Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Cameron: "Cuts will change our way of life"


Section_31
 Share

Recommended Posts

I think its more the old "you understand depression in much the same way that my dog understands quantum physics" argument.

Genuinely scary he thinks this way when there's 40+ years of scientific research to show depression is a genetic disorder that's very, very difficult to cure.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Genuinely scary he thinks this way when there's 40+ years of scientific research to show depression is a genetic disorder that's very, very difficult to cure.

Is withdrawing from society considered a good way to combat depression, then? Is there any evidence that being productive and engaging with the world makes depression worse?

 

Certainly not on both counts to my knowledge.

  • Downvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is withdrawing from society considered a good way to combat depression, then? Is there any evidence that being productive and engaging with the world makes depression worse?

 

Certainly not on both counts to my knowledge.

You're stupid. And a troll.

You don't think depression might hinder productivity causing additional stress in the workplace leading to further depression? Somehow I don't think you'd be an understanding employer, and there's certainly less of them about these days.

 

What are your views on tax avoidance by these large companies raking it in from "hard working" people?

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember when I was a kid people would say "we're turning into America", in the future we'd all eat Macdonalds and get fat, we'd all have amazing technology, and sportswear, etc etc. It seems that view was correct but the worst thing is our politics going all American , and it's shameful. Since when did socialism become communism? Knobheads talking about gathering round fires and everyone eating gruel? Wtf? I'm sure shit like that is said partly in jest but I just don't get the extreme distaste from many people towards socialism, even if it's not your personal ideal how can you not bring yourself to see the merit in it? Are you that much of a fucking horrible cunt?

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember when I was a kid people would say "we're turning into America", in the future we'd all eat Macdonalds and get fat, we'd all have amazing technology, and sportswear, etc etc. It seems that view was correct but the worst thing is our politics going all American , and it's shameful. Since when did socialism become communism? Knobheads talking about gathering round fires and everyone eating gruel? Wtf? I'm sure shit like that is said partly in jest but I just don't get the extreme distaste from many people towards socialism, even if it's not your personal ideal how can you not bring yourself to see the merit in it? Are you that much of a fucking horrible cunt?

Perhaps it's a comment on how fucking idiots think that every one who's to the right of them is a baby eating fascist. Think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Moosetroll has now passed his amusement sell-by date, I think it's time to bring his trolling to an end.

 

They say a man can be judged by the company he keeps. As some of you know, Moosetroll is from the FoxesTalk forum, where, as can be seen from his profile, his only friend is another right-wing quim-slurper, MattP.

 

http://www.foxestalk.co.uk/forums/user/16511-moosebreath/

 

 

Now the thing about football forums is that there are certain subjects you know will crop up, and one in particular that is, shall we say, dear to most Liverpool fans hearts. Namely the emotive subject of Hillsborough. And FoxesTalk is no exception. The contributions of Moosey's friend, MattP, are rather something to behold....

 

http://www.foxestalk.co.uk/forums/topic/83610-hillsborough-search-for-the-truth/

 

 

...but of greater interest is this gem from Moosey himself.

 

 

user_green.png   MooseBreath

First Team

  • photo-thumb-16511.jpg?_r=1378328488
  • bullet_black.pngbullet_black.pngbullet_black.pngbullet_black.pngbullet_black.pngbullet_black.pngbullet_black.pngbullet_black.png
  • 6,268 posts
  • Joined:20-April 12

Posted 12 September 2012 - 10:33 AM

Didn't realise that was aong standing technique of Liverpool fans. What a bunch of *****. Even to do that in the knowledge that other paying fans would miss out makes them total scum. To do it knowing its going to cause danger is inhumane

 

 

 

 

 

 

So, according to Moosey we are all a bunch of *****.  We are total scum who endanger lives. Which begs the question, why is he bothering to sign up to our forum?

 

I think you're a busted flush, Moosey. Time to toddle off now.

I would love to meet MattP face to face. The horrible lying manc cunt.

 

Blood boiling reading that shite on there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moo, on 03 Oct 2014 - 08:12 AM, said:

What are your views on tax avoidance by these large companies raking it in from "hard working" people?

 

Might be interesting to see this as there seem to be a fair few statistics flying around about this but with all pretty much one direction of travel:

 

 

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2013/09/13/benefit-errors-cost-1-million-a-day-tax-avoidance-and-evasion-cost-260-million-a-day/

Benefit errors cost £1 million a day. Tax avoidance and evasion cost £260 million a day

Posted on September 13 2013, Richard Murphy

The Daily telegraph is very vexed today that there are £1 million of benefit payment errors a day in the UK.

