Glasgow Tops Uk Workless Homes Survey

[Isabella Duke]

Actually you contradict yourself so often to suit your argument that it's tough to work out what you DO actually mean.

I blame myself for humouring you with this nonsensical idea of yours.

And now the backtracking!

FFS, owned by Stuart Dickson!

[Isabella Duke]

WHY oh WHY did we get him started on "The dividend". Although I have him firmly back on ignore I can unfortunately still see his posts on other peoples replies.

Moderators. I beg you for the love of God and the sake of good taste please lock this thread.

Dear Jesus! Someone wanting Censorship on a thread on the general nonsense forum of a small Scottish football club!

[SergioTacchiniGuy]

Dear Jesus! Someone wanting Censorship on a thread on the general nonsense forum of a small Scottish football club!

I know it seems unlikely but I cant take any more of Stu DICKsons pish about "The dividend"

[oaksoft]

And now the backtracking!

FFS, owned by Stuart Dickson!

Whatever way you cut the figures, there isn't a way of presenting them which doesn't result in his idea causing mass retirement, closing down most of the businesses and therefore bankrupting the country overnight.

And BTW, he's been repeatedly interchanging the values £6k and £25k without always clarifying what he's talking about. It's hardly any wonder he has professional lawyers and scientists on here scratching their heads.

There isn't a single thing he's said which could remotely work.

Not a single thing.

Dickson isn't owning ANYONE right now on this issue of his.

Edited September 14, 2013 by oaksoft

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Penalised is the wrong word. They'll have been given their dividend to spend as they wish - as will their parents and the rest of their family. The taxpayers responsibility ends there.

I know it sounds harsh but it's no worse than what happens currently. Look at the Vanessa Riddle case that I publicised on here, or the case of thousands of other sick kids every year who are refused the treatment they need by the NHS because of the cost of provision. And what happens to their education when they have to take a year out, or two years out of their schooling to fight their illness?

At least when they control their own share of the budget they will be able to fund their education beyond current school leavers age.

Stuart Dickson - Conveniently forgetting the tens, possibly hundreds of thousands that sick kids have spent on them at the same time as using tragic illness to try and push his argument?

Your post highlights what a selfish c**t you really are.

[oaksoft]

Penalised is the wrong word. They'll have been given their dividend to spend as they wish - as will their parents and the rest of their family. The taxpayers responsibility ends there.

I know it sounds harsh but it's no worse than what happens currently. Look at the Vanessa Riddle case that I publicised on here, or the case of thousands of other sick kids every year who are refused the treatment they need by the NHS because of the cost of provision. And what happens to their education when they have to take a year out, or two years out of their schooling to fight their illness?

At least when they control their own share of the budget they will be able to fund their education beyond current school leavers age.

Joking apart, that is an absolutely f**king disgusting comment.

BTW this is completely different from Vanessa's situation.

To equate them is disgraceful.

You need to meet families of severely handicapped children and understand their problems before you come out with this sort of trolling shit.

Completely out of order.

[oaksoft]

Stuart Dickson - Conveniently forgetting the tens, possibly hundreds of thousands that sick kids have spent on them at the same time as using tragic illness to try and push his argument?

Your post highlights what a selfish c**t you really are.

Not only that but Vanessa's situation was totally different.

Stuart has gone beyond humour.

What he's saying shows him up as a sick f**k.

In all my years of posting on this thread I can't recall anyone ever posting something more deliberately offensive for the sole purpose of winding people up.

Edited September 15, 2013 by oaksoft

[SergioTacchiniGuy]

Penalised is the wrong word. They'll have been given their dividend to spend as they wish - as will their parents and the rest of their family. The taxpayers responsibility ends there.

I know it sounds harsh but it's no worse than what happens currently. Look at the Vanessa Riddle case that I publicised on here, or the case of thousands of other sick kids every year who are refused the treatment they need by the NHS because of the cost of provision. And what happens to their education when they have to take a year out, or two years out of their schooling to fight their illness?

At least when they control their own share of the budget they will be able to fund their education beyond current school leavers age.

You are a f**king disgrace.

[Stuart Dickson]

Not only that but Vanessa's situation was totally different.Stuart has gone beyond humour.What he's saying shows him up as a sick f**k.In all my years of posting on this thread I can't recall anyone ever posting something more deliberately offensive for the sole purpose of winding people up.

