Outraged protesters chase Tory MP out of town after he turns up to open foodbank

by Guest Fri Jul 24, 2015 5:49 pm

First topic message reminder :

More than 100 people screamed 'shame on you' at Scottish Secretary David Mundell - who claims the rise in foodbanks isn't caused by welfare cuts

Furious protesters have chased a Tory MP out of town after he turned up to open a foodbank - despite denying their huge rise is caused by welfare cuts.

A raging crowd screamed 'shame on you' at Scottish Secretary David Mundell after he sneaked out the charity's back door today in Dumfries.

Up to 200 people forced his white Ford Focus to a crawl as they surrounded it bearing placards with slogans against the Tory minister.

He sat ashen-faced in his seat and eventually his car was allowed to move after four police officers calmed the crowd, our Scottish sister paper the Daily Record reported.

The Tory MP for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale has previously denied a link between food bank use and his party’s welfare reforms.

He was grilled by a Scottish Parliament committee in February which insisted there was a link - but insisted: "We’re just not going to agree on that."

And today Scotland's only Tory MP dismissed the protest as a 'stunt'.

He told ITV News foodbanks have become 'politicised', adding: "It's about doing things about the issues that are affecting people and their day-to-day lives.

"And not about stunts and gestures and constantly trying to politicise the good work of people who are trying to help."

The number of foodbank users has exploded across Britain as Tory cuts continue to bite.

The Trussell Trust charity, which runs the foodbank Mr Mundell opened today, handed out 3 days' emergency food more than a million times last year.

That was a huge rise from 913,000 in 2013, 347,000 in 2012 and 129,000 in 2011.

Mundell sneaked into the building in Dumfries' Apex Centre through the back door and refused to answer questions from the press.

Scotland's Trussell Trust manager Ewan Gurr, who invited the minister, said: "It is not a pleasure opening a new food bank.

“David and I probably both stand here with conflicting emotions.

"I have welcomed Labour MPs to open food banks, SNP MPs, and Liberal Democrat MPs to open food banks.

"And you sure as hell better believe I am going to welcome a Conservative MP to come and open a food banks, so I welcome David Mundell today."

Speaking in front of sandwiches, biscuits, and quiche laid on for his arrival, Mundell said: “I believe it is very important to have full, open discussions about issues, and I don’t want to hide away from people’s concerns, and I don’t do that.

“I have been a local representative for 16 years, and I haven’t spent that time just going round speaking to people who agree with me, or who agree with government policy.

“That is a very inappropriate way for a local MP to act.”

But disabled resident Ian Patterson, 66, who was at today's protest, fumed: "If I had still had both my legs I would have booted him in the nuts.

"It is disgusting that Mundell has come along today to open a foodbank when it is his party which had put people in the position where they can’t afford to feed themselves.

"The Tories are targeting the most vulnerable people in society - the disabled, the elderly, and now the young with their cut in housing benefit for the under 21s.

"If Mundell believes in his party policies, and that food banks haven’t been caused by the Tories, he would have come out the front door and faced folk - not scurried out the back like a coward."

Fellow disabled protester Lesley-Anne McLelland, 56, added: “It is absolutely ridiculous that so many people have to rely upon food banks in Scotland in this day and age.

“We are the only oil-rich country in the world where people have to be fed using them.

“For Mundell to come and open this while his government is putting through Parliament more hurt and misery for people is disgusting.

“He didn’t even have the guts to face anyone who was here today."

South Lanarkshire Solidarity councillor Pat Lee added: “We are here to hold Mundell to account for his hypocrisy."

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/outraged-protesters-chase-tory-mp-6132000#ICID=sharebar_twitter

He's gonna have to get used to that.

by Guest Sun Jul 26, 2015 8:40 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Nicko had an earlier example of two supermarket workers who were a couple using the food bank...

Both working, combined wage of probably somewhere around £600 a week... both only paying a small amount of that in tax...

What are they doing with their money where they have none left for food and need food bank!?

Doesn't add up!!!

What Nicko actually said:

We have a "food bank" in our local Church, a short time ago I saw a couple who Both work part time at Asda come out loaded down with groceries. Some people will grab anything that's free.

£300 a week part time for an employer who is probably paying minimum wage? That so called hight IQ isn't up to much is it. You are classed as working full time if it is 16 hours a week or over. So say 15 hrs at £6.50 hr = £97.50 each, which equals £195. Rather different from your £600!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

by Guest Sun Jul 26, 2015 8:48 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
victorismyhero wrote:

define need...

in terms of the UK...not somewhere out the back of beyond in that benighted continent africa

Well in order to survive we need to eat.
Food is a priority is it not and should come first.
So does new shoes come before food?
A new phone?
Watching the TV?
Smoking?
Drinking Alcohol?

If life in britain, who's economy actually has nothing intrinsically wrong with it, has to come down to prioritising like that then it is a sad reflection upon those who lead us, have led us and have in and of themselves created this ridiculous situation....

This is deliberate tory policy, to create an undeclass who have nothing, at which the middle can sneer and the upper demonise and blame for their immagined woes

it is BY THE USE OF FINANCIAL control (as opposed to the gun ) a way of forcing said undeclass to not have this that or the other...

by YOUR reconing these people should NOT have

a phone (despoiet there being VERY VERY FEW public call boxes these days (hence no acces to 999, but then it wont matter will it, they willl have nothing to rob, if they are dying or on fire well good thats another one rid of)
A TV OR radio...(those peasants dont need to know anything...wouldnt do to have them thinking would iit old chap)
INTERNET (OH good god no...they might find out how we live old bean)

cant do with em having a crafty fag or a beer....thats for US well heeled sort)

by Guest Sun Jul 26, 2015 8:50 pm

victorismyhero wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

Well in order to survive we need to eat.
Food is a priority is it not and should come first.
So does new shoes come before food?
A new phone?
Watching the TV?
Smoking?
Drinking Alcohol?