To put this in context, that’s 0.16% of all benefit payments.

Now let’s note that tax avoidance and tax evasion in my estimate (£25 billion of avoidance and £70 billion of evasion a year, figures embraced by the EU) cost the UK just over £260 million a day.

So that’s more than 260 times as much in absolute terms.

And in total over 14% of all anticipated UK tax revenues (including those lost), at least.

 

 

http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/6348/economics/cost-of-benefit-fraud-v-tax-evasion-in-uk/

Cost of Benefit Fraud v Tax Evasion in UK

By Tejvan Pettinger on November 28, 2012 in economics

Benefit fraud and tax avoidance are currently emotive topics. What is the extent of benefit fraud and tax fraud in the UK?

Benefit Fraud

  • For 2011/12 (preliminary), it is estimated that  2.0 per cent of total benefit expenditure  was overpaid due to fraud and error.
  • In 2010/11 – benefit fraud was estimated at £3.4bn – 2.2% of total benefit expenditure (£154bn)
  •  (Dept for Work and Pensions)
  • It is also estimated that 0.9%, or £1.3bn, of total benefit expenditure was underpaid due to error.

More specifically

  • 4.4%, or £350m, of Income Support expenditure has been overpaid;
  • 6.5%, or £290m, of Jobseeker’s Allowance expenditure has been overpaid;
  • 6.0%, or £500m, of Pension Credit expenditure has been overpaid;
  • 2.4%, or £130m, of Incapacity Benefit expenditure has been overpaid;
  • 4.7%, or £1030m, of Housing Benefit expenditure has been overpaid.
  • (Dept for Work and Pensions)

Public Perception of Benefits

The public have an increasingly negative opinion to benefit claimants. A study suggested that 1 in 5 people believe a majority of claims are false, while 14% believe a majority of claims are fraudulent.  Benefits stigma

 

Benefits Unclaimed

“In 2010 an estimated £16 billion in benefits and tax credits were unclaimed. (charities claim £16bn a year unclaimed at Telegraph)

For example, the Dept for work and pension estimate:

Pension Credit: The number of pensioners that were estimated to be entitled but not claiming Pension Credit was between 1.21 million and 1.58 million. The total amount of Pension Credit unclaimed was between £1.94 billion and £2.80 billion.  (DWP)

Job Seekers Allowance In 2009-10 there were 910 thousand recipients claiming £3.01 billion of Jobseeker’s Allowance (Income-Based). The number of people that were entitled to but not claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance (Income-Based) was between 440 thousand and 610 thousand. The total amount of Jobseeker’s Allowance (Income-Based) unclaimed was between £1.28 billion and £1.95 billion. (DWP) | see also increasing gap between Claimant count and ILO measure of unemployment

Underclaiming of benefits people are entitled to is a bigger issue than benefit fraud.

 

Disincentives of Benefits

More difficult to evaluate is the extent to which benefits create disincentives to work or gain better employment. This is not benefit fraud. But, many argue the structure of the benefit system creates strong financial disincentives to get a better paid job or to work at all.

I searched for some research on the impact of benefits on incentives to work, but struggled to find anything conclusive. If you know any good links on the extent to which UK benefits are creating disincentives (for or against) I’d be interested.

The government claim that their welfare reforms will help overcome these disincentives and make the welfare system simpler. Others argue, that it will leave vulnerable with lower income. Welfare reform at DWP

 

Total Cost of Welfare in UK

gov-spending-2012.png

In 2011/12

Tax Avoidance and Tax Fraud

By comparison to benefit fraud, lost revenues from tax avoidance and tax evasion seems much greater. Using some measures of tax evasion and tax avoidance.

  •  
    • £70 billion of tax evasion,
    • £25 billion tax avoidance
    • £25 billion of unpaid tax

Tax research pdf | Tax Gap

Others claim lost tax receipts are up to £150bn a year  PCS.org.uk

 

 

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/01/welfare-fraud-tax-avoidance

Welfare fraud is a drop in the ocean compared to tax avoidance

As Joanne Gibbons' case shows, benefit underpayments save us more than 'cheats' cost us. We need to target the real villains

 

Joanne Gibbons was sentenced to community service for claiming income support while holding down two paid jobs. Through accumulated payments of £66-a-week, the court heard, she collected £3,140 to which she wasn't entitled.

