faraway saint Posted September 4, 2017 Report Share Posted September 4, 2017 45 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said: It's either "he who shall not be named" or someone doing an impression of him. There are several phrases used in his posts that are exactly how the former used to post. If it is the former then you should just ignore the whiney wee bitch, if it's the latter then you should just ignore him for pretending to be a whiney wee bitch. And FAO shull, before you start, I don't need any lectures on how to treat fellow buds because either he is the former and hence not a bud or he is the latter and just trolling. Especially as he is either someone who wants babies to die or is pretending to be someone who wants babies to die. Either way, please keep your opinion to yourself in this instance. "If" this or "if" that.......... So he's "either" this or "either" that yet you still "troll" on about something you have no proof of..................highly amusing. Loving the Dickson trolls getting excited. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway saint Posted September 4, 2017 Report Share Posted September 4, 2017 Just now, Slartibartfast said: That's right, I never expected you to understand. As usual, you're the only one who understands your weird rants. Run along, you've been rumbled again. #theriddler right enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway saint Posted September 4, 2017 Report Share Posted September 4, 2017 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said: You've got a cheek telling anyone to "run" anywhere. Edit: And is that you speaking for everyone else again? Funny that, considering your usual patter. Run along. Dig dig dig...........................deeper and deeper. Edited September 4, 2017 by faraway saint Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insaintee Posted September 4, 2017 Report Share Posted September 4, 2017 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said: You've got a cheek telling anyone to "run" anywhere. Edit: And is that you speaking for everyone else again? Funny that, considering your usual patter. He's got two cheeks. Two lovely fat juicy jiggly cheeks. Run along and lets see them wobble. Edited September 4, 2017 by insaintee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insaintee Posted September 4, 2017 Report Share Posted September 4, 2017 Just now, Slartibartfast said: There's far too much disturbing information in that post. Please stop. Smokie and Slarti running. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insaintee Posted September 4, 2017 Report Share Posted September 4, 2017 Just now, Slartibartfast said: I hope you don't think that I've got jiggly cheeks. About 6 months ago, yes, definitely not now. Yeah I heard you only needed to buy one season ticket this year. Well done you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stlucifer Posted September 4, 2017 Report Share Posted September 4, 2017 13 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said: No, I still got two. Didn't want any undesirables sitting next to me. Phhhhht! Any intelligent person would know they would need three! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway saint Posted September 4, 2017 Report Share Posted September 4, 2017 25 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said: Come with me. We can have a race. You should get a refund on them anger management classes, you get REALLY upset when it's pointed out you talk in riddles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway saint Posted September 4, 2017 Report Share Posted September 4, 2017 Just now, Slartibartfast said: That's it, I'm really angry. No, wait, that's not what it's called when your laughing at someone, it's not angry, it's, erm, it'll come to me, hang on ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insaintee Posted September 4, 2017 Report Share Posted September 4, 2017 31 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said: No, I still got two. Didn't want any undesirables sitting next to me. Wouldn't you need to buy three tickets for that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bellside Bud Posted September 4, 2017 Report Share Posted September 4, 2017 5 hours ago, stlucifer said: Who was deriding anything to do with foodbanks? Who said there was only a need to tax more. A redistribution of obligation is perhaps part of the solution. Demanding our political establishment better use the resources they take from those of us who can afford to pay is probably more apt. Why shouldn't we expect, nay, demand our politicians use our taxes more wisely and for the good of, and BTW I am not a Labour supporter, The many, Not the few. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salmonbuddie Posted September 5, 2017 Report Share Posted September 5, 2017 This will explain it to you.http://www.cas.org.uk/features/myth-busting-real-figures-benefit-fraud Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bellside Bud Posted September 5, 2017 Report Share Posted September 5, 2017 12 hours ago, salmonbuddie said: This will explain it to you.http://www.cas.org.uk/features/myth-busting-real-figures-benefit-fraud No it didn't explain it. £1.2Bn of benefit fraud might be small beer but it's greater than the value of all the contributions to food banks right across the UK every single year. If the government cannot stop people from stealing from the welfare system, why would anyone think that a solution to stop people "having" to use food banks is for the UK Government to put more money into the benefit system? Surely the priority for us all should be to crack down on benefit fraud so that the ample current welfare budget can be awarded to those who need it. Of course I do realise that applying logic to an argument will put "lefties" into a spin confusing them no end as they struggle to understand it. No doubt you'll be hunting for more propaganda to "explain" things better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salmonbuddie Posted September 5, 2017 Report Share Posted September 5, 2017 No it didn't explain it. £1.2Bn of benefit fraud might be small beer but it's greater than the value of all the contributions to food banks right across the UK every single year. If the government cannot stop people from stealing from the welfare system, why would anyone think that a solution to stop people "having" to use food banks is for the UK Government to put more money into the benefit system? Surely the priority for us all should be to crack down on benefit fraud so that the ample current welfare budget can be awarded to those who need it. Of course I do realise that applying logic to an argument will put "lefties" into a spin confusing them no end as they struggle to understand it. No doubt you'll be hunting for more propaganda to "explain" things better. Shit stirrer, f**k right off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shull Posted September 5, 2017 Author Report Share Posted September 5, 2017 BB doing exactly what SD did with all comers in the General Nonsense Section. EASILY WIPING THE FLOOR WITH THEM. Glorious to witness the massacre of the CLUELESS CLIQUE. WELCOME TO THE FORUM BELLSIDE BUD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insaintee Posted September 5, 2017 Report Share Posted September 5, 2017 9 hours ago, Slartibartfast said: Already dealt with, do keep up. sorry been skimming Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted September 5, 2017 Report Share Posted September 5, 2017 On 9/3/2017 at 0:49 PM, stlucifer said: Let me see you adjust those stats to prove your argument then. You ask for evidence but you don't accept the evidence of numbers using the foodbanks. You try to make out they cause dependency yet you don't have proof of that. It's an assumption on your part. There is no other way to prove the need other than the uptake which, by the way, in most cases is means tested. There are some who try to use the system but are turned away. Yes. People survived without them. They went cold or didn't pay rent to get food on the table. Going into debt. Perhaps that's what you call budgeting. As for your further post. When did I say I was "wholesome, good and caring"? I just don't have the "I'm alright Jack" attitude. I feel lucky not to be in the situation of being a negative statistic. As for being a "Lefty". The very fact you use this term in a negative context speaks volumes. Which stats? You havent provided any and now I am asking for the third and last time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted September 5, 2017 Report Share Posted September 5, 2017 On 9/4/2017 at 8:21 AM, salmonbuddie said: The numbers are irrelevant, it is disgraceful in our society that people are put in a situation where foodbanks are needed in the first place. Even those poo-pooing recognise that there are occasions where it is necessity through ill luck that has caused people to seek their assistance. One of those is one too many in this day and age. Brilliant. In your first sentence you state foodbanks are a disgrace. In your second sentence you talk about ill luck driving necessity. Make up your mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted September 5, 2017 Report Share Posted September 5, 2017 On 9/4/2017 at 4:57 PM, stlucifer said: By the way. Your last sentence just scuppered your friendly Oaksoft's argument. Thank you. No it didnt. They have done no detailed analysis of the finances of those who turn up. When someone has got themselves in deep shit you help them, you dont ask for their financial budgeting details. All that is missing is that last bit of help to prevent them needing help again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stlucifer Posted September 5, 2017 Report Share Posted September 5, 2017 On 9/3/2017 at 10:29 PM, Bellside Bud said: He's right to use the term "lefty" in a negative context though. There hasn't been a single example anywhere where Communism or Socialism has led to an equal enriched society. It's one of those political principles that sounds lovely on paper, and which sounds feasible so long as you can stop people from behaving like humans. Without exception every country that has gone down an extreme left wing route has landed up with a violent race to the bottom, where only the most corrupt end up with power and where every social freedom we enjoy is denied by a paranoid state. Oaksoft is right. The UK isn't a failed state. We aren't a poor nation. And our poverty line is well above the International poverty line of $1.25 per person per day. Oaksoft is also right that it's a personal financial management issue. The evidence comes from the Trussell Trust. I know, I'm sorry to keep going back to the evidence that comes from people who know rather than anecdotal evidence from those with a political agenda. The Trussell Trust says that by far the most common reasons for people ending up at foodbanks is "low income", "benefit delays", "benefit changes" and "debt". On 9/3/2017 at 0:13 PM, oaksoft said: Of course statistics support your view. You can adjust the support whatever position you like. That is why you cannot trust them. I am intruiged though. The stats support your view that this is not a budgeting issue for the majority who use foodbanks? I'd be interested to see those. In fairness you can't call me closed minded when I have now asked you twice for the evidence to back your position - evidence you tell me you have in your possession. If you show me evidence which suggests this is not a simple budgeting issue for the majority then I will back down. 11 minutes ago, oaksoft said: Which stats? You havent provided any and now I am asking for the third and last time. Make up your mind. You admitted the stats supported my take on things. And your Bellside Buddie actually cited one well established body whose finding shoots your claim right out of the water. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stlucifer Posted September 5, 2017 Report Share Posted September 5, 2017 1 minute ago, oaksoft said: No it didnt. They have done no detailed analysis of the finances of those who turn up. When someone has got themselves in deep shit you help them, you dont ask for their financial budgeting details. All that is missing is that last bit of help to prevent them needing help again. P!SH. Quite simply. If it doesn't fit your belief it doesn't exist. Blinkers? You bet! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted September 5, 2017 Report Share Posted September 5, 2017 15 hours ago, salmonbuddie said: This will explain it to you.http://www.cas.org.uk/features/myth-busting-real-figures-benefit-fraud That set of stats doesnt take into consideration the secondary costs of dependency on the state and the financial impact of benefits fraud on the wider community. Apparently there is no extra cost to the NHS, education or the police. And the final icing on the cake is the whataboutery of tax evasion as though that was somehow relevant to a discussion about benefits fraud. Just incredible that anyone can ignore all of that to make a political point. A classic example of abuse of statistics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted September 5, 2017 Report Share Posted September 5, 2017 3 hours ago, salmonbuddie said: Shit stirrer, f**k right off. Despite your personal abuse, he is correct and his post deserves a more respectful response. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted September 5, 2017 Report Share Posted September 5, 2017 12 minutes ago, stlucifer said: Make up your mind. You admitted the stats supported my take on things. And your Bellside Buddie actually cited one well established body whose finding shoots your claim right out of the water. No I didnt. I was alluding to the fact that almost any statistics you care to mention can be made to suit your argument. You clearly dont have any stats. Why on earth didnt you just admit it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted September 5, 2017 Report Share Posted September 5, 2017 11 minutes ago, stlucifer said: P!SH. Quite simply. If it doesn't fit your belief it doesn't exist. Blinkers? You bet! If WHAT doesnt fit my belief? You havent given me anything to try and fit to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.