If life in britain, who's economy actually has nothing intrinsically wrong with it, has to come down to prioritising like that then it is a sad reflection upon those who lead us, have led us and have in and of themselves created this ridiculous situation....

This is deliberate tory policy, to create an undeclass who have nothing, at which the middle can sneer and the upper demonise and blame for their immagined woes

it is BY THE USE OF FINANCIAL control (as opposed to the gun ) a way of forcing said undeclass to not have this that or the other...

by YOUR reconing these people should NOT have

a phone (despoiet there being VERY VERY FEW public call boxes these days (hence no acces to 999, but then it wont matter will it, they willl have nothing to rob, if they are dying or on fire well good thats another one rid of)
A TV OR radio...(those peasants dont need to know anything...wouldnt do to have them thinking would iit old chap)
INTERNET (OH good god no...they might find out how we live old bean)

cant do with em having a crafty fag or a beer....thats for US well heeled sort)

And as for shoes, they are not essential, let them walk barefoot to work, it'll make men out of them (even the women and children). FFS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

by Tommy Monk Sun Jul 26, 2015 8:50 pm

Ok sassy... fair enough... I missed the 'part time' bit when I skim read through the thread quickly...

Still both working, still both probably in receipt of benefits too... where is all their money going that they don't have any for food...!!!???

Some people will wangle the system for maximum gain and so as To do minimal work.

Other people on less regular benefits not working at all won't be able to use food banks... their benefit money is expected to cover their food!!!

SO what makes this couple so special that they get to Have their cake and eat it too!?

STill doesn't add up...

by Tommy Monk Sun Jul 26, 2015 8:51 pm

Ok sassy... fair enough... I missed the 'part time' bit when I skim read through the thread quickly...

Still both working, still both probably in receipt of benefits too... where is all their money going that they don't have any for food...!!!???

Some people will wangle the system for maximum gain and so as To do minimal work.

Other people on less regular benefits not working at all won't be able to use food banks... their benefit money is expected to cover their food!!!

SO what makes this couple so special that they get to Have their cake and eat it too!?

STill doesn't add up...

by Guest Sun Jul 26, 2015 8:56 pm

victorismyhero wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

Well in order to survive we need to eat.
Food is a priority is it not and should come first.
So does new shoes come before food?
A new phone?
Watching the TV?
Smoking?
Drinking Alcohol?

If life in britain, who's economy actually has nothing intrinsically wrong with it, has to come down to prioritising like that then it is a sad reflection upon those who lead us, have led us and have in and of themselves created this ridiculous situation....

This is deliberate tory policy, to create an undeclass who have nothing, at which the middle can sneer and the upper demonise and blame for their immagined woes

it is BY THE USE OF FINANCIAL control (as opposed to the gun ) a way of forcing said undeclass to not have this that or the other...

by YOUR reconing these people should NOT have

a phone (despoiet there being VERY VERY FEW public call boxes these days (hence no acces to 999, but then it wont matter will it, they willl have nothing to rob, if they are dying or on fire well good thats another one rid of)
A TV OR radio...(those peasants dont need to know anything...wouldnt do to have them thinking would iit old chap)
INTERNET (OH good god no...they might find out how we live old bean)

cant do with em having a crafty fag or a beer....thats for US well heeled sort)

You miss the point Victor, this was about priority, not whether people should have material things.
You highlight exceptions to the tule as a normality when in reality people do spend beyond their means and sadly think of the consequences later.
If you actually look closer I am not having a go at anyone and wish to help all who need help. What I am proving to you is that many humans do not help their situation because they place things they do not need above what is a necessity. If you claim this is untrue then again you fail to see reality daily because this is a reality. My view here is to educate at an early age the responsibilities we have in life and how to manage finannces. We all want things but have to learn to respect the fact sometimes we cannot have things we do not really need in the first place at that what is needed should come first. If people do smoke and poor they place their need to smoke first. Prime example my father smoked and gave up at 30 and do you know how he quit, when he had been smoking since the age of 7?
He could not afford to do so anymore.
My father realise smoking was money ill spent, one of which his family could use for their needs.

All the best buddy, but part of my views agree with you and that we should do more, my points on how we are as a society today which needs to change.

All the best buddy, catch you tomorrow

by Guest Sun Jul 26, 2015 8:57 pm

You are so ignorant it's not funny Tommy. Anyone on ANY benefit can use a food bank IF THEY ARE REFERRED. And to be referred they have to be in dire straits, and contrary to your uneducated opinion, anyone who has ever volunteered in a food bank will tell you, people HATE using them, it makes them feel demeaned, and many parents will go without food themselves to feed their children and will only use a foolbank when the food for the children has run out as well.

My daughter volunteers in a food bank, people come in shaking with mortification that they have been forced to use it.

God I loathe judgemental idiots who know nowt about owt but think they have the right to pontificate about the lives of people who are going through hell.

AND YET AGAIN - You are only allowed to use a food bank TWICE A YEAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

by Guest Sun Jul 26, 2015 8:57 pm

nite didge...

by Guest Sun Jul 26, 2015 9:07 pm

I wonder if people are deliberately obtuse or just cant face facts?

by Tommy Monk Sun Jul 26, 2015 9:47 pm

Skip meals so kids eat...?

So already getting extra benefits... child benefit, tax credits etc...

My mum says she sometimes skipped meals in the 70's so me and my brother were fed... and was working 9 till 3... no tax credits back then!!!

And no food banks!

by Guest Sun Jul 26, 2015 9:55 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:

Skip meals so kids eat...?

So already getting extra benefits... child benefit, tax credits etc...

My mum says she sometimes skipped meals in the 70's so me and my brother were fed... and was working 9 till 3... no tax credits back then!!!

And no food banks!

so because it happend way back then...Its ok for it to happen now....????

says a lot for your ossified and dinosaurean thinking Tommy.......

perhaps we should go back to transporting 10 year olds for stealing a loaf of bread..... Rolling Eyes

by Tommy Monk Sun Jul 26, 2015 10:23 pm

Point being, now more benefits are available to those with kids, where is The money going if not got any for food!?

by Guest Sun Jul 26, 2015 10:27 pm

victorismyhero wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

Skip meals so kids eat...?

So already getting extra benefits... child benefit, tax credits etc...

My mum says she sometimes skipped meals in the 70's so me and my brother were fed... and was working 9 till 3... no tax credits back then!!!

And no food banks!

so because it happend way back then...Its ok for it to happen now....????

says a lot for your ossified and dinosaurean thinking Tommy.......

perhaps we should go back to transporting 10 year olds for stealing a loaf of bread.....

Exactly what I thought!

Lets blame the poor for being poor while the rich and powerful get more rich and more powerful off their backs. It truly sickens me the way the rich have managed to get fools like Tommy to turn on their own. They must laugh at people like him while they count their cash.

by Guest Sun Jul 26, 2015 10:28 pm

I can only refer you to what I said to didge...

food isnt the only thing needed these days

Rolling Eyes

by Guest Sun Jul 26, 2015 10:36 pm

victorismyhero wrote:I can only refer you to what I said to didge...

food isnt the only thing needed these days

Yep, they don't need gas or electric, or bus faires, or cleaning materials, or clothes, rags are quite all right for them. And never mind the fact that the government makes you do so much of benefit claiming on line, and kids have to do a lot of their homework on the internet, blame them for having a computer, their children don't need an education etc. As for their kids having school uniforms, let them go with stuff from charity shops and get attacked like the girl did the other day:

Shocking video of 12-year-old girl being 'beaten unconscious' by schoolmates for wearing the wrong TRAINERS is posted online by her furious mother to expose the bullies

Katie Morris was filmed being attacked by the group of girls at her school
She tried to fight back after being teased but was 'pushed in to the nettles'
Her mother says her daughter was left concussed by the ordeal in June
Ivanhoe College and Leicestershire Constabulary is investigating incident

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3171834/Shocking-video-12-year-old-girl-beaten-unconscious-schoolmates-wearing-wrong-TRAINERS-posted-online-furious-mother-expose-bullies.html#ixzz3h2GrNj8N
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

And of course the kids can walk to school so they don't have to pay for bus fares, even though that will wear out the shoes faster.

As for water, well, you have to pay for that, so they had better cut down on washing the clothes, and a bath once a month is quite enough!

FFS, people like Tommy etc make me sick to my stomach.

Lets go back to the bad old days when kids got scurvy and rickets etc, life was so great then! Pillocks.

by Tommy Monk Sun Jul 26, 2015 10:41 pm

False argument sassy...

I'm asking what those who are getting money from benefits/work etc are doing with their money if not spending it on food...!?

by Guest Sun Jul 26, 2015 10:45 pm

Oh do shut the fuck up Tommy, I'm sick of your pathetic whinging about people on benefits and minimum wage, when those people do not have enough money for essentials. All they need is one problem, like a fridge breaking, or one of them going into hospital (which is enormously expensive for a family) or the kids needing new school uniform, or their shoes wearing out, for them to be in real trouble financially.

by Tommy Monk Sun Jul 26, 2015 10:55 pm

Don't you think others have problems too sassy?

Do you really think that everyone should have the same income regardless of whether working or not!?

Do you think that those who study hard at huge cost in money and time should be paid the same as those who don't bother or those who don't work at all!?

And do you really think that those who do should have huge chunks of their money taken off them and given to those who don't... all in The name of equality!?

by Guest Sun Jul 26, 2015 11:07 pm

No tommy I dont.
BUT

I do think that those who are NOT working should have sufficient for a decent life

I do think that those who study hard (in the sciences and classicals..not bloody media studies and hair dressing...or klingon) should not be sadlled wityh 10's 1000's pounds of debt

And i think when the chips are down and we are suffering an entirely artificial austerity, those who created it should be the ones shelling out to correct it...not the guy with no legs and a "spare room for his disability stuff"

lets face it tommy...regardless of your cock sucking the big earners are NOT paying their fair share

look at corporate tax avoidance...that alone if stopped would wipe out the national debt in a very few years and NO austerity measures needed....
and that corporate tax that is avoided end up in the private pocket of someone sooner or later....