 

Predictably, the Daily Mail is outraged. But here's the strange twist: had Gibbons claimed the benefits to which she was actually entitled, she could have collected £130 a week through family tax credits and child benefit. In total, Gibbons' fraudulent claims cost the taxpayer around £3,100 less than claiming what she was actually entitled to. It's the reaction to Gibbons' claims which are particularly noteworthy. Matthew Sinclair, chief executive of the Taxpayers' Alliance – an organisation rarely troubled by wealthy people's tax avoidance – tells the Mail:

 

"It beggars belief that somebody going to the lengths of making fraudulent claims would have actually received more in benefits had they been honest.

 

"It just goes to show that the current system is broken and doesn't provide the right incentives for claimants to go back to work."

 

This quote suggests Sinclair is perhaps even less numerate than the "benefits cheat" he's deriding. Gibbons was entitled to £130 a week in legitimate benefits, while working on two low-income jobs. This total was higher than the £66 a week out-of-work benefit she was improperly claiming (though some of the £130 a week could be claimed in or out of work).In what sense is a system which tops up low wages a disincentive to work? Sinclair appears lost in lazy rhetoric – an all-too-common failing when it comes to chastising the millions of families, most of whom with at least one adult in work, who rely on the benefit system.

 

The British public believe benefit fraud is a big problem. A recent poll by the TUC showed people believe 27% of the welfare budget is fraudulently claimed. The reality is very different. Last year, 0.7% of total benefit expenditure was overpaid due to fraud, according to the DWP's official estimates. This totalled £1.2bn over the year. Nor is fraud getting worse – even against a background of benefit cuts and long-term unemployment fraud made up a smaller share of the welfare bill last year than it did in 2010/11 or 2009/10.

 

Indeed, welfare fraud is smaller than accidental overpayments due to error, which totalled £2.2bn (£1.4bn of which due to official error). It's also smaller than the amount of money underpaid to those entitled to it: £1.3bn.

 

In other words, if we wiped out benefit fraud tomorrow – but also eliminated the errors that deprive people of money to which they are entitled – the welfare bill would grow, not shrink.

 

In the context of the UK's £700bn public spending, and £150bn+ welfare bill (of which pensions and in-work benefits make up the substantial majority), benefit fraud is a relatively small revenue loss. But how does it compare to another textbook villain: tax avoidance?

 

Put simply, it is comparatively tiny. HMRC consistently estimates the UK's tax gap – the gap between what HMRC thinks it should receive versus what it actually gets – at more than £30bn per year. Others estimate this is far, far higher.

Of this, even conservative estimates suggest around a sixth – £5bn a year – is lost through tax avoidance, tricks to reduce tax bills which fall within the letter (if not spirit) of the law, but often fall outside what's regarded as acceptable by the public. A further sixth, at least, is estimated to be due to wholesale tax evasion: simply illegally not paying the tax that's owed.

 

These conservative estimates alone outweigh benefit fraud by a factor of eight, but this time not done in tens (or at most hundreds) of pounds per week by people struggling to get by; but rather by people who could afford to pay more, but prefer not to.

 

Benefit underpayments save us more money than benefit fraud costs us. By the most conservative estimates, tax avoidance and tax evasion outweighs benefit fraud eightfold. But the constant target of argument – "scroungers", "benefit cheats", and more, isn't the well-heeled middle classes who knock a little off their tax return, or the high-rollers with elaborate offshore schemes.

Instead, it's those at the bottom of society – for the government, perhaps, it makes it easier to sell the public swingeing cuts to the safety net that millions of families, both in and out of work, rely on to get by. For the Mail, it's easier to sell papers by buying into the easy preconceptions of their readers than bothering to challenge them.

 

Unfortunately, all too often, that's a view the Labour party – and others on the left – seem all too happy to go along with. If we must have national villains, surely we can do better than these?

 

 

 

http://www.cas.org.uk/features/myth-busting-real-figures-benefit-fraud

Myth busting: the real figures of benefit fraud

fraud%20chart_1.png

CAS is against fraud. It’s wrong. It impacts on our overall economy. Unfortunately it occurs in all economies and in all parts of the economy. Benefit fraud is a problem, however it seems to get more attention than other fraud, so we thought we’d set out the position within the UK’s finances.

