Boris Johnson- Prime Minister (Vol. 5)
Discussion
biggbn said:
Now now, play by the 'jakerule', you can't discuss Patel on this thread, this is for Boris only. But. Seeing as you have broken said rule. I genuinely view this closed minded ideologue as a threat to national security. She is so blinkered, so unable to think outside her marginal parameters, its only a matter of time before her actions have serious ramifications
My "jakerule" is that Boris is Prime Minister and the Prime Minister is responsible for the Government so is responsible for allowing someone like Patel to be in the position she's in.So this thread is fair game for it
It's also worth remembering Johnson's own comments on "lefty human rights lawyers" at the party conference.
El stovey said:
Alucidnation said:
If it is genuine, and I am proved wrong then i will apologise, but his vitriol towards one person, is quite frankly, astonishing.
Scraping every single barrel, finding any tiny morsel and forcing it upon everyone here, and now trying to prove he is better than everyone else by supposedly setting up some meals on wheels for the less fortunate, thinking it is sticking it to the man.
Me? I haven't done anything, but I am not pretending I have either (apart from our regular charity donations).
If someone asks me to help out then i will oblige.
You’ve called him a liar, isn’t the onus on you to prove what you say?Scraping every single barrel, finding any tiny morsel and forcing it upon everyone here, and now trying to prove he is better than everyone else by supposedly setting up some meals on wheels for the less fortunate, thinking it is sticking it to the man.
Me? I haven't done anything, but I am not pretending I have either (apart from our regular charity donations).
If someone asks me to help out then i will oblige.
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said:biggbn said:
Now now, play by the 'jakerule', you can't discuss Patel on this thread, this is for Boris only. But. Seeing as you have broken said rule. I genuinely view this closed minded ideologue as a threat to national security. She is so blinkered, so unable to think outside her marginal parameters, its only a matter of time before her actions have serious ramifications
My "jakerule" is that Boris is Prime Minister and the Prime Minister is responsible for the Government so is responsible for allowing someone like Patel to be in the position she's in.So this thread is fair game for it
It's also worth remembering Johnson's own comments on "lefty human rights lawyers" at the party conference.
Edit..that's just a Sunday morning giggle. As you were.
Edited by biggbn on Sunday 25th October 10:13
biggbn said:
Patel ... She is so blinkered, so unable to think outside her marginal parameters, its only a matter of time before her actions have serious ramifications
I think you're being far too kind to Patel there, biggbn.Ever heard her views on capital punishment ? Scary.
She is tough on "counter terrorism" though. She's definitely a few sandwiches short of a picnic but her arrogance knows no bounds.
Murph7355 said:
RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:
In which case, you have to ask, why bother paying 18,000 call centre people to do a job you know isn't worth doing?
The govt going down rabbit holes chasing media approval?The psyche of people in this country is very different to those countries where these systems work (IMO). Compound that with our inability to make anything technical work at a national level and you have a recipe for disaster/wasted money.
It would not be difficult to get most things in the UK to work, there is just excessive amounts of "vested interest" diverting the resources to where it suits them. Tackle that and solve more than a few problems.
mike74 said:
There really is no helping you idiots is there?
You're all utterly brainwashed into believing that any starving kids is a result of an inadequate benefit system and not a result of selfish, neglectful, abusive, manipulative parents... who you want to reward with yet more money rather than dealing with the basis of the problem and giving these kids the help and support they really need.
That's because you don't know what you're talking about... You're all utterly brainwashed into believing that any starving kids is a result of an inadequate benefit system and not a result of selfish, neglectful, abusive, manipulative parents... who you want to reward with yet more money rather than dealing with the basis of the problem and giving these kids the help and support they really need.
mike74 said:
I personally know of one ''single'' mother of three who is pulling in £350 a week in UC...
Plus Child Benefit
Plus Council Tax Benefit
Plus child maintenance from the 3 dads
Plus any money she may or may not earn from the obligatory 16 hours per week that she claims to work as a childminder
She drives a 16 plate Kadjar, has regular nights out, shopping trips to the nearest city and outlets, has a pedigree ''handbag dog'', frequently advertises used children's clothes for sale on Facebook... every single item is an expensive brand or designer label.
Any children who are living in any form of poverty and going to bed hungry under the current benefits system must be the product of such feckless, irresponsible and uncaring parents that they are undoubtedly legally unfit to have a child in their care in the first place, they're probably not even capable of looking after themselves never mind being responsible for kids and subsequently the children should be taken away from them as a welfare and safeguarding issue.
We are talking about Free School Meal provision here. Such a person's children would not be eligible for it.Plus Child Benefit
Plus Council Tax Benefit
Plus child maintenance from the 3 dads
Plus any money she may or may not earn from the obligatory 16 hours per week that she claims to work as a childminder
She drives a 16 plate Kadjar, has regular nights out, shopping trips to the nearest city and outlets, has a pedigree ''handbag dog'', frequently advertises used children's clothes for sale on Facebook... every single item is an expensive brand or designer label.
Any children who are living in any form of poverty and going to bed hungry under the current benefits system must be the product of such feckless, irresponsible and uncaring parents that they are undoubtedly legally unfit to have a child in their care in the first place, they're probably not even capable of looking after themselves never mind being responsible for kids and subsequently the children should be taken away from them as a welfare and safeguarding issue.
£350 a week in UC (which seems a very large figure, but whatever) would bar you from FSM straight away, even without everything else.
sim72 said:
mike74 said:
There really is no helping you idiots is there?
You're all utterly brainwashed into believing that any starving kids is a result of an inadequate benefit system and not a result of selfish, neglectful, abusive, manipulative parents... who you want to reward with yet more money rather than dealing with the basis of the problem and giving these kids the help and support they really need.
That's because you don't know what you're talking about... You're all utterly brainwashed into believing that any starving kids is a result of an inadequate benefit system and not a result of selfish, neglectful, abusive, manipulative parents... who you want to reward with yet more money rather than dealing with the basis of the problem and giving these kids the help and support they really need.
mike74 said:
I personally know of one ''single'' mother of three who is pulling in £350 a week in UC...
Plus Child Benefit
Plus Council Tax Benefit
Plus child maintenance from the 3 dads
Plus any money she may or may not earn from the obligatory 16 hours per week that she claims to work as a childminder
She drives a 16 plate Kadjar, has regular nights out, shopping trips to the nearest city and outlets, has a pedigree ''handbag dog'', frequently advertises used children's clothes for sale on Facebook... every single item is an expensive brand or designer label.
Any children who are living in any form of poverty and going to bed hungry under the current benefits system must be the product of such feckless, irresponsible and uncaring parents that they are undoubtedly legally unfit to have a child in their care in the first place, they're probably not even capable of looking after themselves never mind being responsible for kids and subsequently the children should be taken away from them as a welfare and safeguarding issue.
We are talking about Free School Meal provision here. Such a person's children would not be eligible for it.Plus Child Benefit
Plus Council Tax Benefit
Plus child maintenance from the 3 dads
Plus any money she may or may not earn from the obligatory 16 hours per week that she claims to work as a childminder
She drives a 16 plate Kadjar, has regular nights out, shopping trips to the nearest city and outlets, has a pedigree ''handbag dog'', frequently advertises used children's clothes for sale on Facebook... every single item is an expensive brand or designer label.
Any children who are living in any form of poverty and going to bed hungry under the current benefits system must be the product of such feckless, irresponsible and uncaring parents that they are undoubtedly legally unfit to have a child in their care in the first place, they're probably not even capable of looking after themselves never mind being responsible for kids and subsequently the children should be taken away from them as a welfare and safeguarding issue.
£350 a week in UC (which seems a very large figure, but whatever) would bar you from FSM straight away, even without everything else.
Red 4 said:
biggbn said:
Patel ... She is so blinkered, so unable to think outside her marginal parameters, its only a matter of time before her actions have serious ramifications
I think you're being far too kind to Patel there, biggbn.Ever heard her views on capital punishment ? Scary.
She is tough on "counter terrorism" though. She's definitely a few sandwiches short of a picnic but her arrogance knows no bounds.
She’d have been kicked out of any business years ago. In government she’s supported by Boris and encouraged to make jingoistic speeches that appeal to reactionaries.
She’s Incompetent and has no place in government especially not a cabinet.
IforB said:
That's the problem with having a normal range of human emotions.
When you come across people who quite clearly are emotionally abnormal, then you try to be empathetic, but sometimes it is just best to take a step back and ignore.
Your meanness is likely to be unintentional, so I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt as I have no idea of what has happened to make you to be so emotionally bereft, but rather than just calling you names, I can give you the opportunity to recognise your behaviour and modify it.
It is up to you whether you accept this olive branch.
The problem, IforB, is that you don't appear have a normal range of human emotions.When you come across people who quite clearly are emotionally abnormal, then you try to be empathetic, but sometimes it is just best to take a step back and ignore.
Your meanness is likely to be unintentional, so I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt as I have no idea of what has happened to make you to be so emotionally bereft, but rather than just calling you names, I can give you the opportunity to recognise your behaviour and modify it.
It is up to you whether you accept this olive branch.
You claim to try to be empathetic and yet you're relentlessly triggered into making infantile assumptions about posters and consequently insulting them in the most bitter, spitefull & self righteous fashion.
And you think that this conspicuously supercilious and sanctimonious display is normal...........
Edited by Crackie on Sunday 25th October 12:50
In 2019 Boris Johnson said there were 400,000 fewer children living in poverty than in 2010.
This was a great big fat whopper of a lie. All of the stats, regardless of what metric you use to measure poverty, say otherwise.
One measure says there are actually 500,000 more children living in poverty.
When you have a PM who is prepared to lie through his teeth and pull figures out of his arse then you have a problem.
The Tories will continue to deny the scale of the problem and say what a wonderful job they are doing to tackle child poverty.
Disgusting.
This was a great big fat whopper of a lie. All of the stats, regardless of what metric you use to measure poverty, say otherwise.
One measure says there are actually 500,000 more children living in poverty.
When you have a PM who is prepared to lie through his teeth and pull figures out of his arse then you have a problem.
The Tories will continue to deny the scale of the problem and say what a wonderful job they are doing to tackle child poverty.
Disgusting.
sim72 said:
We are talking about Free School Meal provision here. Such a person's children would not be eligible for it.
£350 a week in UC (which seems a very large figure, but whatever) would bar you from FSM straight away, even without everything else.
Are you sure about that?£350 a week in UC (which seems a very large figure, but whatever) would bar you from FSM straight away, even without everything else.
gov said:
Firstly, a Universal Credit claimant will be checked for monthly net earned income
not exceeding £616.67 (a twelfth of an equivalent yearly income of £7,400) in their
most recent Universal Credit assessment period. If they meet this criterion, they
are eligible for free school meals and no further checks are necessary;
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/700139/Free_school_meals_guidance_Apr18.pdfnot exceeding £616.67 (a twelfth of an equivalent yearly income of £7,400) in their
most recent Universal Credit assessment period. If they meet this criterion, they
are eligible for free school meals and no further checks are necessary;
It sounds like if you receive UC, and your other non-benefit income after tax is <£616/mo, you qualify automatically for FSM? In the given example, if she nets less than that from her childminding, she should be eligible?
Obligatory 'I don't like child poverty, it's the govt's responsibility to fix etc'
El stovey said:
That’s what happens when incompetent people get promoted beyond their ability (due to tokenism in this case and brexit support) but also know they’re protected by those who promoted them.
She’d have been kicked out of any business years ago. In government she’s supported by Boris and encouraged to make jingoistic speeches that appeal to reactionaries.
She’s Incompetent and has no place in government especially not a cabinet.
While stitching a cut on the hand of a 75-year-old farmer, a doctor struck up a conversation with an old man. Eventually the topic got around to Priti Patel.She’d have been kicked out of any business years ago. In government she’s supported by Boris and encouraged to make jingoistic speeches that appeal to reactionaries.
She’s Incompetent and has no place in government especially not a cabinet.
The old man said, ” Well, as I see it, she is like a ‘Fence Post Tortoise’.”
Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him what a ‘Fence Post Tortoise’ was.
The old man said, “When you’re driving down a country road and you come across a fence post with a tortoise balanced on top, that’s a Fence Post Tortoise.”
The old man saw the puzzled look on the doctor’s face so he continued to explain.
“You know it didn’t get up there by itself, it doesn’t belong up there, it doesn’t know what to do while it's up there, it's elevated beyond it's ability to function, and you just wonder what kind of idiot put it up there to begin with.”
Shamelessly stolen but wonderfully apt
How the fk does Mike74 know so much about other peoples' lives and specifically their income ?
I mean, the guy knows exactly how much some acquaintance (or possibly not even that) gets in Universal Credit.
That is just weird.
You're making a lot of this up aren't you Mike ? You massive curtain twitcher.
k does Mike74 know so much about other peoples' lives and specifically their income ?I mean, the guy knows exactly how much some acquaintance (or possibly not even that) gets in Universal Credit.
That is just weird.
You're making a lot of this up aren't you Mike ? You massive curtain twitcher.
Red 4 said:
In 2019 Boris Johnson said there were 400,000 fewer children living in poverty than in 2010.
This was a great big fat whopper of a lie. All of the stats, regardless of what metric you use to measure poverty, say otherwise.
One measure says there are actually 500,000 more children living in poverty.
When you have a PM who is prepared to lie through his teeth and pull figures out of his arse then you have a problem.
The Tories will continue to deny the scale of the problem and say what a wonderful job they are doing to tackle child poverty.
Disgusting.
No rhetoric from you, nope, none at all.This was a great big fat whopper of a lie. All of the stats, regardless of what metric you use to measure poverty, say otherwise.
One measure says there are actually 500,000 more children living in poverty.
When you have a PM who is prepared to lie through his teeth and pull figures out of his arse then you have a problem.
The Tories will continue to deny the scale of the problem and say what a wonderful job they are doing to tackle child poverty.
Disgusting.
You put great stall in facts and evidence Red 4, how about posting up the facts and the thread can discuss exactly what the scale of the problem is, how badly the government is doing, what has been done by the government, if anything.
That would be a reasonable approach for a renowned pragmatist such as yourself wouldn't it.
Go on then, chop chop.
amusingduck said:
sim72 said:
We are talking about Free School Meal provision here. Such a person's children would not be eligible for it.
£350 a week in UC (which seems a very large figure, but whatever) would bar you from FSM straight away, even without everything else.
Are you sure about that?£350 a week in UC (which seems a very large figure, but whatever) would bar you from FSM straight away, even without everything else.
gov said:
Firstly, a Universal Credit claimant will be checked for monthly net earned income
not exceeding £616.67 (a twelfth of an equivalent yearly income of £7,400) in their
most recent Universal Credit assessment period. If they meet this criterion, they
are eligible for free school meals and no further checks are necessary;
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/700139/Free_school_meals_guidance_Apr18.pdfnot exceeding £616.67 (a twelfth of an equivalent yearly income of £7,400) in their
most recent Universal Credit assessment period. If they meet this criterion, they
are eligible for free school meals and no further checks are necessary;
It sounds like if you receive UC, and your other non-benefit income after tax is <£616/mo, you qualify automatically for FSM? In the given example, if she nets less than that from her childminding, she should be eligible?
Obligatory 'I don't like child poverty, it's the govt's responsibility to fix etc'
Crackie said:
Red 4 said:
In 2019 Boris Johnson said there were 400,000 fewer children living in poverty than in 2010.
This was a great big fat whopper of a lie. All of the stats, regardless of what metric you use to measure poverty, say otherwise.
One measure says there are actually 500,000 more children living in poverty.
When you have a PM who is prepared to lie through his teeth and pull figures out of his arse then you have a problem.
The Tories will continue to deny the scale of the problem and say what a wonderful job they are doing to tackle child poverty.
Disgusting.
No rhetoric from you, nope, none at all.This was a great big fat whopper of a lie. All of the stats, regardless of what metric you use to measure poverty, say otherwise.
One measure says there are actually 500,000 more children living in poverty.
When you have a PM who is prepared to lie through his teeth and pull figures out of his arse then you have a problem.
The Tories will continue to deny the scale of the problem and say what a wonderful job they are doing to tackle child poverty.
Disgusting.
You put great stall in facts and evidence Red 4, how about posting up the facts and the thread can discuss exactly what the scale of the problem is, how badly the government is doing, what has been done by the government, if anything.
That would be a reasonable approach for a renowned pragmatist such as yourself wouldn't it.
Go on then, chop chop.
If the government are going to deny how bad the problem of child poverty is then it is only logical to presume that they really don't want to address it.
Denying the truth doesn't change the facts.
Here endeth today's lesson, my love.
I for one applaud IforB's work to take food to those who need it. Well done.
Here we have a good example of what we can achieve. Ifor would be the first to tell you he's a socially privileged individual, who has benefitted from our education system and a business environment that rewards serial entrepreneurs. This is a successful guy getting involved in their local community to make a positive difference. He's found a cause that matters to him and is clearly enjoying being involved.
I'm struggling to think of a more Conservative solution to a perennial problem - rather than waiting for consensus over what is clearly a contentious issue for some, he's taken personal responsibility and the benefit of his position to support his community.
Here we have a good example of what we can achieve. Ifor would be the first to tell you he's a socially privileged individual, who has benefitted from our education system and a business environment that rewards serial entrepreneurs. This is a successful guy getting involved in their local community to make a positive difference. He's found a cause that matters to him and is clearly enjoying being involved.
I'm struggling to think of a more Conservative solution to a perennial problem - rather than waiting for consensus over what is clearly a contentious issue for some, he's taken personal responsibility and the benefit of his position to support his community.
mike74 said:
Can't be bothered replying separately to all the woefully uninformed and gullible individuals who've quoted me so I'll say it all here.
I live and work in the community of one of the least economically active counties in the whole of the UK (it's had the lowest GVA figures for the entire UK consistently for many years)
Yet I constantly and consistently see people choosing to have children they couldn't otherwise afford because the rewards in terms of benefits available for doing so are so ridiculously generous.
I know several young women (under 21) in my own workplace who have given up what is a secure, reasonably well paid job to become ''full time single mummies'' because the lifestyle and financial rewards are so much more appealing.
In the community I see ''single'' parents (at least they claim to be single) living in council housing with houses and gardens literally overflowing with excess ''stuff'' furniture, toys, clothes until the council occasionally provides these people with a skip (FOC of course) to help them get rid of it before they start accumulating all over again.
I personally know of one ''single'' mother of three who is pulling in £350 a week in UC...
Plus Child Benefit
Plus Council Tax Benefit
Plus child maintenance from the 3 dads
Plus any money she may or may not earn from the obligatory 16 hours per week that she claims to work as a childminder
She drives a 16 plate Kadjar, has regular nights out, shopping trips to the nearest city and outlets, has a pedigree ''handbag dog'', frequently advertises used children's clothes for sale on Facebook... every single item is an expensive brand or designer label.
Any children who are living in any form of poverty and going to bed hungry under the current benefits system must be the product of such feckless, irresponsible and uncaring parents that they are undoubtedly legally unfit to have a child in their care in the first place, they're probably not even capable of looking after themselves never mind being responsible for kids and subsequently the children should be taken away from them as a welfare and safeguarding issue.
I actually suspect that the numbers of parents/children who do fall into the above category are very small, but no, the uninformed idiots on here just want to jump on the Saint Rashy bandwagon and reward all ''vulnerable'' and ''poverty stricken'' parents on benefits with yet more money.
The debate we should be having is how do we end the insane situation of encouraging and rewarding the feckless breeders but I doubt that will ever happen, it's the same as the phoney war on mass immigration, ukgov just wants to inflate the population by any means necessary, mainly to keep those oh so important GDP figures in the positive range.
Do you have a problem with women generally, or just with single mothers?I live and work in the community of one of the least economically active counties in the whole of the UK (it's had the lowest GVA figures for the entire UK consistently for many years)
Yet I constantly and consistently see people choosing to have children they couldn't otherwise afford because the rewards in terms of benefits available for doing so are so ridiculously generous.
I know several young women (under 21) in my own workplace who have given up what is a secure, reasonably well paid job to become ''full time single mummies'' because the lifestyle and financial rewards are so much more appealing.
In the community I see ''single'' parents (at least they claim to be single) living in council housing with houses and gardens literally overflowing with excess ''stuff'' furniture, toys, clothes until the council occasionally provides these people with a skip (FOC of course) to help them get rid of it before they start accumulating all over again.
I personally know of one ''single'' mother of three who is pulling in £350 a week in UC...
Plus Child Benefit
Plus Council Tax Benefit
Plus child maintenance from the 3 dads
Plus any money she may or may not earn from the obligatory 16 hours per week that she claims to work as a childminder
She drives a 16 plate Kadjar, has regular nights out, shopping trips to the nearest city and outlets, has a pedigree ''handbag dog'', frequently advertises used children's clothes for sale on Facebook... every single item is an expensive brand or designer label.
Any children who are living in any form of poverty and going to bed hungry under the current benefits system must be the product of such feckless, irresponsible and uncaring parents that they are undoubtedly legally unfit to have a child in their care in the first place, they're probably not even capable of looking after themselves never mind being responsible for kids and subsequently the children should be taken away from them as a welfare and safeguarding issue.
I actually suspect that the numbers of parents/children who do fall into the above category are very small, but no, the uninformed idiots on here just want to jump on the Saint Rashy bandwagon and reward all ''vulnerable'' and ''poverty stricken'' parents on benefits with yet more money.
The debate we should be having is how do we end the insane situation of encouraging and rewarding the feckless breeders but I doubt that will ever happen, it's the same as the phoney war on mass immigration, ukgov just wants to inflate the population by any means necessary, mainly to keep those oh so important GDP figures in the positive range.
Edited by mike74 on Sunday 25th October 05:42
Edited by mike74 on Sunday 25th October 06:50
Edited by mike74 on Sunday 25th October 06:54
Edited by Helicopter123 on Sunday 25th October 11:28
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff