Choosing Benefits Over Working

First topic message reminder :

A single mother of eight children who has decided to quit her 16 hour-a-week job because it's 'too hard' has caused backlash after she shared her dreams of saving for a boob job.
Furious viewers watching her appearance on This Morning took to Twitter to blast the 33-year-old, from Birmingham, for choosing benefits over working as a carer and not having her priorities straight.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3971118/Benefits-mother-eight-Marie-Buchan-causes-fury-Morning-viewers-reveals-plans-quit-time-employment-wants-boob-job.html#ixzz4R74ozWYA
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Do you agree that this woman sis right to choose benefits instead of working?

I wonder how many different daddiz farthud her kidz?

Is she right to want to spend money she has or will have on a breast enlargement?

Raggamuffin wrote:

scrat wrote:
Yeah, that figures, you should be thankful you're so protected if any "normal" posters were to conduct themselves in the disgraceful manner you do they'd be out the door pronto tonto!

Well you're not out the door, so you've just destroyed your own argument.

You mean the fact that you were not banned has just destroyed yours, let's see if you can behave this time!

scrat wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well you're not out the door, so you've just destroyed your own argument.

You mean the fact that you were not banned has just destroyed yours, let's see if you can behave this time!

You've almost ruined this forum - let's hope you stop before it explodes because of the toxicity emanating from you.

Gosh - did the pharmacy run out of hormones?

Raggamuffin wrote:

scrat wrote:
You mean the fact that you were not banned has just destroyed yours, let's see if you can behave this time!

You've almost ruined this forum - let's hope you stop before it explodes because of the toxicity emanating from you.

You see Raggs, Id get threatened with a ban for using those exact same words.

Please refrain from being so nasty!

Ziz wrote:Gosh - did the pharmacy run out of hormones?

You think Scrat is deficient in hormones? You could be right there.

I think you both need a shot - anything to stop the endless whinging and bickering.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ziz wrote:Gosh - did the pharmacy run out of hormones?

You think Scrat is deficient in hormones? You could be right there.

How much longer will TC tolerate your disgusting behaviour.

Please calm yourself!

Ziz wrote:I think you both need a shot - anything to stop the endless whinging and bickering.

I think you need to stop stirring and trolling. I get the impression that at least one of the mods isn't taken in by you.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ziz wrote:I think you both need a shot - anything to stop the endless whinging and bickering.

I think you need to stop stirring and trolling. I get the impression that at least one of the mods isn't taken in by you.  

Should I follow your wonderful example?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:living on benefits should never be a "choice" unless you have a system that incorporates a "citizens wage" in its social policy....and even that should not pay for some things

How would that work again? I think you've talked about that before. It's beginning to sound quite attractive.

ALL benefits (except certain "top up" benefits ...like child allowance/disability permiums and regional equalisers for housing) would be stopped, including the state pension

they would be replaced by a single payment (via for instance HMRC) of such a level as to provide a "basic" living, to ALL UK citizens over the age of 18.

To qualify as "citizen" YOU or you parents, singly or combined MUST either have been born here to qualifying persons OR have 15 years residency and /or have been granted citizenship for one of a number of specific reasons.

there would be NO further financial help available from the state.

teh massively expensive job center system would be scrapped the infrastructure could be sold off and the wretched system obliterated.

Jobs would be advertised by the employers either by themselves or via agencies. and I see no reason why the "hiring post" could not be reestablished in market places etc....

It would become the sole responsibility of the EMPLOYER to ensure the employees tax and NI was paid....as opposed to the situatiuon ATM.


employers basically would have to put the jobs "up for auction" as NO-ONE would have to accept a job at less than what that individual thought "fair"


not the full script I did...Ragga ..just the basics

Lord Foul wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

How would that work again? I think you've talked about that before. It's beginning to sound quite attractive.

ALL benefits (except certain "top up" benefits ...like child allowance/disability permiums and regional equalisers for housing) would be stopped, including the state pension

they would be replaced by a single payment (via for instance HMRC) of such a level as to provide a "basic" living, to ALL UK citizens over the age of 18.

To qualify as "citizen" YOU or you parents, singly or combined MUST either have been born here to qualifying persons OR have 15 years residency and /or have been granted citizenship for one of a number of specific reasons.

there would be NO further financial help available from the state.

teh massively expensive job center system would be scrapped the infrastructure could be sold off and the wretched system obliterated.