 

The UK government estimates that total fraud across the whole of the economy amounts to £73 billion a year. UK government figures for 2012 estimate benefits overpaid due to fraud is £1.2 billion and tax credit fraud is £380 million. So just under £1.6 billion in total; less than 1% of the overall benefits and tax credits expenditure and less than benefits underpaid and overpaid due to error.

 

It's a lot of money, and it’s never right, but unfortunately fraud happens in many walks of life. Sometimes it helps to compare the figures with other fraud or error. More than this amount was overpaid in benefits due to claimant and official error. That was £2.2 billion in 2011/12 and is recovered by the UK Government. Equally claimant and official error led to £1.3 billion benefits being underpaid.

 

So to get some perspective, benefit fraud represents 2% of the estimated total annual fraud in the UK. Public sector fraud, which includes benefit fraud, is £20.3 billion a year, so within this category it accounts for just under 8%. The majority of this £20 billion is tax fraud which costs the economy £14 billion annually, or 69%. So we can see that both in absolute and percentage terms tax fraud is a much bigger issue than benefit fraud. In fact, out of all the categories of fraud calculated by the UK Government, benefit fraud is the second lowest. Only identity fraud which costs individuals £1.4billion a year comes below it.

Date: 30 Sep 2013

Spotlight: The economy, Welfare benefits

Useful sites: 

UK government fraud annual fraud indicator (March 2012)

DWP: Fraud and Error in the Benefit System

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also regarding the Conservatives bizzare want to axe the Human Rights Act (something that I feel is an import for the American far rights need to justify guantanamo etc.) the list at the end of Lord Binghams speach here makes at total mockery of that. www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/sites/de...ham-speech-final.pdf

 

First, the Convention – despite its name – is not some suspect foreign import, to be rejected as in some way alien or un-British. It was drafted in the years after World

War II as a response to the horrors we had witnessed, not least in Europe. Leading

British politicians, out of office at the time, made a huge contribution to the drafting of the instrument, which was thought to reflect values which we in this country took for granted and which had, we thought, been vindicated by our military triumph. We wanted these values to be more widely respected. So the UK was the first state to ratify.

 

The second point is fundamental. On acceding to the Convention the UK undertook to secure to everyone within its jurisdiction – effectively, within its borders – the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention. That was, and is, a solemn obligation binding on this country in international law. It was an obligation binding on this country before the Human Rights Act was passed. It is an obligation which would continue to bind this country even if the Human Rights Act were repealed. It is an obligation which would cease to bind the UK only if, inconceivably, it were to renounce the Convention, and that is a course which, so far as I know, no political party and no responsible commentator has advocated. It is misleading to suggest that by repealing the Act Jack would at a bound be free.

 

Thus the 1998 Act did not – this is the third point – give us the rights and freedoms to which we had not been entitled to before. What the Act set out to do, and did, was enable us to enforce those rights and freedoms here in Britain, in our own courts, before our own judges, magistrates and juries. The Government’s White Paper heralding this Human Rights Bill was entitled ‘Bringing Rights Home’, and this was an apt description of the Bill’s objective. Before the Act, British courts were obliged to close their eyes to the Convention for a very technical but practically important reason: that although the Convention was binding on the UK in international law, it formed no part of our domestic law. So if you or I complained in our local court that a public authority had breached one or other of our Convention rights, the judge would very probably decline to investigate the complaint and would in any event be unable to help, even if he or she thought we were probably right. The Convention was not part of the law to which the judge was paid to administer. So you or I, having litigated unsuccessfully (and perhaps expensively) here, would have to pack our bags and our papers and take our case to the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg – incurring further cost, much delay, and imposing on that court a burden of work which it is nowadays scarcely able to handle. What the 1998 Act did, I repeat, was enable us to vindicate our Convention rights in our own courts here in Britain in the first instance: if we succeed, much time and expense is saved; if we fail, we can still pursue our claim in Strasbourg.

 

My fourth point follows from the third. The Act does not, as is sometimes suggested, effect a massive transfer of power from politicians and administrators to judges. No decision is now made by a judge under the Act which could not have been made by a judge before. The difference is in the judge making the first decision. Before, it was the judges sitting in Strasbourg who, however, expert in the Convention, would mostly be unfamiliar with the peculiarities of British life; now it is British judges, with insight into the way things are done here, paying close attention of course to what the

Strasbourg judges say the Convention means.