So no the top 10% are NOT paying their way

firstly lets have it made so that what is made here is taxed here....

by Guest Sun Jul 26, 2015 11:14 pm

victorismyhero wrote:No tommy I dont.
BUT

I do think that those who are NOT working should have sufficient for a decent life

I do think that those who study hard (in the sciences and classicals..not bloody media studies and hair dressing...or klingon) should not be sadlled wityh 10's 1000's pounds of debt

And i think when the chips are down and we are suffering an entirely artificial austerity, those who created it should be the ones shelling out to correct it...not the guy with no legs and a "spare room for his disability stuff"

lets face it tommy...regardless of your cock sucking the big earners are NOT paying their fair share

look at corporate tax avoidance...that alone if stopped would wipe out the national debt in a very few years and NO austerity measures needed....
and that corporate tax that is avoided end up in the private pocket of someone sooner or later....

So no the top 10% are NOT paying their way

firstly lets have it made so that what is made here is taxed here....

And don't those not paying their fair share of taxes laugh at people like Tommy, who enable them to do it.

Arse lickers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your tongues and your dignity, and Tommy has neither left.

by Tommy Monk Sun Jul 26, 2015 11:15 pm

How many times have I said that I think any company operating here should have a UK base office liable for tax on all UK based business!?

People who don't work but who should work, should struggle.

Otherwise nobody would work at all, all expecting a nice lifestyle... nothing would get done and nobody there to pay for it!!!

by Raggamuffin Mon Jul 27, 2015 8:32 am

sassy wrote:
victorismyhero wrote:I can only refer you to what I said to didge...

food isnt the only thing needed these days

Yep, they don't need gas or electric, or bus faires, or cleaning materials, or clothes, rags are quite all right for them. And never mind the fact that the government makes you do so much of benefit claiming on line, and kids have to do a lot of their homework on the internet, blame them for having a computer, their children don't need an education etc. As for their kids having school uniforms, let them go with stuff from charity shops and get attacked like the girl did the other day:

Shocking video of 12-year-old girl being 'beaten unconscious' by schoolmates for wearing the wrong TRAINERS is posted online by her furious mother to expose the bullies

Katie Morris was filmed being attacked by the group of girls at her school
She tried to fight back after being teased but was 'pushed in to the nettles'
Her mother says her daughter was left concussed by the ordeal in June
Ivanhoe College and Leicestershire Constabulary is investigating incident

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3171834/Shocking-video-12-year-old-girl-beaten-unconscious-schoolmates-wearing-wrong-TRAINERS-posted-online-furious-mother-expose-bullies.html#ixzz3h2GrNj8N
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

And of course the kids can walk to school so they don't have to pay for bus fares, even though that will wear out the shoes faster.

As for water, well, you have to pay for that, so they had better cut down on washing the clothes, and a bath once a month is quite enough!

FFS, people like Tommy etc make me sick to my stomach.

Lets go back to the bad old days when kids got scurvy and rickets etc, life was so great then! Pillocks.

Are you seriously blaming "poverty" for that girl getting beaten up? Are you really saying that people should be able to buy trendy new things so that they don't get beaten up? If so, I think you have your priorities all wrong.

If people are being looked down on and assaulted because of a lack of material things, doesn't that just confirm what some people have been saying? That there is too much emphasis placed on material goods?

by Guest Mon Jul 27, 2015 8:46 am

British households are living beyond their means and throwing around cash at a level that is unsustainable, the head of the government’s fiscal watchdog has warned. As shoppers break new records for Black Friday, Cyber Monday and now ‘Manic Monday’ spending, the head of the Office for Budget Responsibility warned that households are outspending their incomes at a higher level than in ‘almost any other year over the last 15 or 20.’ Robert Chote told a panel of MPs that consumers have been upping their spending, which in turn helps improve the growth of the economy. But the increased expenditure does not mean that households have more cash to spare – they are just using their savings, he said.

Outraged protesters chase Tory MP out of town after he turns up to open foodbank - Page 2 23F7826500000578-2869771-image-a-3_1418293250377

Outraged protesters chase Tory MP out of town after he turns up to open foodbank - Page 2 23F7826500000578-2869771-image-a-3_1418293250377

Beyond our means: Household debt is expected to rise as a proportion of incomes

‘If you look at the relatively robust pace of growth over recent quarters, that has been reflected particularly in terms of the contribution from the consumer, in terms of people running down saving rather than having stronger income growth,’ he told the Treasury Select Committee. ‘We have assumed that it is not plausible [that this could continue].’ Consumer spending grew by 2.1 per cent in the first nine months of this year, even though wages continued to stagnate, figures from the OBR show. The economists estimate that the huge gap between earning and spending is the second largest since the mid-1990s. Meanwhile households are predicted to save around 5.4 per cent of their incomes on average next year, down from 6.6 per cent this year. Households are likely to start curbing their spending into the new year so that their outgoings are more in line with their incomes, Mr Chote added. Consumer spending is expected to slow to 2.2 per cent in 2016 as the saving ratio stabilises. Then, as wage growth starts to pick up from 2016, consumption will start to rise again.

Outraged protesters chase Tory MP out of town after he turns up to open foodbank - Page 2 23F7826100000578-2869771-image-a-9_1418293392948

Outraged protesters chase Tory MP out of town after he turns up to open foodbank - Page 2 23F7826100000578-2869771-image-a-9_1418293392948

A nation of shop seekers: Consumption among employees has increased while wages have stagnated

Total household debt stood at £1,670billion as of the second quarter of this year. The OBR has increased its forecast of unsecured household debt as households continue to spend beyond their means. The increase partly reflects an increasing confidence that interest rates will stay at rock-bottom for some time.

