Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
shull

The Great Politics Thread

Recommended Posts


21 hours ago, pozbaird said:

Welcome to the forum Bellside Bud. A fresh new shite alias. Ah, I love the smell of shite new aliases in the morning. That gasoline smell, smells like victory.... or teen spirit...

It's amazing how some cunts keep getting banned and keep coming back to trundle out the same old pish . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trying to be smart again, and failing. :byebye
Knew some walloper would be along with this angle, thanks.


It's funny how you always know things would happen, after they happen.

But, seriously, where does his post, or the one he is replying to, mention that person? You're just jumping to conclusions and attempting to make out that someone has said something that they haven't.

Just admit, you know, like an adult would, that you were making an unfounded assumption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Slartibartfast said:

 


It's funny how you always know things would happen, after they happen.

But, seriously, where does his post, or the one he is replying to, mention that person? You're just jumping to conclusions and attempting to make out that someone has said something that they haven't.

Just admit, you know, like an adult would, that you were making an unfounded assumption.

 

:lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bellside Bud said:

Why? Surely you haven't come to that conclusion because he believes unborn babies shouldn't be killed? 

He doesn't believe that it is morally defensible for women who become pregnant as a result of rape to terminate that pregnancy.

On that basis alone, he is a repugnant shitehawk. If you agree with him, Andy, I'm afraid that makes you one too.

ETA - On reflection (and a wee nod in the right direction from a forum bud) I believe I've been rash in assuming Bellend Bud is our pal Andy. Apologies due to the latter.

Edited by Drew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A race to the bottom in the UK? Really?  

The UK has the 5th richest economy in the world. Here we have a generous welfare state and we enjoy heath care that is free at the point of use. We've got one of the lowest rates of unemployment in the world currently and our poverty line is drawn at £393 per week per household. For many of those living below the poverty line in the UK there is welfare assistance - many receive assistance with their housing costs or will have their income topped up - and there will be an entitlement to free childcare whether those parents work or not. Indeed the UK is one of the few countries anywhere in the world where we still class a family with several TV's, a number of laptops, mobile phones, tablets, games consoles etc, as well as money to burn on their gambling, tobacco and alcohol addictions as being in poverty. We've even got poverty riddled folk living here who can afford two, three and even four foreign holidays a year despite living exclusively off benefits. 

Oh how those living in Communist Vietnam must laugh at our unequal society. There an average worker earns around £111 per month. Over 14 million people have to get by on less than $1.25 per day. And more than half of their population is regarded as poor. Those are official figures by the way, which begs the question why in an equal society the other half aren't regarded as poor but we'll ignore that. Of course Vietnam isn't punished for being different. They are the second biggest recipients of world aid. Guess where that money comes from? Yep, Capitalist countries like the US, UK, Germany, Japan and Sweden. Funnily enough China and Russia aren't quite so bothered. 

Of course China and Russia are also relevant examples to look at  when discussing the success of capitalism. Both had huge swathes of their population starving - for real - before they embraced capitalism. Now their countries and their populations are being greatly enriched. It might not be equal, it never was anyway, but I doubt anyone in those countries will care when their own standard of living has greatly improved. 

It's clear to me that Capitalism has enriched the world. It's a system that brings wealth and whilst it might not deliver equality is that really important? It's quite clearly driven up standards and improved the lives of everyone living in the UK. Personally I'd stick with what has been absolutely proven to be successful, but then I'm not riddled with jealousy that someone else might be earning a bit more than me. 

Even by Dickson standards theres an amazing amount of untruths and opinion claiming to be fact in that post. The second sentence is incorrect and it rambles on from there gaining momentum like a snowball rolling down a hill.

It also doesn't actually answer my post that it is replying to.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 04 September 2017 at 11:49 PM, Bellside Bud said:

OK, so why not demand that politicians do something to tackle the £1.2Bn worth of benefit fraud that it estimates happens in the UK economy every year. According to the DWP 99% of all those found guilty of benefit fraud avoid a custodial sentence, and yet that money alone would stock all of our food banks to the rafters with essentials that could be distributed to the needy.

You have answered your own question - Benefit fraud is pursued but the punishments in this country are hardly a deterent. If the DWP / LA can stop payment of benefit in a fraudulent situation that is regarded as sufficient. Prosecution costs thousands and for what, for courts to hand out slaps on the wrist and order repayment at a fiver a week !!!

I have yet to see any political party in the UK that seriously wants to tackle Benefit fraud

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally,  I think benefit fraud could be tackled a bit more robustly. As well as giving someone a criminal record, they should be personally barred for a number of years from receiving anything from the welfare state - they should have to pay for doctors appointments, hospital visits, nae child benefit etc etc; there should be no entitlement to social housing, nae bus passes etc etc.

Edited by melmac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, melmac said:

Personally,  I think benefit fraud could be tackled a bit more robustly. As well as giving someone a criminal record, they should be personally barred for a number of years from receiving anything from the welfare state - they should have to pay for doctors appointments, hospital visits, nae child benefit etc etc; there should be no entitlement to social housing, nae bus passes etc etc.

