ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Fuck off, dwyer.
campaign against welfare cuts and poverty
- Thread starter Blagsta
- Start date
Fuck off, dwyer.
Flying into a rage will do nothing to prevent the exposure of your ıgnorance.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Rage? You're not even worthy of mild agitation.
Just keep takıng the tablets, everythıng wıll be fıne.
Actually it won't.
Libertad
Sparking up a rollie in the Reichstag
You patronising cunt.
*shrug* It's cool, that was just an attempt at humour which comes across extremely badly because, like one of his heroes (Milton), Dwyer doesn't use emoticons here.
audiotech
wav, aiff, mp3, ogg, flac
"Over 12,000 Disabled People Forced To Work Unpaid Since Workfare Scheme Launched"
http://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/201...o-work-unpaid-since-workfare-scheme-launched/
http://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/201...o-work-unpaid-since-workfare-scheme-launched/
audiotech
wav, aiff, mp3, ogg, flac
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Fuck.
Looks similar to the throngs from Poll Tax summonses.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
TBF to the councils, their ability to resist summonsing people for CT debts is severely curtailed. it's not such an issue (yet) with the "bedroom tax", because some LAs are choosing to either re-classify rooms, or to exercise their right to not collect the tax full stop. Legislation will probably soon change that, so they'll either have to offset the deficit against their reserves, or start collecting it.
cyprusclean
Member
Still living in the dark ages as far as a decent living wage is concerned. No political party has manged to crack that one yet.
I'd say most people don't want to be on benefits, preferring instead to control their own destinies, in as much as that is possible.
I'd say most people don't want to be on benefits, preferring instead to control their own destinies, in as much as that is possible.
With you about the lack of a living wage instead of minimum wage. However...
^I would be extremely wary of pushing this idea. Taken to its logical conclusion, anyone who can't reliably go out to do full time work would end up doing piecework and sweatshop type work at home instead.
I'd agree that probably nobody has the ambition to need to live on various benefits for life, but then again, few of us choose to become longterm sick or disabled. Nor do many unpaid carers freely choose to do it (there's an enormous amount of pressure to not walk away, and not enough suitable support when it comes to making it possible to do paid work as well, even if you wanted to), nor does anyone choose to become old (except by choosing not to kill themselves first).
^I would be extremely wary of pushing this idea. Taken to its logical conclusion, anyone who can't reliably go out to do full time work would end up doing piecework and sweatshop type work at home instead.
I'd agree that probably nobody has the ambition to need to live on various benefits for life, but then again, few of us choose to become longterm sick or disabled. Nor do many unpaid carers freely choose to do it (there's an enormous amount of pressure to not walk away, and not enough suitable support when it comes to making it possible to do paid work as well, even if you wanted to), nor does anyone choose to become old (except by choosing not to kill themselves first).
cyprusclean
Member
I'm not talking about people who can't work, and have nothing else but the State to fall back on.
It's family in some cultures.
And *ambition' hardly comes into it.
I accept how you meant it, but that's not how the media will spin it. There's been enough claimant bashing in recent years without providing one more excuse (ie. benefit claimants are too passive for their own good) for the government etc to use this as well.
BTW "family in some cultures" - what you mean is "women and children". Men taking on caring responsibilities as a full time thing are rarer than rocking horse droppings. They might earn a bit of extra money (or work a bit harder and longer) to feed the extra mouth but that as far as as the adult male contribution typically goes.
cyprusclean
Member
I'm not in to claimant bashing. Or preaching to the less well off.
I'm all for a decent living wage.... at least. To provide some sense of self sufficiency and self esteem.
Nothing worse than being looked and talked down to because you are in a weak position.
I'm all for a decent living wage.... at least. To provide some sense of self sufficiency and self esteem.
Nothing worse than being looked and talked down to because you are in a weak position.
"Less well off people" please. Saying "the [insert label of choice here]" is dehumanising. Also, thank you for your concern, but I have enough self esteem and self sufficiency whether in paid work or out of it. YMMV.
Workfare week of action begins today with online protest against high street workfare shops: http://www.boycottworkfare.org/?p=2730
cyprusclean
Member
You seem to be an ignorant socially inept dickhead who lives under a bridge - prove me wrong.
cyprusclean
Member
Let's leave it at then, shall we?