Outraged protesters chase Tory MP out of town after he turns up to open foodbank - Page 2 23F7827100000578-2869771-image-a-10_1418293502018

Outraged protesters chase Tory MP out of town after he turns up to open foodbank - Page 2 23F7827100000578-2869771-image-a-10_1418293502018

Distribution: Workers on lower incomes have seen greater rises in earnings this year than those paid more

The forecasts come as debt experts warned that as many as one in four credit card customers are paying the minimum every month or struggling to pay at all. One in five respondents with a credit card said they only made the minimum payment in October, while a further one in 20 said they made no payment or paid off less than the minimum. A customer with a £2,500 balance on a typical credit card with an 18.9 per cent APR will take more than 25 years to clear their balance if they only make £5 minimum monthly payments, the Debt Advisory Centre said.

Read more: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-2869771/British-households-living-means-time-20-years-OBR-warns.html#ixzz3h4l7gdtl

by Raggamuffin Mon Jul 27, 2015 8:51 am

victorismyhero wrote:No tommy I dont.
BUT

I do think that those who are NOT working should have sufficient for a decent life

I do think that those who study hard (in the sciences and classicals..not bloody media studies and hair dressing...or klingon) should not be sadlled wityh 10's 1000's pounds of debt

And i think when the chips are down and we are suffering an entirely artificial austerity, those who created it should be the ones shelling out to correct it...not the guy with no legs and a "spare room for his disability stuff"

lets face it tommy...regardless of your cock sucking the big earners are NOT paying their fair share

look at corporate tax avoidance...that alone if stopped would wipe out the national debt in a very few years and NO austerity measures needed....
and that corporate tax that is avoided end up in the private pocket of someone sooner or later....

So no the top 10% are NOT paying their way

firstly lets have it made so that what is made here is taxed here....

You think that studying "classicals" is more worthy than learning hairdressing? Those who learn hairdressing are learning a trade - why would you look down on that?

by Raggamuffin Mon Jul 27, 2015 9:49 am

victorismyhero wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

Skip meals so kids eat...?

So already getting extra benefits... child benefit, tax credits etc...

My mum says she sometimes skipped meals in the 70's so me and my brother were fed... and was working 9 till 3... no tax credits back then!!!

And no food banks!

so because it happend way back then...Its ok for it to happen now....????

says a lot for your ossified and dinosaurean thinking Tommy.......

perhaps we should go back to transporting 10 year olds for stealing a loaf of bread.....

Isn't that where some people are coming from though? They're applying this business of "needs" to themselves. That's very natural really. Back in the "olden days", a lot of people didn't have central heating, washing machines, mobile phones, computers, holidays abroad, designer trainers, etc, so naturally they don't consider them to be essential.

If we are to judge "poverty" by comparing what one person has next to another, we will never get anywhere because there will always be people who can afford more than another. That's why benefits are there to provide essentials - that is things people need rather than things they want in order to feel "equal" to others.

by Guest Mon Jul 27, 2015 10:01 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
sassy wrote:

Yep, they don't need gas or electric, or bus faires, or cleaning materials, or clothes, rags are quite all right for them. And never mind the fact that the government makes you do so much of benefit claiming on line, and kids have to do a lot of their homework on the internet, blame them for having a computer, their children don't need an education etc. As for their kids having school uniforms, let them go with stuff from charity shops and get attacked like the girl did the other day:

Shocking video of 12-year-old girl being 'beaten unconscious' by schoolmates for wearing the wrong TRAINERS is posted online by her furious mother to expose the bullies

Katie Morris was filmed being attacked by the group of girls at her school
She tried to fight back after being teased but was 'pushed in to the nettles'
Her mother says her daughter was left concussed by the ordeal in June
Ivanhoe College and Leicestershire Constabulary is investigating incident

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3171834/Shocking-video-12-year-old-girl-beaten-unconscious-schoolmates-wearing-wrong-TRAINERS-posted-online-furious-mother-expose-bullies.html#ixzz3h2GrNj8N
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

And of course the kids can walk to school so they don't have to pay for bus fares, even though that will wear out the shoes faster.

As for water, well, you have to pay for that, so they had better cut down on washing the clothes, and a bath once a month is quite enough!

FFS, people like Tommy etc make me sick to my stomach.

Lets go back to the bad old days when kids got scurvy and rickets etc, life was so great then! Pillocks.

Are you seriously blaming "poverty" for that girl getting beaten up? Are you really saying that people should be able to buy trendy new things so that they don't get beaten up? If so, I think you have your priorities all wrong.

If people are being looked down on and assaulted because of a lack of material things, doesn't that just confirm what some people have been saying? That there is too much emphasis placed on material goods?

You don't have kids, you don't have a clue. Even when my kids were little there was terrible bullying that went on against those that didn't have 'fashionable' clothes. I know, because mine were bullied because of it. Luckily I had three very close together, so they stood up for each other. However, the worse incident was to my eldest daughter who got cornered by a group because her shoes weren't 'trendy' enough. They held her and jumped up and down on her feet. She had two broken toes and the nail on one big toe split in half. Her shoe was filled with blood when her friends managed to get her home.

Of course benefits should have to pay for 'top' clothes, but this was the point I was making about people should not have to get clothes 'just' from charity shops.

by Raggamuffin Mon Jul 27, 2015 10:02 am

sassy wrote:You don't have kids, you don't have a clue. Even when my kids were little there was terrible bullying that went on against those that didn't have 'fashionable' clothes. I know, because mine were bullied because of it. Luckily I had three very close together, so they stood up for each other. However, the worse incident was to my eldest daughter who got cornered by a group because her shoes weren't 'trendy' enough. They held her and jumped up and down on her feet. She had two broken toes and the nail on one big toe split in half. Her shoe was filled with blood when her friends managed to get her home.

Of course benefits should have to pay for 'top' clothes, but this was the point I was making about people should not have to get clothes 'just' from charity shops.

Where did I say I didn't have any? Don't bother to answer that.

What I see here is you and others pretty much saying that everyone should be able to have everything, regardless of whether they work for it or not.

You think that it's natural that girl was bullied because she had trainers from a charity shop. First of all, I doubt it - she was bullied before that anyway, so it was just another thing they found to bully her over.

Let's just say that is why she was bullied though. Do you think the answer is to provide her with money for new trainers rather than deal with the bullies?

Do you not think that the problem is one of attitude rather than money?

by Guest Mon Jul 27, 2015 10:07 am

How do you think the rich get rich Rags? From the sweat of their brow? 99% of the time it's from the sweat of other peoples brows.

And this government had a POLICY when it came in, in 2010 of putting people out of work in the public sector, 100s of 1000s of them.

Get off your knees, stop making excuses for the things that happen because of their policies, that allow their mates to make millions, and start fighting back.

by Raggamuffin Mon Jul 27, 2015 10:09 am

sassy wrote:How do you think the rich get rich Rags? From the sweat of their brow? 99% of the time it's from the sweat of other peoples brows.

And this government had a POLICY when it came in, in 2010 of putting people out of work in the public sector, 100s of 1000s of them.

Get off your knees, stop making excuses for the things that happen because of their policies, that allow their mates to make millions, and start fighting back.

Let's stick to the point Sassy. Do you think the answer is to give the girl money for new trendy trainers rather than deal with the bullies?

by Raggamuffin Mon Jul 27, 2015 10:21 am

Katie said: ‘It was horrific I wish it had never happened. They’d been bullying me for a while and I’d never said anything back before. They said I got my stuff from a charity shop and I’d just had enough.’

‘I said they got their lives from a charity shop. That’s when they started hitting me. They grabbed hold of my hair on the field and pulled me to the floor.

Nice one - that girl will go far.

There's nothing to suggest that her mother couldn't actually afford new trainers - she's wearing a lot of make up, she's wearing nice clothes, and I suspect she spends money on bleach for her hair too.

Anyway, the point is that it's a story about bullying, not poverty. It's about bullies getting away with bullying - it's not about new trainers really is it?

by Guest Mon Jul 27, 2015 10:48 am

Tommy Monk wrote:False argument sassy...

I'm asking what those who are getting money from benefits/work etc are doing with their money if not spending it on food...!?

Spending it on gas and electricity both have which have rocketed in cost. Spending it on getting to school, free travel to school is gone. Spending it on school uniforms, uniform grant is gone now. Some are spending it on the bedroom tax if an older child has left home for example. They are spending it on things for school, schools don't provide pens etc. they are spending it on school trips, my friend had to recently pay £10 for a field trip and parents were told it would be detrimental to their education not to go but the school couldn't pay.
It's not difficult to understand but you have to be able to think and not rely on the benefit scrounged message put out by Tories.

by eddie Mon Jul 27, 2015 6:37 pm

I wonder if both Tommy and didge have mortgages?

BORROWING MONEY

if you can't afford to buy a house outright, perhaps you should but have one?
Paid for your holiday in a CREDIT CARD?
Tut tut.

That's borrowing that is.

by Guest Mon Jul 27, 2015 7:13 pm

eddie wrote:I wonder if both Tommy and didge have mortgages?

BORROWING MONEY

if you can't afford to buy a house outright, perhaps you should but have one?
Paid for your holiday in a CREDIT CARD?
Tut tut.

That's borrowing that is.

How uuterly daft again.
I can easily afford my repayments Eddie, because I know how to manage my money and do not live beyond my means.
Do you understand that point in living beyond your means.
Oh and mine is nearly paid off, only 5 more years.

cheers

by Guest Mon Jul 27, 2015 7:16 pm

Cuchulain wrote:British households are living beyond their means and throwing around cash at a level that is unsustainable, the head of the government’s fiscal watchdog has warned. As shoppers break new records for Black Friday, Cyber Monday and now ‘Manic Monday’ spending, the head of the Office for Budget Responsibility warned that households are outspending their incomes at a higher level than in ‘almost any other year over the last 15 or 20.’ Robert Chote told a panel of MPs that consumers have been upping their spending, which in turn helps improve the growth of the economy. But the increased expenditure does not mean that households have more cash to spare – they are just using their savings, he said.

Beyond our means: Household debt is expected to rise as a proportion of incomes

‘If you look at the relatively robust pace of growth over recent quarters, that has been reflected particularly in terms of the contribution from the consumer, in terms of people running down saving rather than having stronger income growth,’ he told the Treasury Select Committee. ‘We have assumed that it is not plausible [that this could continue].’ Consumer spending grew by 2.1 per cent in the first nine months of this year, even though wages continued to stagnate, figures from the OBR show. The economists estimate that the huge gap between earning and spending is the second largest since the mid-1990s. Meanwhile households are predicted to save around 5.4 per cent of their incomes on average next year, down from 6.6 per cent this year. Households are likely to start curbing their spending into the new year so that their outgoings are more in line with their incomes, Mr Chote added. Consumer spending is expected to slow to 2.2 per cent in 2016 as the saving ratio stabilises. Then, as wage growth starts to pick up from 2016, consumption will start to rise again.

