Stuart Dickson Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 Who said that they are? As for the Nazi salute ... it's just some more of your made up shit again, isn't it? You probably weren't even at the game. And there are those who claim only the Neo Fascists are in denial Then again there's not much difference between the Neo Fascists and the Neo Nationalists is there? If you were at the game you would have heard Scottish fans somewhat bizarrely chanting "Jimmy Saville wants your arse" to the English fans. Since several of Savilles victims appear to have been Scottish, attacked in Savilles Scottish home in Glencoe I wondered exactly what kind of message they wanted to portray. Maybe you can explain it to me....or maybe you weren't at the game and you'll just continue to live in denial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 i don't get it either,seems to me that they are saying people cant look after their children - so we will, there are those in society who unfortunately dont take good care of their children but not to the extent that child care needs ramped up, that was a tory idea anyway "stop income support for single parents and get them into work,half could train as childminders and look after the kids of the rest who will get jobs" except there are not enough jobs for them, and a heck of a lot of nurseries would need to be built - which wont happen, probably "more childcare" is the flavour of the month vote winning wise Is it a Tory idea? As far as I can remember it was a Labour government that introduced the "voucher" scheme that entitled every 4 year old to a number of free pre school hours per week in a nursery. My kids are 21 and 16 now. We had no free or cheap places for my eldest son who started school in 1998, but the second child got a free pre school morning place from the age of three in 2001 - he started school aged 4. IIRC the policy came about after a number of surveys suggested that children that had attended pre school nurseries performed better at school than those who didn't. I agree with the point though that this is just another attempt to bribe the electorate by the SNP. In practice these nursery places are being funded by local authorities through their education budget, and with the council tax freeze still in place councils have had to look at limiting parental choice forcing more kids to take council run nursery places and capping the number of kids who can go to private or voluntary nurseries. The problem with council run places of course is that they close during school holidays meaning that any parent going back to work either better be a teacher, a teaching assistant, or have understanding parents or a very understanding boss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 Even by dicko standards that's a whole lotta shite for one post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 Even by dicko standards that's a whole lotta shite for one post Is it? http://www.nurseryworld.co.uk/nursery-world/news/1145876/scottish-councils-cap-funded-pvi-settings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beyond our ken Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 Can anyone explain the fixation with increased childcare provision and tell me how it will improve matters? Genuine question. Surprised that this question arises in the context of Paisley, of all places, where the social and economic benefits of mass provision of nursery places were evident in the huge number of working mothers right up to the 70s. across scotland, industrial philanthropists used to know it made sense for the community and their own bottom line by supporting nurseries and schools with endowments. Nowadays, the provision of childcare vouchers is a key workplace benefit that attracts people to good companies, but demand outstrips supply and free or cheap childcare is hard to come by. Our population needs to be grown in Scotland and the widespread preferrence is to increase the birth-rate amongst stable families in order to reduce reliance on immigration in the future. along with the shortage of good quality affordable housing to buy or proper social renting properties, one of the biggest barriers to couples having kids is the cost of childcare. One guy who works beside me was paying over £1000 per month to get his three girls watched at the peak of their requirement. That is an eye-watering sum of money for many families, but why should they be denied decent prospects just because they had a family? had my colleague been forced to reduce his hours to reduce childcare requirement then it would have been to the detriment of our business, which spent a fortune developing his talents. His missus is also very highly thought of by her employers and it is surely a relief to her boss that she was able to go back full-time fairly soon after each of her pregnancies. The country and business need both a healthy population demographic and retention of experienced and talented people in the workplace, upping the provision and affordability of childcare is a key part of building a successful, stable and improving society. people also need to get over their narrow view of childcare as nurseries and childminders. People who have physically and metally challenged children desperately need the assessment, developmental and respite centres that come under the wider banner of childcare in our education system and this provision needs to be improved. it is preposterous to suggest that this is a tactic to undermine parents and extend the reach of the nanny state, it is actually the opposite, empowering the good people who want to work and raise a family. Hoepfully, once this is sorted, the government will turn their attention to social housing for sale and rent. recent reports suggest that Thatcher's council house sell off has been one of the slowest social and economic car-crashes of all time in the UK. rents are set to rise at almost twice the rate of earnings over the next couple of decades and without new investment in affordable housing and good social renting projects, we will see the current so-called buy-to-rent "boom" drag us back to the slum-landlord days of Rachman, which is something the council housing push of the 50s and 60s all but eliminated. I have to laugh (ironically, cos it really aint funny) at some of the crap that pops up, (not