 

Point five. It is sometimes said that the Act is undemocratic. This is hard to understand. In 1951, the government of the day ratified the Convention. In 1966 another government permitted those who thought their Convention rights had been violated here to complain to Strasbourg. In 1998 Parliament, in the Human Rights Act, required public bodies and officials to observe everyone’s Convention Rights and required – not invited, not permitted – required the courts to ensure that those rights were protected. It is hard to imagine a more explicit democratic mandate. But then, it is said, the Act enables the courts to infringe the sovereignty of Parliament and usurp supreme legislative authority. This is a travesty of the truth. As very clearly explained in the White Paper I have already mentioned, the Act is deliberately and skilfully drafted to ensure that the sovereignty of Parliament is preserved and supreme legislative authority is reserved to it. Thus, the courts here cannot, like the courts of most other countries, annul, supersede or strike down any Act of Parliament as inconsistent with the Convention. The most they can do is declare an Act to be incompatible with the Convention. Such a declaration has no practical effect whatsoever. But it presents ministers with an option: to seek Parliament’s consent to rectification of the incompatibility; or to make no change, and seek to persuade the

Strasbourg court, when complaint is made, that the provision is not incompatible.

Should the government fail at Strasbourg, it is bound by treaty to rectify the incompatibility, but an Act of Parliament can be repealed or altered by Parliament and no one else.

 

The Act is sometimes criticised – this is point six – as elevating the rights of the individual above the rights of the community. There are, it is true, some rights which the Convention treats as absolute: the right not to be enslaved, the right not to be punished retrospectively for something which was not criminal when you did it. These articles admit of no exceptions – rightly, as I shall suggest. But generally, as emphasised time and again by the court in Strasbourg and by our own courts here, the Convention seeks to balance the rights of the individual and the rights of the community. Legitimate communal interests are, and have to be, taken into account in deciding where the rights of the individual begin and end. It is perhaps significant that those who wish to disparage the Convention misrepresent its effect.

 

Closely allied with this criticism – point seven – is the complaint that the Charter is all about rights and mentions duties and responsibilities only in passing. True, these critics say, we have rights which should be protected. But what about our duties and responsibilities? If society is to recognise our rights, surely there should be recognition of our duties and responsibilities to the society of which we are members.

There are two answers to this. The first is that this is an instrument to protect human rights, some of which were inadequately protected before. To some extent the

Human Rights Act duplicated existing law, but in important respects it gave additional protection. Hence the UK’s unhappy record of failure in Strasbourg before the Act came into effect in October 2000. The Act and the Convention filled a gap. The second answer is that our duties and responsibilities as members of society were already fully prescribed. We have to pay our taxes. We have to obey the Highway Code. We must apply for planning permission before we extend our houses. We must send our children to school. We must obtain a passport to go abroad. We must recycle our rubbish in the right bags. We must obey the criminal law. And so on. And so on. In a gallant but, in my view, unpersuasive attempt to give substance to this point, the Government says in its recent Green paper:

 

‘Although not necessarily suitable for expression as a series of new legally enforceable duties, it may be desirable to express succinctly, in one place, the key responsibilities we all owe as members of UK society, ensuring a clearer understanding of them in a new, accessible constitutional document and reinforcing the imperative to observe them. Such responsibilities could include treating National Health Service and other public sector staff with respect; safeguarding and promoting the well-being of children in our care; living within our environmental limits; participating in civic society through voting and jury service; assisting the police in reporting crimes and cooperating with the prosecution agencies; as well as general duties such as paying taxes and obeying the law’.

 

Now I am myself in favour of treating everyone with respect – even politicians. Of course we should safeguard the well-being of children, respect the environment and do our duty as citizens. But a statute, or a constitutional document, should lay down clear, enforceable rules. It is not a place for making gestures, however well intentioned. I am not for my part clear what new duties or responsibilities are thought to require legal enforcement.

 

My eighth point is refreshingly brief. The Convention provides a minimum standard of protection, a floor not a ceiling. Any member state which wants to give better protection than the Convention affords is free to do so. The Convention imposes no restriction on states which want to do more.

 

Point nine. It is sometimes said that the Convention has given rise to much foolish decision-making. Now I do not myself agree with all the decisions made at

Strasbourg, nor (for that matter) with all the decisions made here in Britain, but few judicial decisions anywhere, ever, command universal acceptance. I do not think the standard of decision-making on the Convention is generally defective. Indeed, I suggest that on whole it is rather high. To those who disagree, I would say: bring out your examples.

 

In the manner of a bad advocate, I save my strongest point for my tenth and last. The

rights protected by the Convention and the Act deserve to be protected because they are, as I would suggest, the basic and fundamental rights which everyone in this country ought to enjoy simply by virtue of their existence as a human being. Let me briefly remind you of the protected rights, some of which I have already mentioned.

 

  • The right to life.
  • The right not to be tortured or subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
  • The right not to be enslaved.
  • The right to liberty and security of the person.
  • The right to a fair trial.
  • The right not to be retrospectively penalised.
  • The right to respect for private and family life.
  • Freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
  • Freedom of expression.
  • Freedom of assembly and association.
  • The right to marry.
  • The right not to be discriminated against in the enjoyment of those rights.
  • The right not to have our property taken away except in the public interest and with compensation.
  • The right of fair access to the country’s educational system.
  • The right to free elections.

 

Which of these rights, I ask, would we wish to discard? Are any of them trivial, superfluous, unnecessary? Are any them un-British? There may be those who would like to live in a country where these rights are not protected, but I am not of their number. Human rights are not, however, protected for the likes of people like me – or most of you. They are protected for the benefit above all of society’s outcasts, those who need legal protection because they have no other voice – the prisoners, the mentally ill, the gipsies, the homosexuals, the immigrants, the asylum-seekers, those who are at any time the subject of public obloquy.

 

Lord Bingham

6 June 2009

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Genuinely scary he thinks this way when there's 40+ years of scientific research to show depression is a genetic disorder that's very, very difficult to cure.

I'm afraid you're wrong. All mental issues can be cured. It's been proven and here's the proof...

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/profile-ernest-saunders-out-of-jail-and-back-in-business-1347932.html

 

although your condition will only show dramtic signs of improvement if you are a stinking rich mate of Margret Thatcher.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

  • The right to life.
  • The right not to be tortured or subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
  • The right not to be enslaved.
  • The right to liberty and security of the person.
  • The right to a fair trial.
  • The right not to be retrospectively penalised.
  • The right to respect for private and family life.
  • Freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
  • Freedom of expression.
  • Freedom of assembly and association.
  • The right to marry.
  • The right not to be discriminated against in the enjoyment of those rights.
  • The right not to have our property taken away except in the public interest and with compensation.
  • The right of fair access to the country’s educational system.
  • The right to free elections.

 

Roits should be taking place over this.

 

And a lot of other things of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm afraid you're wrong. All mental issues can be cured. It's been proven and here's the proof...

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/profile-ernest-saunders-out-of-jail-and-back-in-business-1347932.html

 

although your condition will only show dramtic signs of improvement if you are a stinking rich mate of Margret Thatcher.

 

Forgot about that. I remember my arl fella flipping over it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Riots? Over what? Am I missing something obvious again?

 

Probably sidetracked with planning your winter cleansing of the OAP's. I'll let you off.

 

The right of fair access to the country’s educational system.

 

Not everyone has a fair access to the country's education system after they leave school. Which is the point I should have expanded on.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember when I was a kid people would say "we're turning into America", in the future we'd all eat Macdonalds and get fat, we'd all have amazing technology, and sportswear, etc etc. It seems that view was correct but the worst thing is our politics going all American , and it's shameful. Since when did socialism become communism? Knobheads talking about gathering round fires and everyone eating gruel? Wtf? I'm sure shit like that is said partly in jest but I just don't get the extreme distaste from many people towards socialism, even if it's not your personal ideal how can you not bring yourself to see the merit in it? Are you that much of a fucking horrible cunt?

 

I find  it quite amusing that you make a baseless claim about socialism's critics ignoring any merit it may have, when the overwhelming ignorance is that of socialism's defenders denying its failures.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How so?

 

 

You really are playing troll card on this aren't you? 

 

Tell you what, you explain how everyone does have fair access to further education, then explain how you attained your degree for example? How much debt did you owe, who funded your A-levels (or equivalent)/ Theoretically, how, today you would manage to attain the same qualification should you be from a economically deprived background?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find  it quite amusing that you make a baseless claim about socialism's critics ignoring any merit it may have, when the overwhelming ignorance is that of socialism's defenders denying its failures.

 

And neo-liberalists refuse to see the damage that they are causing and the ever widening gap in classes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...