|
DonkeyApple
12,324 posts
39 months
|
tonker said: Getting rid of People ? Keith Fckuing Vaz. Does anyone at all think he is credible and not as mad as a plate of curried blowfish (and about as dangerous) ? Yet people keep paying him obscene amounts of money to spout his anti-British bile... Surely Keith Vag is a good example of what happens when you financially reward someone when they have achieved nothing to merit it?
|
|
|
Soovy
32,041 posts
141 months
|
heppers75 said: DonkeyApple said: This is another very good reason for not permitting work permits to the village immams that people have been importing to indoctrinate their children. We have purchased from Pakistan an army of thick, bigoted, uneducated village idiots then not just failed to help them integrate into this very different society but actually paid them not to and then we wonder why we have these serious social problems. It's the liberal throwing around of taxpayers money over 4 decades by people who have not understood that they are only causing harm with their attempts to do good that is as the root of this issue. Quite frankly, if I was made an offer by another country that gave me a monthly salary that was far greater than any money I had ever hard to work my balls off for but I recovered it for doing nothing, a free home far bigger and better than what I might be able to live in where I am, lots of little wheezes that allowed me to be given even more money and all in a country where there was no law enforcement and the worst that was likely to happen would be that I would actually end up being given even more money if I did commit a crime ............ Well, if you lived in a s  thole with no future it would be kind of hard not to take the offer. And once there, why would I waste time integrating? I'm being paid not to, the less I integrate the more money I am given. No, I'll just stay as I am and recreate my own medieval cultural overlay over my new lucrative lifestyle of sitting in a free house with free furniture while being wired free money and if I can be arsed to fill out some forms get even more money and all the while I'm untouchable by the law. You would believe yourself to be a king. While this is all a bit of an exaggeration it begins to highlight why sections of our society have imploded in depravity and arrogance. Paying people to do nothing is not only stupid it is morally wrong and will only ever lead to appalling behaviour. Until we stop the last 40 years of paying people to behave wrongly we can redress nothing. When a man has to work for the food on his table and the best way to get access to the work pools is by being able to read, write and speak the local language then for some strange reason they automatically integrate to survive. All earlier immigrant cultures to the UK through history have integrated to feed their family. This major social issue has come about through removing any need to work or integrate from modern society. The net result is what we see today in ghettos of different cultures including our own all around Britain. There is a reason for the sayings 'cruel to be kind' and 'tough love'. That is arguably the best post I have ever read on PH!  +1. Elegantly and succinctly put.
|
|
|
Sway
2,467 posts
64 months
|
DonkeyApple said: tonker said: Getting rid of People ? Keith Fckuing Vaz. Does anyone at all think he is credible and not as mad as a plate of curried blowfish (and about as dangerous) ? Yet people keep paying him obscene amounts of money to spout his anti-British bile... Surely Keith Vag is a good example of what happens when you financially reward someone when they have achieved nothing to merit it? I have the unfortunate displeasure of knowing he's a fellow alumni of my school. Utter, utter tosspot champagne socialist racist scumbag.
|
|
|
Chrisw666
21,093 posts
69 months
|
DonkeyApple said: It's the liberal throwing around of taxpayers money over 4 decades by people who have not understood that they are only causing harm with their attempts to do good that is as the root of this issue.
Quite frankly, if I was made an offer that gave me a monthly salary that was far greater than any money I had ever hard to work my balls off for but I recovered it for doing nothing, a free home far bigger and better than what I might be able to live in while working, lots of little wheezes that allowed me to be given even more money and all in a country where there was no law enforcement and the worst that was likely to happen would be that I would actually end up being given even more money if I did commit a crime ............
I'll just stay as I am and enjoy my own lucrative lifestyle of sitting in a free house with free furniture while being wired free money and if I can be arsed to fill out some forms get even more money and all the while I'm untouchable by the law.
While highlights why sections of our society have imploded in depravity and arrogance.
Paying people to do nothing is not only stupid it is morally wrong and will only ever lead to appalling behaviour.
The net result is what we see today in ghettos of different cultures including our own all around Britain.
I've just edited that to remove any reference to immigrants. I wonder if anyone who is currently an MP is connected to society enough to share a similar view of the world. or is it likely they would use the left wing spin and accuse anyone who agrees with the above of being an extremist nut?
|
|
|
DonkeyApple
12,324 posts
39 months
|
Chrisw666 said: I've just edited that to remove any reference to immigrants. Do you work for the BBC?  Chrisw666 said: I wonder if anyone who is currently an MP is connected to society enough to share a similar view of the world. or is it likely they would use the left wing spin and accuse anyone who agrees with the above of being an extremist nut? The problem with left wing extremists is that they tend to be more educated, articulate and devious than their opposite numbers on the right. The problems we face in today's society are a result of left wing extremism but to begin to remove them from their positions of authirity must be done at the same time as targeting those on the right. When you have children being permitted to throw stones at firemen and know that once they reach 16 they will be paid a wage to do nothing if that is what they wish and in addition paid more to have and raise children in their own image then it is easy to see the extreme damage of long term, excessive State funding. Removing this funding will cause hardship to innocents and we mustn't forget that, but in the UK we have a vast array of charitable structures that are more suited to picking up the pieces and helping the genuine. It is far more crucial to bring to a halt the ever increasing number of people who have no need to behave as they do. Remove the financial incentives and replace the void with direct, personal account.
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Chrisw666
21,093 posts
69 months
|
DonkeyApple said: Chrisw666 said: I've just edited that to remove any reference to immigrants. Do you work for the BBC?  Nope I was just trying to see if it made as much sense when applied to society at large as it does when applied to immigrants, it does. DonkeyApple said: The problem with left wing extremists is that they tend to be more educated, articulate and devious than their opposite numbers on the right. Agreed but even the more right leaning parties can't take the difficult but ultimately necessary decisions. DonkeyApple said: When you have children being permitted to throw stones at firemen and know that once they reach 16 they will be paid a wage to do nothing if that is what they wish and in addition paid more to have and raise children in their own image then it is easy to see the extreme damage of long term, excessive State funding. This is something that has been known for a long time, the challenge is that people rightly will tell you it isn't a child's fault where they are born and because state care so expensive it is cheaper to subsidise the family than remove the children (leaving parents able to breed again). People like you and might have it in us to provide for children that we choose to bring into the world, but there will be literally 1000's of unwanted kids living a feral existence not dissimilar to that of children from the slums of Rio or Mumbai. DonkeyApple said: Removing this funding will cause hardship to innocents and we mustn't forget that, but in the UK we have a vast array of charitable structures that are more suited to picking up the pieces and helping the genuine. It is far more crucial to bring to a halt the ever increasing number of people who have no need to behave as they do. I work in the charity sector and one thing I can say with some certainty is that those who need the most help are those that don't ask for it or who ask for it once the need is far too great to be solved easily. It's fairly easy to spot folk that really NEED help, they'll generally be embarrassed, unaware of what help is out there for them and will be thankful of even the tiniest bit of help towards making their life better. That said there are still far too many people who are struggling for basic essentials such as food and suitable clothing who have phones, the internet and can maintain a nicotine habit. DonkeyApple said: Remove the financial incentives and replace the void with direct, personal account. Agreed to a point, but we need to first teach what personal responsibility means.
|
|
|
DonkeyApple
12,324 posts
39 months
|
Chrisw666 said: DonkeyApple said: Chrisw666 said: I've just edited that to remove any reference to immigrants. Do you work for the BBC? Nope I was just trying to see if it made as much sense when applied to society at large as it does when applied to immigrants, it does. That was my intention. I see s te immigrants as a small subsect of immigrants, who are also joined by s te indiginous etc. I see them as one group which can be dealt with by removing the 'pay to be filth' among other prudent practices. In a very simplistic view, removing the financial reward for being scum will naturally force the majority to integrate back into society (while the smaller number who cannot/will not are dealt with by an efficient and enforced judicial system) and this will lead to a far more rapid removal from society of the actions and behaviour discussed in this thread. Chrisw666 said: DonkeyApple said: The problem with left wing extremists is that they tend to be more educated, articulate and devious than their opposite numbers on the right. Agreed but even the more right leaning parties can't take the difficult but ultimately necessary decisions. Precisely. Neither have the answer and in fact, both are ultimately using the weak as a tool to peddle and enforce their own nefarious agendas. Both must be strongly sidelined at the same time as redessing the overall social issues. Chrisw666 said: DonkeyApple said: When you have children being permitted to throw stones at firemen and know that once they reach 16 they will be paid a wage to do nothing if that is what they wish and in addition paid more to have and raise children in their own image then it is easy to see the extreme damage of long term, excessive State funding. This is something that has been known for a long time, the challenge is that people rightly will tell you it isn't a child's fault where they are born and because state care so expensive it is cheaper to subsidise the family than remove the children (leaving parents able to breed again). People like you and might have it in us to provide for children that we choose to bring into the world, but there will be literally 1000's of unwanted kids living a feral existence not dissimilar to that of children from the slums of Rio or Mumbai. In my view, society will always have a number of unwanted children. It is a problem that can never be eradicated, only managed. But, the sheer number today is a result of the evil practice of paying people to have children along with additional incentives of a larger home or getting a home in the first instance. If we described a process in a society where innocent children were effectively bred to give people an income we would be utterly disgusted and totally offended. And yet, this is exactly what we have done since 1947. The State brought in an act that was specifically designed to pay people to breed. By bringing money into such an important life choice they brought in rampant immorality and a boom in unwanted children. Society needs children but not at any cost and the cost for these children has been far too high. Chrisw666 said: DonkeyApple said: Removing this funding will cause hardship to innocents and we mustn't forget that, but in the UK we have a vast array of charitable structures that are more suited to picking up the pieces and helping the genuine. It is far more crucial to bring to a halt the ever increasing number of people who have no need to behave as they do. I work in the charity sector and one thing I can say with some certainty is that those who need the most help are those that don't ask for it or who ask for it once the need is far too great to be solved easily. It's fairly easy to spot folk that really NEED help, they'll generally be embarrassed, unaware of what help is out there for them and will be thankful of even the tiniest bit of help towards making their life better. That said there are still far too many people who are struggling for basic essentials such as food and suitable clothing who have phones, the internet and can maintain a nicotine habit. I can appreciate this but also charities can evolve and adapt swiftly and if the State changed the way it rewarded members I am very confident that the charitable structure of the UK would change to fit. Of course, many charities are actually political lobby groups and will present a problem but not an insurmountable one. Chrisw666 said: DonkeyApple said: Remove the financial incentives and replace the void with direct, personal account. Agreed to a point, but we need to first teach what personal responsibility means. True, but the fastest way to learn is when put on the edge. Laying out a full and public structure and the dates of each specific implementation would go some way to giving society time to adjust and brace itself but fundamentally we have reached a point where we need to start making the changes with a hammer first and then a scalpel.
|
|
|
Murph7355
9,452 posts
126 months
|
DonkeyApple said: ...stuff.... Have you read "The Welfare State We're In"? I suspect you'll find much in it you agree with (me too - though it's not 100% well argued). Ref child benefit, wasn't it introduced after the war to encourage population growth (for obvious reasons)? I guess, unfortunately, they assumed pre-war social structures would take care of ensuring this boom was productive for society. Goes to show what happens when you don't think things through properly.
|
|
|
mattnunn
4,221 posts
31 months
|
Women have babies, it's their biological imperative, they had them before the welfare state and in countries with no welfare state they still have them.
HTH
|
|
|
LaurasOtherHalf
6,460 posts
66 months
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-18035...i know the local police have been particularly concerned about the right wing grabbing onto this case. can't believe this s t is happening on my own doorstep though i guess that is half the problem-most people don't want to admit to a problem & the cycle of violence continues....
|
|
|
Chrisw666
21,093 posts
69 months
|
mattnunn said: Women have babies, it's their biological imperative, they had them before the welfare state and in countries with no welfare state they still have them. True but nobody wants to see babies in a civilised western country dying due to malnutrition and fecklessness.
|
|
|
Mark Benson
2,574 posts
139 months
|
mattnunn said: Women have babies, it's their biological imperative, they had them before the welfare state and in countries with no welfare state they still have them.
HTH But that imperative in the past has been checked by the ability to provide for them. The welfare state removes that check (and hands them a cheque).
|
|
|
10 Pence Short
27,917 posts
87 months
|
Mark Benson said: But that imperative in the past has been checked by the ability to provide for them. The welfare state removes that check (and hands them a cheque). I don't see many women in third world countries (where there is no welfare state) holding back from having children because they don't get handouts and therefore cannot support them.
|
|
|
Mark Benson
2,574 posts
139 months
|
10 Pence Short said: Mark Benson said: But that imperative in the past has been checked by the ability to provide for them. The welfare state removes that check (and hands them a cheque). I don't see many women in third world countries (where there is no welfare state) holding back from having children because they don't get handouts and therefore cannot support them. That's a completely different issue and is at the other end of the spectrum, it's about having enough progeny survive to help support you in old age - ie. the absence of a welfare state. The issue here is when the state hand money to people to support children they otherwise wouldn't have, or be able to support.
|
|
|
mattnunn
4,221 posts
31 months
|
Mark Benson said: mattnunn said: Women have babies, it's their biological imperative, they had them before the welfare state and in countries with no welfare state they still have them.
HTH But that imperative in the past has been checked by the ability to provide for them. The welfare state removes that check (and hands them a cheque). Not at all. No one in Western Europe dies of starvation, the poverty which causes child malnurishment is extreme, really extreme. I think you're assuming new clothes, playstations and all the other trimmmings of modern society to be "needs". They are not.
|
|
|
GlenMH
3,923 posts
113 months
|
LaurasOtherHalf said: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-18035...i know the local police have been particularly concerned about the right wing grabbing onto this case. can't believe this s t is happening on my own doorstep though i guess that is half the problem-most people don't want to admit to a problem & the cycle of violence continues.... Now found guilty and due to be sentenced on Tuesday.
|
|
|
LaurasOtherHalf
6,460 posts
66 months
|
GlenMH said: LaurasOtherHalf said: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-18035...i know the local police have been particularly concerned about the right wing grabbing onto this case. can't believe this s t is happening on my own doorstep though i guess that is half the problem-most people don't want to admit to a problem & the cycle of violence continues.... Now found guilty and due to be sentenced on Tuesday. I heard there was no doubt but you do wonder about technicalities these days. You'd kind of hope it's an isolated case but realisticly, the girls were there to be taken advantage of & the punters were willing to pay. Hopefully it shakes up the local social services/police enough to try & do something about it.....
|
|
|
Chrisw666
21,093 posts
69 months
|
Mark Benson said: The issue here is when the state hand money to people to support children they otherwise wouldn't have, or be able to support. If the state handed money out on the condition that it was used to provide for the children and the children of the poor were brought up to realise that life wasn't a free ride then there would be less of an issue. The reality is that for the sub sector of these people children are at best a fashion accessory and at worst a meal ticket that they couldn't care about. There are also the cases of people who realise far too late what being a parent is and have already f ked up so badly their kids are damaged beyond repair. Regardless of the outcome the financial and social cost of failed families is huge, the much criticised parenting voucher trials are the latest attempt by the Govt to use an early intervention model in social care, a great approach in theory, but one that doesn't work when funding is spread between early intervention services and those dealing with more entrenched problems when money is tight. Ultimately (as has been said) nobody in our society truly is allowed to fail, they are fed, housed and given health care if they resort to crime to solve these needs then they still end up in a safe and warm place with 3 meals a day and some training to help them better themselves.
|
|
|
LaurasOtherHalf
6,460 posts
66 months
|
Chrisw666 said: (if) the children of the poor were brought up to realise that life wasn't a free ride then there would be less of an issue. 100% this, my partners pupils at school (secondary) are essentially brought up in the belief that having children & being paid for it is the only way forward in life. Obviously some will go on to become good parents but for some they're nothing more than a meal ticket/housing provider. The second worrying aspect is a high proportion of these children are brought up to exist totally beyond all laws & rules.
|
|
|
DonkeyApple
12,324 posts
39 months
|
LaurasOtherHalf said: I heard there was no doubt but you do wonder about technicalities these days.
You'd kind of hope it's an isolated case but realisticly, the girls were there to be taken advantage of & the punters were willing to pay. Hopefully it shakes up the local social services/police enough to try & do something about it..... It's a shame that a govt department needs to be 'shaken' to actually do what is fundamentally their job. Social Services seems to be so intensely politicised that it is failing to do what it exists to do as its raison d'être.
|
|