getting at you BiK) on these kinds of forums. People complain about the "something for nothing" generation and the nanny state, when there is a so-called boom of landlords who are neither cashing in on hard work or earnings, but who by virtue of a half-decent credit rating sign up for an interest only mortgage and rent the property out so someone else (usually at the other taxpayers and council taxpayers expense) to pay for their "investment". good-hearted people try to improve lives by improving things like access to childcare and they are attacked for indulging in some dark form of social engineering. Wages have collapsed as a proportion of the GDP of this country ever since Thatcher's rise to be replaced with investments and benefits. our economy is built on sinking, rather than shiftng sands and some of the bullshitters on here continue to attack people who were willing to gamble on change on our own terms in Scotland. an economist on radio scotland the other day explained our so-called UK recovery was running out because consumers had all but spent the £22 billion that was claimed in PPI refunds-cameron and osborne had been gambling on another 6 months to try and see themselves back in power but are bricking it now the "recovery" is in danger of tailing off more sharply than expected. Our economy hasn't been fixed, the UK's collapse has been stayed for a few years by a windfall that bought HD tellies and a never-never approach to renting everything from houses to cars and phones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beyond our ken Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 Is it a Tory idea? As far as I can remember it was a Labour government that introduced the "voucher" scheme that entitled every 4 year old to a number of free pre school hours per week in a nursery. My kids are 21 and 16 now. We had no free or cheap places for my eldest son who started school in 1998, but the second child got a free pre school morning place from the age of three in 2001 - he started school aged 4. IIRC the policy came about after a number of surveys suggested that children that had attended pre school nurseries performed better at school than those who didn't. I agree with the point though that this is just another attempt to bribe the electorate by the SNP. In practice these nursery places are being funded by local authorities through their education budget, and with the council tax freeze still in place councils have had to look at limiting parental choice forcing more kids to take council run nursery places and capping the number of kids who can go to private or voluntary nurseries. The problem with council run places of course is that they close during school holidays meaning that any parent going back to work either better be a teacher, a teaching assistant, or have understanding parents or a very understanding boss. so the yuppie mummies are going to be upset they can't use public hand-outs to place their wee lambs in their preferred nursey? Had there been REAL cuts affecting the poorer people then I'm afraid you would have been saying "serve's the scroungers right". Seems "hardworking" families are really just upwardly-mobile scroungers with jobs who want the state to co-fund their social climbing. it's a neat twist though, take a socialist ideal and use it to better the lot of the middle and upper classes. And all done without a hint of shame or irony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintnextlifetime Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 First of all, answer the question. I never said, or even insinuated, I was at the game. What I did say, was that you were probably not at the game. You see, the trouble you have is that you make up so much shite that nobody believes a word you say. All your "stories" are regarded more as "fairy tales". This is mainly due to the fact that apparently everywhere you go in life and everyone you talk to or see just happen to be saying or doing things that back up your opinion. The wee woman in the shop in the Lothians backed up your opinion on the 5p charge on bags, the "nationalists" (even though you have no proof that they were) at the football were also racists, etc. Nobody believes that any of these things really happen and that you just make up shit to try and back up your feeble arguments. To sum up what I said above regarding your claims - I smell shite. So ,in a nutshell , he never lets the truth get in the way of a good crap story. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintnextlifetime Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 I suppose I could have put it like that but why say in one sentence what you can say in ninety-six? As far as I can see there is no viable argument for remaining in the Union , those who voted nae will tend to be fearties/naesayers/with no belief or British Unionist/imperialists who want to live in a country with a nuclear arsenal, the kind of country that still likes to kid on it can throw its weight around, that kind of thing still does it for some people. . oh aye and fascists , they want to remain in the British Empire so that they have a better chance of their party getting in again. . You can decide which one dorothy is. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintnextlifetime Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 All of the above? Well , you are meant to pick 1 but , aye awright then. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 so the yuppie mummies are going to be upset they can't use public hand-outs to place their wee lambs in their preferred nursey? Had there been REAL cuts affecting the poorer people then I'm afraid you would have been saying "serve's the scroungers right". Seems "hardworking" families are really just upwardly-mobile scroungers with jobs who want the state to co-fund their social climbing. it's a neat twist though, take a socialist ideal and use it to better the lot of the middle and upper classes. And all done without a hint of shame or irony That's one way of putting it. Another, ofcourse, is to point out that yet again the SNP have attempting to use an electoral bribe, wasting much needed council cash on a policy that yet again ignores the needs of the people it's supposed to help. Just like the policy where they ensured that millionaires could get free prescriptions, where surgeons earning in excess of £100k per annum got free parking, and now where people already paying for their childs nursery places are going to get the cost covered by every one of us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALBIONSAINT Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 That's one way of putting it. Another, ofcourse, is to point out that yet again the SNP have attempting to use an electoral bribe, wasting much needed council cash on a policy that yet again ignores the needs of the people it's supposed to help. Just like the policy where they ensured that millionaires could get free prescriptions, where surgeons earning in excess of £100k per annum got free parking, and now where people already paying for their childs nursery places are going to get the cost covered by every one of us. I for one do not want my surgeon going to the local shop to get change for his parking meter , while my appendix is bursting! And why shouldn't millionaires get free prescriptions, I am sure they have paid plenty in tax and national insurance while earning there millions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddiecat Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 (edited) Surprised that this question arises in the context of Paisley, of all places, where the social and economic benefits of mass provision of nursery places were evident in the huge number of working mothers right up to the 70s. across scotland, industrial philanthropists used to know it made sense for the community and their own bottom line by supporting nurseries and schools with endowments. Nowadays, the provision of childcare vouchers is a key workplace benefit that attracts people to good companies, but demand outstrips supply and free or cheap childcare is hard to come by. Our population needs to be grown in Scotland and the widespread preferrence is to increase the birth-rate amongst stable families in order to reduce reliance on immigration in the future. along with the shortage of good quality affordable housing to buy or proper social renting properties, one of the biggest barriers to couples having kids is the cost of childcare. One guy who works beside me was paying over £1000 per month to get his three girls watched at the peak of their requirement. That is an eye-watering sum of money for many families, but why should they be denied decent prospects just because they had a family? had my colleague been forced to reduce his hours to reduce childcare requirement then it would have been to the detriment of our business, which spent a fortune developing his talents. His missus is also very highly thought of by her employers and it is surely a relief to her boss that she was able to go back full-time fairly soon after each of her pregnancies. The country and business need both a healthy population demographic and retention of experienced and talented people in the workplace, upping the provision and affordability of childcare is a key part of building a successful, stable and improving society. people also need to get over their narrow view of childcare as nurseries and childminders. People who have physically and metally challenged children desperately need the assessment, developmental and respite centres that come under the wider banner of childcare in our education system and this provision needs to be improved. it is preposterous to suggest that this is a tactic to undermine parents and extend the reach of the nanny state, it is actually the opposite, empowering the good people who want to work and raise a family. Hoepfully, once this is sorted, the government will turn their attention to social housing for sale and rent. recent reports suggest that Thatcher's council house sell off has been one of the slowest social and economic car-crashes of all time in the UK. rents are set to rise at almost twice the rate of earnings over the next couple of decades and without new investment in affordable housing and good social renting projects, we will see the current so-called buy-to-rent "boom" drag us back to the slum-landlord days of Rachman, which is something the council housing push of the 50s and 60s all but eliminated. I have to laugh (ironically, cos it really aint funny) at some of the crap that pops up, (not getting at you BiK) on these kinds of forums. People complain about the "something for nothing" generation and the nanny state, when there is a so-called boom of landlords who are neither cashing in on hard work or earnings, but who by virtue of a half-decent credit rating sign up for an interest only mortgage and rent the property out so someone else (usually at the other taxpayers and council taxpayers expense) to pay for their "investment". good-hearted people try to improve lives by improving things like access to childcare and they are attacked for indulging in some dark form of social engineering. Wages have collapsed as a proportion of the GDP of this country ever since Thatcher's rise to be replaced with investments and benefits. our economy is built on sinking, rather than shiftng sands and some of the bullshitters on here continue to attack people who were willing to gamble on change on our own terms in Scotland. an economist on radio scotland the other day explained our so-called UK recovery was running out because consumers had all but spent the £22 billion that was claimed in PPI refunds-cameron and osborne had been gambling on another 6 months to try and see themselves back in power but are bricking it now the "recovery" is in danger of tailing off more sharply than expected. Our economy hasn't been fixed, the UK's collapse has been stayed for a few years by a windfall that bought HD tellies and a never-never approach to renting everything from houses to cars and phones. i agree with your point about landlords who just acquire properties to rent out and dont do any hard work on them once let ,there are landlords that do keep houses up to scratch and provide good accomodation though, like myself who in the past year has fitted new windows,doors,2 kitchens, a bathroom,facia boards,fencing, guttering,storage heaters and new flooring, doing this along with a quick response approach to general maintenance means that at the ripe old age of 58 i do work hard on my investment in property and i also have a full time day job. not sure why having any interest only