Jobs would be advertised by the employers either by themselves or via agencies. and I see no reason why the "hiring post" could not be reestablished in market places etc....

It would become the sole responsibility of the EMPLOYER to ensure the employees tax and NI was paid....as opposed to the situatiuon ATM.


employers basically would have to put the jobs "up for auction" as NO-ONE would have to accept a job at less than what that individual thought "fair"


not the full script I did...Ragga ..just the basics

So this sum be enough for a person to live on without having a job, and then if they get a job they have more money for luxuries and stuff? I think a lot of people would love that. I certainly would - I wouldn't bother to work, or I'd only get a job which I was really interested in it.

The problem is - who is going to pay for it? I reckon the number of people working would drop drastically, so there would be less tax paid generally.

A worthy scheme promoted by many socialists for decades but which has sadly never really got off the drawing board (a few pilots aside).

I support you on the thrust of your proposal LF.

Wouldn't there be a shortage of workers though? If someone did bother to work, they might be in a situation where they're overworking because of staff shortages, and then they'd probably quit anyway.

Who knows?

Tim Worstall, a writer and blogger, has argued that traditional welfare schemes create a disincentive to work, because such schemes typically cause people to lose benefits at around the same rate that their income rises (a form of welfare trap where the marginal tax rate is 100 percent). He has asserted that this particular disincentive is not a property shared by basic income as the rate of increase is positive at all incomes.

In one study, even when the benefits are not permanent, the hours worked—by the recipients of the benefit—are observed to decline by 5 percent, a decrease of two hours in a typical 40-hour work week:

While experiments have been conducted in the United States and Canada, those participating knew that their benefits were not permanent and, consequently, they were not likely to change their behaviour as much or in the same manner had the GAI been ongoing. As a result, total hours worked fell by about five percent on average. The work reduction was largest for second earners in two-earner households and weakest for the main earner. Further, the negative work effect was higher the more generous the benefit level.

However, in studies of the Mincome experiment in rural Dauphin, Manitoba, in the 1970s, the only two groups who worked significantly less were new mothers and teenagers working to support their families. New mothers spent this time with their infant children, and working teenagers put significant additional time into their schooling.  Under Mincome, "the reduction of work effort was modest: about one per cent for men, three per cent for wives, and five per cent for unmarried women." (Wiki)

I think that one of the problems is the length of working hours for a "full time" job. When you add in commuting times, it's surprising that people aren't worn out. Well actually, I think a lot are. They're stressed out, tired all the time, and fed up. If working hours were shorter, it would be much better - even by half an hour a day. The old 9-5 thing is very rare these days - employers started adding another half an hour, and then another hour in a rather sneaky manner IMO. I think 10-4 is a much better idea, or maybe four days a week instead of five.

The other issue is the awfulness of some jobs. People are in cubicles, staring at computer screens, or having to deal with customers all day, and it's just not natural.

Before some far right posters attempt to make their Nazi supporting neo Nazi propaganda seem reasonable.

In 2012-13, the Trussell Trust foodbank network, an Oxfam partner, provided over 350,000 people in the UK with food parcels - more than double the year before.
Oxfam and Church Action on Poverty estimate that over 500,000 people in the UK are now reliant on food parcels.
Over 2 million people in the UK are estimated to be malnourished, and 3 million are at risk of becoming so.
36% of the UK population are just one heating bill or a broken washing machine away from hardship.
1 in 6 parents have gone without food themselves to afford to feed their families

http://policy-practice.oxfam.org.uk/our-work/inequality/food-poverty

Let's bring some perspective back.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

How would that work again? I think you've talked about that before. It's beginning to sound quite attractive.

ALL benefits (except certain "top up" benefits ...like child allowance/disability permiums and regional equalisers for housing) would be stopped, including the state pension

they would be replaced by a single payment (via for instance HMRC) of such a level as to provide a "basic" living, to ALL UK citizens over the age of 18.

To qualify as "citizen" YOU or you parents, singly or combined MUST either have been born here to qualifying persons OR have 15 years residency and /or have been granted citizenship for one of a number of specific reasons.

there would be NO further financial help available from the state.

teh massively expensive job center system would be scrapped the infrastructure could be sold off and the wretched system obliterated.