Child benefit is for the benefit of children (hint is in the title).  Do you really see that as workable?

 

What you appear to be saying is that if you committ a specific crime, you should be left on the streets to get sick and die?

 

A wee bit disproportionate, I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Drew said:

He doesn't believe that it is morally defensible for women who become pregnant as a result of rape to terminate that pregnancy.

On that basis alone, he is a repugnant shitehawk. If you agree with him, Andy, I'm afraid that makes you one too.

ETA - On reflection (and a wee nod in the right direction from a forum bud) I believe I've been rash in assuming Bellend Bud is our pal Andy. Apologies due to the latter.

I don't see any reason to change the abortion laws from how they are at present. I just find it fairly remarkable that someone would be so intolerant of the mans, clearly religious, viewpoint particularly when we are talking about taking the life of an unborn child just because the Mother has decided she doesn't want it. I guess how acceptable abortion is depends on at what point you value a life. 

In contrast I find the actions of Jeremy Corbyn more repugnant on this topic. He supports abortion, has voted many times on the subject and on three occasions he voted to extend the right of a Mother to abort a child to birth for a variety of reasons, including fetal disability. I find that far harder to stomach. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ayrshire Saints said:

You have answered your own question - Benefit fraud is pursued but the punishments in this country are hardly a deterent. If the DWP / LA can stop payment of benefit in a fraudulent situation that is regarded as sufficient. Prosecution costs thousands and for what, for courts to hand out slaps on the wrist and order repayment at a fiver a week !!!

I have yet to see any political party in the UK that seriously wants to tackle Benefit fraud

I agree with you and I don't know why the electorate lets them get away with it. 

My argument is that before the government raises tax or puts more money into the welfare state, what we should all be demanding is that they use the resources they currently have far more effectively. That means stamping out benefit fraud. It shouldn't be acceptable that the state writes off £1.2Bn of benefit fraud every year and we as a population shouldn't be turning a blind eye to it. Tackle that waste and we'll have more than enough resources to stock every food bank with all manner of useful items for anyone struggling or in need. Surely putting more money into the welfare state just means there is more there for those who know how to work the system to defraud. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, melmac said:

Personally,  I think benefit fraud could be tackled a bit more robustly. As well as giving someone a criminal record, they should be personally barred for a number of years from receiving anything from the welfare state - they should have to pay for doctors appointments, hospital visits, nae child benefit etc etc; there should be no entitlement to social housing, nae bus passes etc etc.

I agree with this too, but if we do this then we'll have all those who want to take grievance with the state complaining that all these people are being put into poverty and having to use food banks. Perhaps if people did less hand wringing and let the state punish people correctly we'd be in a far better state. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Bellside Bud said:

I agree with this too, but if we do this then we'll have all those who want to take grievance with the state complaining that all these people are being put into poverty and having to use food banks. Perhaps if people did less hand wringing and let the state punish people correctly we'd be in a far better state. 

I think you are more than adequately administering punishment on our wee section of society by your continued posting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, beyond our ken said:

I think you are more than adequately administering punishment on our wee section of society by your continued posting

What a very poor response to a decent post. 

Really lowers the standing of our great Forum. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All fraud should be pursued, but what is just as bad are rules that allow people to take more than their fair share. Very little in the world of big business is accomplished by individuals and we've heard about the "unacceptable face of capitalism" numerous times down the years. At various times during her time in power TM has called for corporate greed to be railed in but now she's in trouble over Brexit she's backtracking and today's news of her begging Footsie 100 bosses to endorse her policies is surely the final nail in any attempt she was going to make to redress the balance.

Edited by Bud the Baker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bellside Bud said:

I agree with you and I don't know why the electorate lets them get away with it.

My argument is that before the government raises tax or puts more money into the welfare state, what we should all be demanding is that they use the resources they currently have far more effectively. That means stamping out benefit fraud. It shouldn't be acceptable that the state writes off £1.2Bn of benefit fraud every year and we as a population shouldn't be turning a blind eye to it. Tackle that waste and we'll have more than enough resources to stock every food bank with all manner of useful items for anyone struggling or in need. Surely putting more money into the welfare state just means there is more there for those who know how to work the system to defraud.

I don't think detection is the problem here it's a lack of deterent that still encourages the unscrupulous to falsely claim.  How do you stop people fraudulently claiming benefit especially given how elaborate most of the scams are. You need to stop the fraudulent claims to be able to divert any of the money anywhere as detection and prosecution rarely results in the DWP or LA recovering much if any of the money falsely obtained. So how do you plan to tackle Benefit fraud without throwing more money at it than you can possibly recover. The % of fraud compared to the total welfare budget is tiny and that is how all governments have viewed it. There is no obvious appetite to tackle it as it's seen as a (further) waste of resources, so what's the answer ?

Edited by Ayrshire Saints

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×