A nation of shop seekers: Consumption among employees has increased while wages have stagnated

Total household debt stood at £1,670billion as of the second quarter of this year. The OBR has increased its forecast of unsecured household debt as households continue to spend beyond their means. The increase partly reflects an increasing confidence that interest rates will stay at rock-bottom for some time.

Distribution: Workers on lower incomes have seen greater rises in earnings this year than those paid more

The forecasts come as debt experts warned that as many as one in four credit card customers are paying the minimum every month or struggling to pay at all. One in five respondents with a credit card said they only made the minimum payment in October, while a further one in 20 said they made no payment or paid off less than the minimum. A customer with a £2,500 balance on a typical credit card with an 18.9 per cent APR will take more than 25 years to clear their balance if they only make £5 minimum monthly payments, the Debt Advisory Centre said.

Read more: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-2869771/British-households-living-means-time-20-years-OBR-warns.html#ixzz3h4l7gdtl

Of course everyone has ignored the above facts.

by eddie Mon Jul 27, 2015 8:38 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
eddie wrote:I wonder if both Tommy and didge have mortgages?

BORROWING MONEY

if you can't afford to buy a house outright, perhaps you should but have one?
Paid for your holiday in a CREDIT CARD?
Tut tut.

That's borrowing that is.

How uuterly daft again.
I can easily afford my repayments Eddie, because I know how to manage my money and do not live beyond my means.
Do you understand that point in living beyond your means.
Oh and mine is nearly paid off, only 5 more years.

And if you lose your job and cannot find another one....I hope,you come back and read this thread.

Oh and didge? Having a mortgage is still BORROWING.

Okay? You have borrowed money to buy a house, ergo, living behind your means.
Doesnt matter how you dress it up.

by Guest Mon Jul 27, 2015 8:45 pm

eddie wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

How uuterly daft again.
I can easily afford my repayments Eddie, because I know how to manage my money and do not live beyond my means.
Do you understand that point in living beyond your means.
Oh and mine is nearly paid off, only 5 more years.

And if you lose your job and cannot find another one....I hope,you come back and read this thread.

Oh and didge? Having a mortgage is still BORROWING.

Okay? You have borrowed money to buy a house, ergo, living behind your means.
Doesnt matter how you dress it up.

Yes Eddie its borrowing for a necessity called a house to live in, which again is done by being able to save up and afford to pay the payments which are also protected.
So you are talking the biggest load of bollocks Eddie.
I have lost my job before in the past and I went out and got another job less paid and made many changes to my out goings. Its not difficult but you seem to want to ignore the blatant facts, that is what mindless people do when faced with them.
Countless people are living and spending beyond theior means and the evidence is above shown to you.
At no point have I denied some people are in genuine need of help, you of course ignore this because your emotions are clouding your ability to debate the matter. Again I am all for a better living wage and that people in the lower bracket pay no tax up to 15,000.So try reading the debate throughout before making your absurd emotive replies, they are childish and irresponsible to what I have been saying.
We have a problem today with people and their poor money management, that is not meant to have a go at them but assist them, but because you are too memotive you cannot see any sense. Education is the key to help people as its not just people using food banks, so stop making the poorest emotive argument as it is poor to say the least

by Tommy Monk Mon Jul 27, 2015 9:24 pm

Debts don't come before food and other essentials.

If that means you lose things you can't afford then so be it.

by Guest Mon Jul 27, 2015 9:52 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Debts don't come before food and other essentials.

If that means you lose things you can't afford then so be it.

They do if these debts are to pay rent so your not on the streets or electricity /gas to keep warm

by Tommy Monk Mon Jul 27, 2015 10:20 pm

If unemployed then rent is paid through housing benefit...

Gas and electricity is relatively cheap... I spend about £20 a week for mine... about £5 gas & £15 elec a week...

JSA is just under £75 a week.

Others who work little number of hours and on low income will still get rent paid through housing benefit.

Those not working and with children will still get rent paid through housing benefit as well as substantially more money in cash payments than JSA alone... child benefits and tax credits etc...

This money is supposed to be used to pay for the gas/elec and food.

This money is plenty for those things if spent wisely.

If people are getting this money and are claiming that they don't have money for food then they must be spending it on other things.

THe question is ... what are they spending it on...!!!???

by Guest Mon Jul 27, 2015 10:42 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:If unemployed then rent is paid through housing benefit...

Gas and electricity is relatively cheap... I spend about £20 a week for mine... about £5 gas & £15 elec a week...

pffft can tell YOU aint got kids

what with baths, washing machine running almost every other day and depending on where you live tumble dryer, heating, lighting....extra cooking

you are simply clueless Tommy...

JSA is just under £75 a week.

Others who work little number of hours and on low income will still get rent paid through housing benefit.

Those not working and with children will still get rent paid through housing benefit as well as substantially more money in cash payments than JSA alone... child benefits and tax credits etc...

This money is supposed to be used to pay for the gas/elec and food.

This money is plenty for those things if spent wisely.

If people are getting this money and are claiming that they don't have money for food then they must be spending it on other things.

THe question is ... what are they spending it on...!!!???

by Guest Mon Jul 27, 2015 10:45 pm

How much you get depends on:

your ‘eligible’ rent
if you have a spare room
your household income - including benefits, pensions and savings (over £6,000)
your circumstances - eg age of people in the house, if someone has a disability

also i am pretty sure you still have to pay some council tax there is a big discount but they is still a sum you have to pay

by Guest Mon Jul 27, 2015 10:54 pm

JSA is just under £75 a week

And if you get sanctioned you loose HB and CT benefit putting you in to debt
and as i have pointed out that`s a target they have to meet and why so many are sanctioned

a catch 22 situation

by Tommy Monk Mon Jul 27, 2015 11:02 pm

victorismyhero wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:If unemployed then rent is paid through housing benefit...

Gas and electricity is relatively cheap... I spend about £20 a week for mine... about £5 gas & £15 elec a week...

pffft can tell YOU aint got kids

what with baths, washing machine running almost every other day and depending on where you live tumble dryer, heating, lighting....extra cooking

you are simply clueless Tommy...

JSA is just under £75 a week.

Others who work little number of hours and on low income will still get rent paid through housing benefit.

Those not working and with children will still get rent paid through housing benefit as well as substantially more money in cash payments than JSA alone... child benefits and tax credits etc...

This money is supposed to be used to pay for the gas/elec and food.

This money is plenty for those things if spent wisely.

If people are getting this money and are claiming that they don't have money for food then they must be spending it on other things.

THe question is ... what are they spending it on...!!!???

But you fail to recognise that those who do have children get a whole lot more cash handed to them in other benefits to pay for the extra costs of all that... so just another red herring!

Plus those with very young children are not required to work at all while also getting all the extra money given to them!!!

You can't have it both ways!

by Guest Mon Jul 27, 2015 11:12 pm

what Tommy obviously thinks people on benefit live like

Outraged protesters chase Tory MP out of town after he turns up to open foodbank - Page 2 Images18

what Tommy actually whats people on benefits to live like

Outraged protesters chase Tory MP out of town after he turns up to open foodbank - Page 2 Index20

by Guest Mon Jul 27, 2015 11:17 pm

its a really vile thing to be so jealous of the poor you have to spout as much bile that you do
i have had my fill of that kind of clueless attitude for tonight

i am of to bed

by Tommy Monk Mon Jul 27, 2015 11:35 pm

You can rent as big a house as you want when you Are working and paying for it yourself out of your wages... that is your choice... if you want an expensive big house with loads of unnecessary space, spare rooms, or even a swimming pool or a tennis court, or what about a heli-pad...!?

Your wages/savings etc paying for it then your choice!!!

But if you are not working and want to claim benefits then tough shit!!!

You will only get given enough for the basics!!!

Working People can only have what they can afford.

Why should unemployed people have what they want and have it paid for by others and have it better than most of those who are paying for it!?

Where I live... there is a woman with 3 kids (ages 2, 4 &12)... they have a nice 3 bedroom council/housing association house to live in, very nicely decked out, she has never worked, runs a car, always getting take aways etc...

Then there is another couple, married, two kids, (6 & 9), he works full time at a local council, she works part time, they are buying their ex council flat... but can only afford a one bedroom flat that has been converted into a very tight fit two bed flat... very cramped, no take aways and always skint and struggling!!!

This working couple look up to the woman in the nice 3bed place and see how the other half live!!!

Is this fair...!?

Something is very wrong with the system when the unemployed are better off than working People!!!

by Guest Mon Jul 27, 2015 11:51 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:You can rent as big a house as you want when you Are working and paying for it yourself out of your wages... that is your choice... if you want an expensive big house with loads of unnecessary space, spare rooms, or even a swimming pool or a tennis court, or what about a heli-pad...!?

Your wages/savings etc paying for it then your choice!!!

But if you are not working and want to claim benefits then tough shit!!!

You will only get given enough for the basics!!!

Working People can only have what they can afford.

Why should unemployed people have what they want and have it paid for by others and have it better than most of those who are paying for it!?

Where I live... there is a woman with 3 kids (ages 2, 4 &12)... they have a nice 3 bedroom council/housing association house to live in, very nicely decked out, she has never worked, runs a car, always getting take aways etc...

Then there is another couple, married, two kids, (6 & 9), he works full time at a local council, she works part time, they are buying their ex council flat... but can only afford a one bedroom flat that has been converted into a very tight fit two bed flat... very cramped, no take aways and always skint and struggling!!!

This working couple look up to the woman in the nice 3bed place and see how the other half live!!!

Is this fair...!?

Something is very wrong with the system when the unemployed are better off than working People!!!

there is indeed Tommy and you are too stupid to see it......

by Guest Mon Jul 27, 2015 11:52 pm

I'll give you a clue

as a skilled electronics engineer with years of experience in supervisory roles

I wouldnt get out of bed for less than £30/hr plus benefits (pension, health cover etc)

by Tommy Monk Tue Jul 28, 2015 12:09 am

korban dallas wrote:
what Tommy obviously thinks people on benefit live like

what Tommy actually whats people on benefits to live like

KD wants benefits claimants to live like the first picture and the workers who pay for it to live like the bottom picture!!!

Unemployed people want it all and want to do fuck all for it.

Many of them think they are far too special/important to actually have to go to work like other people.

And all the while they are able to sit around all day doing fuck all and getting a nice load of free money they they will continue to do so.

Many of them enjoy a better lifestyle and standard of living by doing nothing and think they are more superior than the shitty jobs that they are only barely able to get in reality... when many would struggle to even get a job as a bog cleaner!!!

But in reality even a bog cleaner is a higher status than them, more worthy and deserving in life as they are actually doing something of value every day, getting up and going to work, earning their money...!!!

lol!

by Guest Tue Jul 28, 2015 12:11 am

and of course tommy ALL unemployed and disabled not working are just like you describe arent they

I thought you were just a bit thick

now I know you are pig thick

by Sponsored content