Jobs would be advertised by the employers either by themselves or via agencies. and I see no reason why the "hiring post" could not be reestablished in market places etc....

It would become the sole responsibility of the EMPLOYER to ensure the employees tax and NI was paid....as opposed to the situatiuon ATM.


employers basically would have to put the jobs "up for auction" as NO-ONE would have to accept a job at less than what that individual thought "fair"


not the full script I did...Ragga ..just the basics

So this sum be enough for a person to live on without having a job, and then if they get a job they have more money for luxuries and stuff? I think a lot of people would love that. I certainly would - I wouldn't bother to work, or I'd only get a job which I was really interested in it.

The problem is - who is going to pay for it? I reckon the number of people working would drop drastically, so there would be less tax paid generally.

there are a number of objections which can be raised along those lines Ragga, and indeed I have mooted that such a system might conceivably need a requirement of so many weeks per year of "voluntary" service in various suitable areas to keep the boat afloat so to speak. folks could volunteer to help keep their neighbourhood clean....

removing the need for the council to pay for these services (and hence reducing tax needs) even major roads and motorways could be done the same way with a bit of planning.

those suitable could volunteer for social care provision

etc etc

I suspect that a LOT of folks would be quite happy to do a few weeks a year....just to break the tedium

and taxes could be gained from purchases rather than concentrating on earnings

booze could be taxed at 2-3 times its present levels
cat houses could be legalised and the girls taxed...plus VAT and duty
weed could be legalised and taxed
the tax exempt status of ALL religions could be changed so they pay tax

and all the tax avoidance loopholes shut down and sealed....

what is subject to VAT could be revisited and the tax better aimed at what really ARE luxuries/friviolities and then increased to suit....

Perhaps it's time for a four-day-week? We were promised such things back in the 70s and 80s when so-called new technology was starting to take off - but the bosses took extra profit and pay for themselves instead - there's a surprise.

scrat wrote:Before some far right posters attempt to make their Nazi supporting neo Nazi propaganda seem reasonable.

In 2012-13, the Trussell Trust foodbank network, an Oxfam partner, provided over 350,000 people in the UK with food parcels - more than double the year before.
Oxfam and Church Action on Poverty estimate that over 500,000 people in the UK are now reliant on food parcels.
Over 2 million people in the UK are estimated to be malnourished, and 3 million are at risk of becoming so.
36% of the UK population are just one heating bill or a broken washing machine away from hardship.
1 in 6 parents have gone without food themselves to afford to feed their families

http://policy-practice.oxfam.org.uk/our-work/inequality/food-poverty

Let's bring some perspective back.

and whilst true what has that to do with the point i just made?

Lord Foul wrote:

scrat wrote:Before some far right posters attempt to make their Nazi supporting neo Nazi propaganda seem reasonable.

In 2012-13, the Trussell Trust foodbank network, an Oxfam partner, provided over 350,000 people in the UK with food parcels - more than double the year before.
Oxfam and Church Action on Poverty estimate that over 500,000 people in the UK are now reliant on food parcels.
Over 2 million people in the UK are estimated to be malnourished, and 3 million are at risk of becoming so.
36% of the UK population are just one heating bill or a broken washing machine away from hardship.
1 in 6 parents have gone without food themselves to afford to feed their families

http://policy-practice.oxfam.org.uk/our-work/inequality/food-poverty

Let's bring some perspective back.

and whilst true what has that to do with the point i just made?

When you threaten Raggs publicly with a ban for her disgusting ad hominem attacks on me, I might consider responding to you, you keep telling us what "sauce is good for the goose" now prove it!

Lord Foul wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So this sum be enough for a person to live on without having a job, and then if they get a job they have more money for luxuries and stuff? I think a lot of people would love that. I certainly would - I wouldn't bother to work, or I'd only get a job which I was really interested in it.