mortgages makes a difference, i have one of them and a repayment one as well, it will depend on the future interest rates to determine which is best. As for getting profit from taxpayers money, yes some tenants get housing benefit to help with rent, that comes from the government purse and is also paid to local authorities and local housing associations to enable them to rent out property,but they dont always make profit from it. it's just like energy companies who get grants to develop renewable energy, it's also a good business plan to make profit and provide a good product, i pay the appropriate amount of income tax because i make a profit,so the taxpayer gets money back from me but does not get any back from local councils. I rest easy in the knowledge that i am not one of the so called boom landlords. ETA only one property i own had a council house type background, ( although it was originally owned by a housing association ) the others were always privately owned, i have never bought any property from a local council they were all privately owned when i bought them and all in need of repair at the time,therefore i have contributed albeit in a small way to improving housing stock in this country. Edited November 20, 2014 by buddiecat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddiecat Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 No gas leaks yet then? I'll get my coat. dont be silly - your coat would never be any use to fix a gas leak, one has to use "gas - safe" engineers coats Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddiecat Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 Why would you keep gas in a safe? I suppose that it possibly is, by weight, more expensive than gold, so you may have good reason after all. no no, plumbers who work with gas have to be registered as "gas - safe" they previously had to to be "corgi" registered but that was no use as none of them ever won at crufts and the queen wasn't interested in plumbers as pets (as far as we know of course) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted November 21, 2014 Report Share Posted November 21, 2014 I for one do not want my surgeon going to the local shop to get change for his parking meter , while my appendix is bursting! And why shouldn't millionaires get free prescriptions, I am sure they have paid plenty in tax and national insurance while earning there millions. I wonder how you would feel if, because the hospital trust has to now maintain the roads around the hospital and the parking facility through money taken from the patient care budget, there was no surgeon available to take out your appendix? Or there was no available beds in your local hospital and you'd have to wait an extra 30 minutes while the ambulance chases across town to get you in A&E and the next nearest hospital - as happened to me three years ago. Nothing is "free" when it's paid for by the taxpayer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted November 21, 2014 Report Share Posted November 21, 2014 Nothing is "free" when it's paid for by the taxpayer. Why are you telling us that? We've all known that for years. It's you who is wandering around various forums bleating about freebies and the "something for nothing" culture. Can we expect you to enlighten us tomorrow on how basic arithmetic or spelling works? Jeeeeeeez. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddiecat Posted November 21, 2014 Report Share Posted November 21, 2014 Actually, I heard a rumour that she kept Mario and Luigi locked up in a special room in Buck Hoose and that she went in and "stroked" them now and again. As I said, it's just a rumour I heard - might have been on a Fleetwood Mac album. that's terrible,so now we know how people get strokes - it the queen what does it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FTOF Posted November 21, 2014 Report Share Posted November 21, 2014 (edited) Can we expect you to enlighten us tomorrow on how basic arithmetic or spelling works? Good one Oaky. Learning to walk upright would be too taxing for him. Edited November 21, 2014 by FTOF Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopCat Posted November 21, 2014 Report Share Posted November 21, 2014 Using physical disability to score points on the internet. Classy stuff, sadly typical of yes voters Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FTOF Posted November 21, 2014 Report Share Posted November 21, 2014 Using physical disability to score points on the internet. Classy stuff, sadly typical of yes voters By Christ. You're so thick you don't even recognise a reference to the evolution of man. First grammar and now science. Is there anything that you're well educated in? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopCat Posted November 21, 2014 Report Share Posted November 21, 2014 I have a friend who can't learn to walk up right because of physical disability. Would you use that to insult him? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a50lennyc Posted November 22, 2014 Report Share Posted November 22, 2014 But, but, but ... you said they get free parking. Are you now saying that these highly paid medical experts are paying for their "free" parking through their tax contribution and so don't get it for free at all? Surely its funded by the sale of premium bonds? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FTOF Posted November 22, 2014 Report Share Posted November 22, 2014 Decide for yourselves which one is our resident snivelling little shitebag. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddiecat Posted November 22, 2014 Report Share Posted November 22, 2014 Decide for yourselves which one is our resident snivelling little shitebag. none of them it's lenny, sits in w3 seat k 76 or 77 i think Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted November 22, 2014 Report Share Posted November 22, 2014 I have a friend who can't learn to walk up right because of physical disability. Would you use that to insult him? He was clearly talking about the evolution of man to compare levels of intelligence. I'm looking at the picture he then posted and I can't see why you'\d possible think of disabled people when you look at it. Away and have a lie down and stop pretending to look for things to be faux offended at. 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.