Hmm... Remember this post

Right now that cock Dickson has been dealt with, the fund is at £315,000 which is not bad for a 2 months appeal in the teeth of the worst recession since the Tories last raped and pillaged our fine country and redundancies are at an all time high.Only £185,000 to go but I am disturbed by the campaign.That girl has undergone years of pain and discomfort already.There's no word of what the survival rate is even if she gets the treatment.It also doesn't state how many more years it will give her or the chance of re-remission.All of these are vital questions to ask before people start pledging through guilt because there are millions in the same position and you can't help them all.It begs the question, Is this campaign to help the girl or the parents and at what point should the parents accept the girls fate?Not a question I hope to ever face but it sounds like she's been put through hell.IMO the last thing they need is a cnut like Dickson running around like a bloody headless chicken calling people names for asking reasonable questions of someone they don't know.If the parents ever found out about his behaviour on here they'd be devastated.I think they have enough to worry about without having to think about some twat on B&W calling everyone a disgrace.Jesus. No wonder people have being put off giving to charities.

I'm talking about a hypothetical situation where under my proposal families of four would have more than £25k per annum to choose their own private specialist health care provider. You were talking about a real little girl who had found the NHS were refusing her treatment and whos parents had started an appeal to save her life. In this post we see you actively trying to talk people out of donating. Edited September 16, 2013 by Stuart Dickson

[SergioTacchiniGuy]

Hmm... Remember this post

I'm talking about a hypothetical situation where under my proposal families of four would have more than £25k per annum to choose their own private specialist health care provider. You were talking about a real little girl who had found the NHS were refusing her treatment and whos parents had started an appeal to save her life. In this post we see you actively trying to talk people out of donating.

You can try and deflect it or dress it up as much as you like but you are well out of order.

[Stuart Dickson]

You can try and deflect it or dress it up as much as you like but you are well out of order.

What a load of trite nonsense! How can it possibly be "well out of order"? How can it possibly be any more "out of order" than the Conservatives proposal to sell off the Post Office, Labours proposal to continue to borrow like f**k in a race to bankruptcy, the SNP's wasting of taxpayers money doing the Scottish Tour of golf courses for Cabinet meetings, or the NHS policy that sees them denying treatment exclusively on the basis of cost.

You and Oaksoft are being utter fannies over this. It's actually very logical. If you were to take all the money that exists currently in the UK Healthcare budget, the education budget and the money paid out in welfare you would be able to pay out a minimum payment to every person currently residing in the UK just under £6,500. Now, of course, if you go down that route you have to accept that the healthcare and education of the individual is no longer the financial concern of the taxpayer - after all how could it be. The funds would no longer be there to manage it and the relevant departments that currently run those sectors would be long gone, with the expensive public sector jobs that go with them long gone too. It's hardly out of order to point this out - it's f**king common sense and I'm being far more open and honest than any politician by stating that is the case up front.

The fact is that the way the country is being run right now is not sustainable. We've got a massive debt, huge annual debt repayments, a massive exposure to the economy as we meet our state pension obligations, and we've got a failing NHS that demands more and more money every year only for hospitals to constantly blow their budget whilst offering dire conditions to patients in their care. What I've done is suggested a way forward that sees the National Debt gone, debt repayments gone, and no exposure to the taxpayer to the cost of healthcare or state pensions by giving the individual the opportunity to manage their own equal share in those funds. The Scottish voter is going to have to wake up to the harsh realities of the consequences of a yes vote for independence, because there isn't a hope in hell that Scotland will be able to sustain things as they currently are.

Edited September 16, 2013 by Stuart Dickson

[SergioTacchiniGuy]

What a load of trite nonsense! How can it possibly be "well out of order"? How can it possibly be any more "out of order" than the Conservatives proposal to sell off the Post Office, Labours proposal to continue to borrow like f**k in a race to bankruptcy, the SNP's wasting of taxpayers money doing the Scottish Tour of golf courses for Cabinet meetings, or the NHS policy that sees them denying treatment exclusively on the basis of cost.

You and Oaksoft are being utter fannies over this. It's actually very logical. If you were to take all the money that exists currently in the UK Healthcare budget, the education budget and the money paid out in welfare you would be able to pay out a minimum payment to every person currently residing in the UK just under £6,500. Now, of course, if you go down that route you have to accept that the healthcare and education of the individual is no longer the financial concern of the taxpayer - after all how could it be. The funds would no longer be there to manage it and the relevant departments that currently run those sectors would be long gone, with the expensive public sector jobs that go with them long gone too. It's hardly out of order to point this out - it's f**king common sense and I'm being far more open and honest than any politician by stating that is the case up front.

The fact is that the way the country is being run right now is not sustainable. We've got a massive debt, huge annual debt repayments, a massive exposure to the economy as we meet our state pension obligations, and we've got a failing NHS that demands more and more money every year only for hospitals to constantly blow their budget whilst offering dire conditions to patients in their care. What I've done is suggested a way forward that sees the National Debt gone, debt repayments gone, and no exposure to the taxpayer to the cost of healthcare or state pensions by giving the individual the opportunity to manage their own equal share in those funds. The Scottish voter is going to have to wake up to the harsh realities of the consequences of a yes vote for independence, because there isn't a hope in hell that Scotland will be able to sustain things as they currently are.

As I said in my last post you can try and deflect it or dress it up anyway you want but you are out of order. Now bolt ya rocket you disgust me.

[Stuart Dickson]

As I said in my last post you can try and deflect it or dress it up anyway you want but you are out of order. Now bolt ya rocket you disgust me.

As I explained quite eloquently I am not at all out of order and the fact that you can't come up with an argument as to why I am has shown just how silly you've been. Maybe you should "bolt" cause I'm going nowhere....

[oaksoft]

Hmm... Remember this post

I'm talking about a hypothetical situation where under my proposal families of four would have more than £25k per annum to choose their own private specialist health care provider. You were talking about a real little girl who had found the NHS were refusing her treatment and whos parents had started an appeal to save her life. In this post we see you actively trying to talk people out of donating.

And now you are using a sick girl to try and score a cheap point.

You know full well that the treatment offered to that girl was ridiculously expensive at nearly £400,000 and had no guarantee of working.

What you are talking about is denying her the right to any treatment whatsoever just because she's spent her £6000 quota.

That's quite a different situation.

You are a disgrace.

[oaksoft]

What a load of trite nonsense! How can it possibly be "well out of order"? How can it possibly be any more "out of order" than the Conservatives proposal to sell off the Post Office, Labours proposal to continue to borrow like f**k in a race to bankruptcy, the SNP's wasting of taxpayers money doing the Scottish Tour of golf courses for Cabinet meetings, or the NHS policy that sees them denying treatment exclusively on the basis of cost.

You and Oaksoft are being utter fannies over this. It's actually very logical. If you were to take all the money that exists currently in the UK Healthcare budget, the education budget and the money paid out in welfare you would be able to pay out a minimum payment to every person currently residing in the UK just under £6,500. Now, of course, if you go down that route you have to accept that the healthcare and education of the individual is no longer the financial concern of the taxpayer - after all how could it be. The funds would no longer be there to manage it and the relevant departments that currently run those sectors would be long gone, with the expensive public sector jobs that go with them long gone too. It's hardly out of order to point this out - it's f**king common sense and I'm being far more open and honest than any politician by stating that is the case up front.

You think it's common sense to allow people to rot and die because they've already spent £6500 that year and therefore don't qualify for further treatment until next year?

That is disgusting.

[FTOF]

Bump!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-24547527

[Stuart Dickson]

STUC says in that article that Scottish employment is stagnating, Labour make the valid point that the SNP need to show sustained growth and not just celebrate when the minor shifts go in the favour and put their fingers in their ears when it goes against them. And the Conservatives make the valid point that much of the good news in Scottish employment is down to the fact Scotland is in the UK. Take away UK public sector jobs from Scotland figures and the unemployment rate would be catastrophic

[oaksoft]

STUC says in that article that Scottish employment is stagnating, Labour make the valid point that the SNP need to show sustained growth and not just celebrate when the minor shifts go in the favour and put their fingers in their ears when it goes against them. And the Conservatives make the valid point that much of the good news in Scottish employment is down to the fact Scotland is in the UK.

Read my lips. All politicians are arseholes........sorry you seem a bit slow.

Your absolute obsession with one man from one party is frankly weird.

Did he pleasure your wife or something?

They are ALL arseholes.

Edited October 17, 2013 by oaksoft

[Stuart Dickson]

 

Read my lips. All politicians are arseholes........sorry you seem a bit slow.

 

Your absolute obsession with one man from one party is frankly weird.

Did he pleasure your wife or something?

They are ALL arseholes.

Who was talking to you? I was responding to the article that FTOF linked to. I have to say though Maximillion has called you right as you've proved yet again