The problem is - who is going to pay for it? I reckon the number of people working would drop drastically, so there would be less tax paid generally.

there are a number of objections which can be raised along those lines Ragga, and indeed I have mooted that such a system might conceivably need a requirement of so many weeks per year of "voluntary" service in various suitable areas to keep the boat afloat so to speak. folks could volunteer to help keep their neighbourhood clean....

removing the need for the council to pay for these services (and hence reducing tax needs) even major roads and motorways could be done the same way with a bit of planning.

those suitable could volunteer for social care provision

etc etc

I suspect that a LOT of folks would be quite happy to do a few weeks a year....just to break the tedium

and taxes could be gained from purchases rather than concentrating on earnings

booze could be taxed at 2-3 times its present levels
cat houses could be legalised and the girls taxed...plus VAT and duty
weed could be legalised and taxed
the tax exempt status of ALL religions could be changed so they pay tax

and all the tax avoidance loopholes shut down and sealed....

what is subject to VAT could be revisited and the tax better aimed at what really ARE luxuries/friviolities and then increased to suit....

Hmmm, I'm not sure you'd get enough people to work in retail or in warehouses in order to provide things for people to buy.

scrat wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

and whilst true what has that to do with the point i just made?

When you threaten Raggs publicly with a ban for her disgusting ad hominem attacks on me, I might consider responding to you, you keep telling us what "sauce is good for the goose" now prove it!

Oh just shut the fuck up. This thread is going well now, but that's no good for you is it? You just want to attack other posters.

Though actually, scrat, Raggs does have a point on this occasion. There's a time and a place for grudge matches - the best being when you're likely to win.

scrat wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

scrat wrote:Before some far right posters attempt to make their Nazi supporting neo Nazi propaganda seem reasonable.

In 2012-13, the Trussell Trust foodbank network, an Oxfam partner, provided over 350,000 people in the UK with food parcels - more than double the year before.
Oxfam and Church Action on Poverty estimate that over 500,000 people in the UK are now reliant on food parcels.
Over 2 million people in the UK are estimated to be malnourished, and 3 million are at risk of becoming so.
36% of the UK population are just one heating bill or a broken washing machine away from hardship.
1 in 6 parents have gone without food themselves to afford to feed their families

http://policy-practice.oxfam.org.uk/our-work/inequality/food-poverty

Let's bring some perspective back.

and whilst true what has that to do with the point i just made?

When you threaten Raggs publicly with a ban for her disgusting ad hominem attacks on me, I might consider responding to you, you keep telling us what "sauce is good for the goose" now prove it!

so that post wasnt a response to mine...ok ....GOOD
I was trying to figure how what i posted was far right propaganda

NOW

stop disrupting..

the abuse YOU recieve is retaliation ...not initial.....

I (as with ALL the mods) allow retaliation. (in moderation...and proportion)

oh and

Sie konnen mich im Arsche lecken!

Raggamuffin wrote:

scrat wrote:
When you threaten Raggs publicly with a ban for her disgusting ad hominem attacks on me, I might consider responding to you, you keep telling us what "sauce is good for the goose" now prove it!

Oh just shut the fuck up. This thread is going well now, but that's no good for you is it? You just want to attack other posters.

Calm down dear for goodness sake.

This thread is neo Nazi propaganda promoted by a Nazi supporting rag, it is punted out by neo Nazis as hatred, it was punted out a few weeks ago by special Eds, it is currently doing the rounds on BNP etc sites.

The issue is manufactured, it does not reflect the reality, neo Nazis use this hatred to further their cause.

That's the truth, but you don't like it, because RW folk, hate the truth up em.

Ziz wrote:Perhaps it's time for a four-day-week? We were promised such things back in the 70s and 80s when so-called new technology was starting to take off - but the bosses took extra profit and pay for themselves instead - there's a surprise.

Yes - I think it would help. It just seems so much more difficult to get anything done these days, or to go anywhere unless you go in the middle of the night. If you spend half your weekend queuing in traffic jams trying to go somewhere nice, or queuing at the supermarket, it's not much of a break. A lot of people spend hours commuting to their jobs, so they don't do much in the evenings either.

Ziz wrote:

Though actually, scrat, Raggs does have a point on this occasion. There's a time and a place for grudge matches - the best being when you're likely to win.

You can play along with them if you wish, personally I don't take kindly to seeing those struggling to make ends meet made to feel uncomfortable by Nazi propaganda not serious enough for me to offer a reasoned reply, the story is Nazi pish, put out by Nazis to make the poorest in our society feel guilty for their poverty.

If you can find a reason to justify this propaganda, be my guest!

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ziz wrote:Perhaps it's time for a four-day-week? We were promised such things back in the 70s and 80s when so-called new technology was starting to take off - but the bosses took extra profit and pay for themselves instead - there's a surprise.

Yes - I think it would help. It just seems so much more difficult to get anything done these days, or to go anywhere unless you go in the middle of the night. If you spend half your weekend queuing in traffic jams trying to go somewhere nice, or queuing at the supermarket, it's not much of a break. A lot of people spend hours commuting to their jobs, so they don't do much in the evenings either.

That's why I prefer fewer days rather than shorter hours - when I worked in London up to a third of my working day was commuting.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ziz wrote:Perhaps it's time for a four-day-week? We were promised such things back in the 70s and 80s when so-called new technology was starting to take off - but the bosses took extra profit and pay for themselves instead - there's a surprise.

Yes - I think it would help. It just seems so much more difficult to get anything done these days, or to go anywhere unless you go in the middle of the night. If you spend half your weekend queuing in traffic jams trying to go somewhere nice, or queuing at the supermarket, it's not much of a break. A lot of people spend hours commuting to their jobs, so they don't do much in the evenings either.

the system I propose would reduce that problem quite a lot, since an employee would be free to say ...I'm only going to work "x" hours

It would bias the job market in favour of the workers once again....

sort of turn "zero hours" contracts on their heads

Ziz wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes - I think it would help. It just seems so much more difficult to get anything done these days, or to go anywhere unless you go in the middle of the night. If you spend half your weekend queuing in traffic jams trying to go somewhere nice, or queuing at the supermarket, it's not much of a break. A lot of people spend hours commuting to their jobs, so they don't do much in the evenings either.

That's why I prefer fewer days rather than shorter hours - when I worked in London up to a third of my working day was commuting.

Exactly. I was in London for quite a few years, and luckily I liked my job, and I went out a lot after work, so I didn't mind the travelling. If I'd had an awful job, I would have been pissed off spending so much time travelling to work and back.

scrat wrote:

Ziz wrote:

Though actually, scrat, Raggs does have a point on this occasion. There's a time and a place for grudge matches - the best being when you're likely to win.

You can play along with them if you wish, personally I don't take kindly to seeing those struggling to make ends meet made to feel uncomfortable by Nazi propaganda not serious enough for me to offer a reasoned reply, the story is Nazi pish, put out by Nazis to make the poorest in our society feel guilty for their poverty.

If you can find a reason to justify this propaganda, be my guest!

I can't find a reason, nor do I have a desire, to justify the shite which is the subject of this thread - but neither are you of any use in the argument against it if you play right into your opponent's hands.

scrat wrote:

Ziz wrote:

Though actually, scrat, Raggs does have a point on this occasion. There's a time and a place for grudge matches - the best being when you're likely to win.

You can play along with them if you wish, personally I don't take kindly to seeing those struggling to make ends meet made to feel uncomfortable by Nazi propaganda not serious enough for me to offer a reasoned reply, the story is Nazi pish, put out by Nazis to make the poorest in our society feel guilty for their poverty.

If you can find a reason to justify this propaganda, be my guest!

Scrat be like ...

Ziz wrote:

scrat wrote:

Ziz wrote:

Though actually, scrat, Raggs does have a point on this occasion. There's a time and a place for grudge matches - the best being when you're likely to win.

You can play along with them if you wish, personally I don't take kindly to seeing those struggling to make ends meet made to feel uncomfortable by Nazi propaganda not serious enough for me to offer a reasoned reply, the story is Nazi pish, put out by Nazis to make the poorest in our society feel guilty for their poverty.

If you can find a reason to justify this propaganda, be my guest!

I can't find a reason, nor do I have a desire, to justify the shite which is the subject of this thread - but neither are you of any use in the argument against it if you play right into your opponent's hands.

the point that stands out is that Ragga and I are ACTUALLY discussing the very thing that could/would destroy the kind of shit in the OP....

but scrat is "didge like " all ....

Some people do choose benefits over working though. They might do so because they don't like any of the jobs on offer, or they might feel that they won't gain much financially. One incentive for them to not do so would be to take away their benefits, but does anyone know one person who's been told their JSA is being stopped because they've chosen to be on benefits?

JSA is routinely stopped when a claimant is deemed not to be complying with the required conditions.

What must I do to keep my benefit payment?

The reason your last job ended will always be checked, and benefit can be stopped if you were dismissed for misconduct, or left it without good reason. Once you start to get benefit payment, this will continue as long as you:

- are available for work and agree to do the things in your Claimant Commitment (Jobseeker’s Agreement )
- go to meetings on time with your work coach and take part in interviews
- apply for suitable jobs your work coach tells you about
- do everything your work coach tells you to do to find work, such as attending a training course or updating your CV
- take part in employment schemes when your work coach tells you to – you’ll need to:
- meet your employment scheme provider on time and do the things they tell you to do to find work
- still meet your work coach and do what they tell you to do
- do all you can to find work

(HM Gov)

Ziz wrote:JSA is routinely stopped when a claimant is deemed not to be complying with the required conditions.

Is it really though? Claimants have to apply for jobs, but they could do a rubbish application or sabotage their own interview so they don't get the job. I've known some people who were on JSA for years, and they've never been told their benefits will be stopped even though they must surely have been able to do some kind of job.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ziz wrote:JSA is routinely stopped when a claimant is deemed not to be complying with the required conditions.

Is it really though? Claimants have to apply for jobs, but they could do a rubbish application or sabotage their own interview so they don't get the job. I've known some people who were on JSA for years, and they've never been told their benefits will be stopped even though they must surely have been able to do some kind of job.

Yes - it really is.

And we all know examples of fiddlers - of everything.

Well I don't believe that someone can't get any kind of job for years. Also, there are people who blatantly admit that they're better off on benefits, or that they don't want a job because they'll lose their benefits - ie, they're choosing to stay on them.

Ziz wrote:

scrat wrote:
You can play along with them if you wish, personally I don't take kindly to seeing those struggling to make ends meet made to feel uncomfortable by Nazi propaganda not serious enough for me to offer a reasoned reply, the story is Nazi pish, put out by Nazis to make the poorest in our society feel guilty for their poverty.

If you can find a reason to justify this propaganda, be my guest!

I can't find a reason, nor do I have a desire, to justify the shite which is the subject of this thread - but neither are you of any use in the argument against it if you play right into your opponent's hands.

They want to reason this thread because the poster who posted it (this time) is a fellow far right fanatic, so you'll forgive me but Im not interested in your method of tolerance and appeasement, I can get that all day from TC, and the fact that TC refuses to confronts Raggs about her temperament is instructive enough to note that above all else he's not his own man so who is playing him?

No, I think our elders were 100% correct about Nazis, and I'm far more interested in discovering why this neo Nazi material is posted, why it is posted again and again and why far right extremists like Raggs and TC are constantly defending it.

scrat wrote:

Ziz wrote:

I can't find a reason, nor do I have a desire, to justify the shite which is the subject of this thread - but neither are you of any use in the argument against it if you play right into your opponent's hands.

They want to reason this thread because the poster who posted it (this time) is a fellow far right fanatic, so you'll forgive me but Im not interested in your method of tolerance and appeasement, I can get that all day from TC, and the fact that TC refuses to confronts Raggs about her temperament is instructive enough to note that above all else he's not his own man so who is playing him?

No, I think our elders were 100% correct about Nazis, and I'm far more interested in discovering why this neo Nazi material is posted, why it is posted again and again and why far right extremists like Raggs and TC are constantly defending it.

Can't you just stop banging on about me? You might feel better if you do.

Lord Foul wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes - I think it would help. It just seems so much more difficult to get anything done these days, or to go anywhere unless you go in the middle of the night. If you spend half your weekend queuing in traffic jams trying to go somewhere nice, or queuing at the supermarket, it's not much of a break. A lot of people spend hours commuting to their jobs, so they don't do much in the evenings either.

the system I propose would reduce that problem quite a lot, since an employee would be free to say ...I'm only going to work "x" hours  

It would bias the job market in favour of the workers once again....

sort of turn "zero hours" contracts on their heads

Well I would like to see employees have more power - if that's the right word. There would have to be some give and take though, otherwise they might all want to work for the same few hours a day.

Raggamuffin wrote:

scrat wrote:
They want to reason this thread because the poster who posted it (this time) is a fellow far right fanatic, so you'll forgive me but Im not interested in your method of tolerance and appeasement, I can get that all day from TC, and the fact that TC refuses to confronts Raggs about her temperament is instructive enough to note that above all else he's not his own man so who is playing him?

