0.5% of the total welfare budget), rather than throwing around highly emotive comments based on newspaper headlines.

Not meaning to start the same thread over but, wouldn't it be a bit of a rubbish fraud if they knew you were doing it ?

 

[Anonymous]

Strange. As I have already pointed out (but deleted by mods ??), my thread was not posted with the intention of "goading" anyone. All I did was ask a simple question, with no spin on it, and no names mentioned.

If the more sensitive on here don't like my views thats fine, I haven't got a problem with it. I don't like the views of people who have to resort to quoting from the Guardian, but I'm happy to debate with them in a civilised fashion, without swearing or mindless abuse.

I think it was clear from the responses to that thread that there are many like minded people who despair of the "shameless" benefits culture. That does not make them bad people, they are just honest hard working people who resent their taxes being used to pay people to sit at home and do nothing.

Why anyone (apart from Zoe Williams :rofl: ) should find that offensive is frankly beyond me, but if they really wish to take their ball home and not play anymore, that is their prerogative.

 

[harveymt]

I was under the impression that posts and threads of a political nature were not allowed under house rules?

 

[professorhat]

I was under the impression that posts and threads of a political nature were not allowed under house rules?

Nope, nothing that says that in the house rules. Would also be a very hard rule to enforce i.e. define "political".

 

[rjb70stoke]

Its a sad day when members on any forum resort to profanity to make their point, and the site has lost a couple of respected contributers.

While I DONT want to get into the issues of the other thread, surely the events of the last few days in Nottingham prove that debate is needed with regard to the welfare state. I have no problem supporting the unfortunate people who are genuinely out of work, and the poor souls who for whatever reason cannot work, (I have an uncle with quite severe mental issues, who hasnt been able to work for over 30 years), BUT the idea of keeping the Philpotts of this world in their luxurious lifestyle pretty much makes my blood boil.

 

[Bertie1]

If the Philpotts of this world of this world are your issue then start a new post.

Why would you bring them into this thread or are all people on welfare to be viewed with the same suspicions until we never hear of them?

 

[BenLaw]

Its a sad day when members on any forum resort to profanity to make their point, and the site has lost a couple of respected contributers.

While I DONT want to get into the issues of the other thread, surely the events of the last few days in Nottingham prove that debate is needed with regard to the welfare state. I have no problem supporting the unfortunate people who are genuinely out of work, and the poor souls who for whatever reason cannot work, (I have an uncle with quite severe mental issues, who hasnt been able to work for over 30 years), BUT the idea of keeping the Philpotts of this world in their luxurious lifestyle pretty much makes my blood boil.

I would hardly call 11 children in a 3 bedroom house a luxurious lifestyle.

Anyway, I saw a black man in court the other day, we need to have a debate about race in this country.

 

[Anonymous]

I would hardly call 11 children in a 3 bedroom house a luxurious lifestyle.

Anyway, I saw a black man in court the other day, we need to have a debate about race in this country.

:wall:

 

[Anonymous]

That was also the only side that provided any solid facts (that benefit fraud accounts for less than 0.5% of the total welfare budget), rather than throwing around highly emotive comments based on newspaper headlines. The side doing that also never attempted to counter any of the arguments put forward by the other side but you could lay that at both sides really.

I don't recall anyone mentioning benefit fraud. I think the subject was the overly generous nature of the welfare system overall, for those claiming legally.

As for "countering arguments" put forward by "the other side", I also don't recall anyone from that side putting up any cogent arguments; I believe the standard of comment never rose above the usual "evil Dail Mail" rants so beloved of the Guardianistas when they have no argument to put forward.

 

[Alec]

Its a sad day when members on any forum resort to profanity to make their point, and the site has lost a couple of respected contributers.

While I DONT want to get into the issues of the other thread, surely the events of the last few days in Nottingham prove that debate is needed with regard to the welfare state. I have no problem supporting the unfortunate people who are genuinely out of work, and the poor souls who for whatever reason cannot work, (I have an uncle with quite severe mental issues, who hasnt been able to work for over 30 years), BUT the idea of keeping the Philpotts of this world in their luxurious lifestyle pretty much makes my blood boil.

I would hardly call 11 children in a 3 bedroom house a luxurious lifestyle.

Anyway, I saw a black man in court the other day, we need to have a debate about race in this country.

Yup!

 

[jjbomber]

we need to have a debate about race in this country.

It's Grand National day, so I suggest we start with that race

 

[John Duncan]

we need to have a debate about race in this country.

It's Grand National day, so I suggest we start with that race

We're just picking our horses now. I'm going for Imperial Commander.

 

[eggontoast]

I would hardly call 11 children in a 3 bedroom house a luxurious lifestyle.

Anyway, I saw a black man in court the other day, we need to have a debate about race in this country.

No, luxurious would be the wrong description but having lots of kids to fund your lifestyle is wrong, he used them (kids) as cash cows. I get sick of hearing what a great father he was to them too, no he wasn't, if he went and worked to support his family that might have been a start. Not only has the state supported this utter waste of space for most of his life it now has to pay for him to be in jail for 17 years too /

I don't see how any tax paying citizen could condone that really.

 

[Alec]

As for "countering arguments" put forward by "the other side", I also don't recall anyone from that side putting up any cogent arguments; I believe the standard of comment never rose above the usual "evil Dail Mail" rants so beloved of the Guardianistas when they have no argument to put forward.

Maybe your time would be better spent getting help with your reading and attention problems.

 

[marou]

if I thought mine was a minority viewpoint, I'd probably leave too.

Do you mean that you would exclude yourself from ever making a contribution on the whole forum because other people didn't agree with you on one thing in the miriad of things we [try to] discuss on WHF?

If yes, then I feel immensely sorry for you. Where exactly is Utopia?

Since you're clearly not stupid I can only think that you're deliberately misunderstanding my point which was that I expect disagreement to be polite. You have quite an abrasive style which, I think, occasionally strays into rudeness - if this deters people from debating with you what do you gain? I'm happy to have my views challenged but without the implication that I'm stupid to hold them.

 

[Alec]

What time do they kick off?

 

[Andrew Everard]

Yet again, can we please refrain from personal insults, or this thread will end up being locked.

 

[Alec]

Yet again, can we please refrain from personal insults

?

 

[John Duncan]

What time do they kick off?

That's the football you're thinking of. They're easily distinguishable - one is a load of dumb animals who cost millions running around in Liverpool, the other is - actually, hang on...

 

[Alec]

What time do they kick off?

That's the football you're thinking of. They're easily distinguishable - one is a load of dumb animals who cost millions running around in Liverpool, the other is - actually, hang on...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcYppAs6ZdI

 

[marou]

That was also the only side that provided any solid facts (that benefit fraud accounts for less than 0.5% of the total welfare budget), rather than throwing around highly emotive comments based on newspaper headlines. The side doing that also never attempted to counter any of the arguments put forward by the other side but you could lay that at both sides really.

I don't recall anyone mentioning benefit fraud. I think the subject was the overly generous nature of the welfare system overall, for those claiming legally.

As for "countering arguments" put forward by "the other side", I also don't recall anyone from that side putting up any cogent arguments; I believe the standard of comment never rose above the usual "evil Dail Mail" rants so beloved of the Guardianistas when they have no argument to put forward.

Actually I did offer evidence to which you didn't reply. As it happens I don't think Daily Mail readers are evil but a newspaper which is registered in a tax haven (as indeed is the Guardian) is not well-placed to preach about the 'something for nothing' culture. But to state my position unequivocally - I don't approve of people who take benefits without any intention of working but the evidence suggests that these are such a small number that 'cracking down' on them would not be worth the effort and cost involved but would also risk snaring some who are legitimately entitled to benefits. Living in a free society entails occasionally putting up with behaviour which only a police state might effectively stop and even police states are not immune to corruption.

 

[Alec]

4.15, according to the rag that was the first entry when I googled my question. I can go for a shower now then.

 

[Andrew Everard]

?

Maybe your time would be better spent getting help with your reading and attention problems.

 

[Alec]

?

Maybe your time would be better spent getting help with your reading and attention problems.

Ah. Nice to see you back on the Mod team.

Edited to reflect that I think what I said is actually untrue.