I don't come here for fights and gratuitous insults.
I've realised it's like walking on hot coals, entering threads on social issues.
It can be a bit. And people are going to take some of the things you say personally when you're talking about issues that affect them personally. If someone asked me to use the phrase "less well off people" instead of "the less well off" & had the decency to explain why, I'd be inclined to go "Ok, fair enough, I never thought about it like that" and then move on.
I hope you keep posting though
But let's have it right - Greebo's got a valid point about a persons self esteem not having to be dependant on work.
cyprusclean
Member
It can be a bit. And people are going to take some of the things you say personally when you're talking about issues that affect them personally. If someone asked me to use the phrase "less well off people" instead of "the less well off" & had the decency to explain why, I'd be inclined to go "Ok, fair enough, I never thought about it like that" and then move on.
I hope you keep posting though
But let's have it right - Greebo's got a valid point about a persons self esteem not having to be dependant on work.
He misread that subjectively. There are soul destroying jobs, no doubt about it.
I don't know if UK benefits are higher than wages/salaries, the free bus pass being a good thing for pensioners, ("well off" included?).
But in a country like Germany for instance, benefits equate with living on the bread line.
*Hartz IV, which still stirred enough anger last autumn to drive one activist to go on hunger strike, has intensified the debate around this radical alternative.*
And:
*Over the years, certain elements of the Hartz reforms have fallen foul of the constitution and its celebrated opening line "human dignity is inviolable". The German state is obliged to guarantee its citizens a life compatible with "human dignity," a principle that resulted in a 2010 court ruling that said the standard Hartz IV payment is not calculated in a way that ensures that.*
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/01/germany-hartz-reforms-inequality
cyprusclean
Member
Thank Frances BTW, for the heads up on how to construct politically correct sentences.
She.
But I think it's you that's misreading things on purpose TBH. And then slavering a load of irrelevent bollocks about Germany. Sometimes in the UK, people can be better off on benefits than in work but only coz wages are so woefully low. Not coz benefits are generous, far from it. And the amount of people who are on in work rather than out of work benefits bears witness to that. But that's not even the point, all Greebo was saying (if I've got it right) is that being on benefits isn't a thing that should automatically erode a persons self esteem. Nor should being in work automatically boost a persons self esteem. Work does not necessarily equate to independance/self respect etc much as being on benefit doesn't necessarily equate to passivity/dependence etc.
cyprusclean
Member
"And then slavering a load of irrelevent bollocks about Germany."
Like you'd know?
*but only coz wages are so woefully low. Not coz benefits are generous, far from it.*
That's the most logical explanation I've read yet.
And that's my beef. No decent wages.
Like you'd know?
*but only coz wages are so woefully low. Not coz benefits are generous, far from it.*
That's the most logical explanation I've read yet.
And that's my beef. No decent wages.
I know it's not relevant to what's being talked about here.
I don't think you'll find a single soul who disagrees with your point about decent wages being a requirement. But you did use a phrase ("the less well off") that could be construed as offensive and, when it was pointed out why it could be taken as offensive, instead of responding with good grace, you chose to get all prickly.
And the way you seemed to equate working with self respect well, taken to it's conclusion that train of thought's sooner or later going to pull in at the terminus where people who can't work aren't afforded any respect. TBF, I don't think that is what you meant but I'd like to think you can see why it could've been read that way.
Got it in one.
BTW genitals are irrelevant to the thread except when somebody's talking bollocks, being a twat/prick/cunt, or acting like a dickhead. cyprusclean if in doubt about the sex of a poster, it is accepted netiquette to use the nonsexist and singular "they" and "them".
Thank Frances BTW, for the heads up on how to construct politically correct sentences.
Sweetie, I suggest you go and buy yourself some manners at any shop which remains open. Saying "people ...." instead of "the ...." isn't political correctness, it's recognising that all of us are human beings first and whatever else second.
I could explain why in further detail, but it would be taking advantage of your apparent social ineptitude. And derailing the thread.
Similar threads
- Poll