No, I think our elders were 100% correct about Nazis, and I'm far more interested in discovering why this neo Nazi material is posted, why it is posted again and again and why far right extremists like Raggs and TC are constantly defending it.

Can't you just stop banging on about me? You might feel better if you do.  

Your opening shot was a pop at me, the fact that TC has to lie to protect you tells us all we need to know!

scrat wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Can't you just stop banging on about me? You might feel better if you do.  

Your opening shot was a pop at me, the fact that TC has to lie to protect you tells us all we need to know!

Banging on about nazis is not debating. You should try actually addressing the topic for once.

The thread is taken from the Daily Mail but I watched her on TV yesterday morning, she was virtually sticking 2 fingers up to the tax payers of our island.

She said she is in training to be a mechanic, I assumed she meant car mechanic.
She does not look strong enough to be a car mechanic.

Where are the daddiz of the children?

Did she have all the kids with one man?

HOW EXACTLY does someone get off working and get benefits without a valid reason?


The haranguing of Miss Ragga is totally unfair, unjustified and a lie, it must not be allowed IMO as she has not posted anything wrong, but certainly added to the thread, as usual.

Raggamuffin wrote:

scrat wrote:
Your opening shot was a pop at me, the fact that TC has to lie to protect you tells us all we need to know!

Banging on about nazis is not debating. You should try actually addressing the topic for once.

The topic is should we tolerate repeating BNP propaganda, this thread is doing the rounds, it is hate speak, it denigrates the poor and it masks the reality of poverty in Britain today.

I think it should be treated for what it is!

I think those who post it should be treated for what they are and those who defend it exposed for what they are.

Major wrote:The thread is taken from the Daily Mail but I watched her on TV yesterday morning, she was virtually sticking 2 fingers up to the tax payers of our island.

She said she is in training to be a mechanic, I assumed she meant car mechanic.
She does not look strong enough to be a car mechanic.

Where are the daddiz of the children?

Did she have all the kids with one man?

HOW EXACTLY does someone get off working and get benefits without a valid reason?


The haranguing of Miss Ragga is totally unfair, unjustified and a lie, it must not be allowed IMO as she has not posted anything wrong, but certainly added to the thread, as usual.

Thank you Major. I have been discussing the issue, but that's not enough for some people.

scrat wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Banging on about nazis is not debating. You should try actually addressing the topic for once.

The topic is should we tolerate repeating BNP propaganda, this thread is doing the rounds, it is hate speak, it denigrates the poor and it masks the reality of poverty in Britain today.

I think it should be treated for what it is!

I think those who post it should be treated for what they are and those who defend it exposed for what they are.

No, the topic is about choosing benefits over working. Did you wander into the wrong thread?

scrat wrote:

Syl wrote:

You may not have noticed so wrapped up in hatred are you yourself....but I NEVER agree with anyone when they spew hatred, not Major, not you, not anyone.
I do defend peoples right to free speech though. I am not a mod, admin or owner of this forum, so I have no intention of policing how good or bad anyones opinions are on topical issues.
However, there are basic rules, and bringing a posters family into your posts is confusing real life with forum outrage ....not really on is it?

Liar! You jump in to the Nazis defence on every thread, you even defended his sexist comments so low is your own self esteem.

Major is a pusher of hatred because he is an anti British neo Nazi, a traitor that would sell us out to any foreign Nazi dictator, I tend to remember that.

Why should we let him get away with pretending he is anything else!

You rant on about Neo Nazi's and intolerance, and yet here you are being highly intolerant yourself. Syl's entitled to her opinion, just as you are and doesn't deserve to be ranted at with such spleen. She's not a liar, either.

Major wrote:The thread is taken from the Daily Mail but I watched her on TV yesterday morning, she was virtually sticking 2 fingers up to the tax payers of our island.

She said she is in training to be a mechanic, I assumed she meant car mechanic.
She does not look strong enough to be a car mechanic.

Where are the daddiz of the children?

Did she have all the kids with one man?

HOW EXACTLY does someone get off working and get benefits without a valid reason?


The haranguing of Miss Ragga is totally unfair, unjustified and a lie, it must not be allowed IMO as she has not posted anything wrong, but certainly added to the thread, as usual.

If you had read the article, although it doesn't state his (the daddy's) financial contribution it does say he helps by looking after the kids.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQoVBVPetrc